Good Cuck Project/Andy Grant: “I Sympathize With MGTOW. LOL/JK You’re A Bunch of Pseudo-Incel Potential Murderers.”

The Good Men Project (hereafter to be known as the Good Cuck Project) has had MGTOW in its crosshairs as a collection of wrongthinkers to be eventually purged for the approval of their feminist overladies. Alek Minassian’s less-than-safe driving in Toronto and prior Facebook vomiting has given them fresh gristle to chew over and attempt to smear people as ‘masculine terrorists.’

One of these drones desperate to protect the queen is Andy Grant, host of Real Men Feel on Youtube. After a ‘discussion’ (such as it was) with a Youtuber named MGTOW Universe about the topic (mistake) and several people becoming metabolically-challenged as a result of Mr. Minassian’s Wild Ride. Andy had this to say about MGTOW as a whole.

Talking with men who hide their faces and names made me feel like I was talking to terrorists.

Yeah, because feminists always behave so rationally and engage exclusively with your thoughts and beliefs. They don’t try to cost you your livelihood and exiled from civil society (James Damore, Jason Miller, Gregory Allen Elliot, Phil ‘Thunderf00t’ Mason, Jon Malin, Kevin Williamson, Jared Sakren, etc.)

Anonymity and Pseudonymity may be used for good (like many writers who have published things that ran contrary to the paradigm preferred by their social and political ‘betters’) or evil (the Black Bloc of Antifa, the White Knights of the KKK)

Prove our anonymity/pseudonymity is being used for evil. Use small words, if you would.

The few men who took the time to email me or engage in a conversation, I gained respect and understanding for.

Uh-huh. But?

Men who avoid women because of the perceived dangers of divorce, abuse allegations, losing their time, money, etc. to her are living in fear.

I occasionally go into the woods. I go to places where wolves and bears are present. I take steps to avoid said wolves and bears where I can, and bring measures to protect myself from them if avoidance or escape become impossible.

There is a difference between rational fear (being mauled by an animal, being falsely accused by a woman) and an irrational fear (agoraphobia).

The MGTOW men that I’ve spoken with recognize that their philosophy doesn’t serve society and that if all men took part, the human race would go extinct.

So? Après moi, le déluge.

When I saw a new story last week about the man who killed ten women in Toronto with a van, I wondered if that guy was going to be tied to MGTOW. He did identify himself as a member of Incel which doesn’t seem to be all that different from MGTOW when it comes to philosophy but does support more aggressive actions.

Which only demonstrates that you didn’t pay one iota of attention to any MGTOW who wasted their time speaking or writing to you.

The game is to be sold, not told, gentlemen.

It is a waste of time to try and reason with the bluepilled. Some kids need to burn their hands on the stove in order to learn not to touch it. Do not discuss MGTOW with people who aren’t with it.

In front of the bluepilled, MGTOW just means “Mass Gross Take-Off Weight” and nothing else.

If you want to know more see What Is an Incel? from the NY Times. The story referred to Southern Poverty Law Center – a name I often see in stories about hate groups. I decided to visit their site and search for MGTOW which resulted in this:

Fuck the SPLC. That is all.

If the MGTOW philosophy is only spread via angry, anonymous internet trolls, then I fear it is destined for hate group status.

Really? Based upon what? Your imagination?

Source

Advertisements

Feminist Rails Against Legalized Prostitution Based on Fundamental Misunderstanding of Economics, Criminology, and the Sexual Marketplace

Kat Banyard, a British Feminist and founder of UK Feminista, attempts to explain why prostitution is exploitative…and fails.

Right now, a global push is under way for governments to not only tolerate but actively enable the sex trade. The call is clear: decriminalise brothel keepers, pimps and other “third parties”, allowing them to profiteer freely – and certainly don’t dampen demand for the trade. This is no mundane policy prescription. The stakes are immense.

Feminists know everything under heaven except how voluntary transactions work and why they are preferable to involuntary transactions.

For all the ways it is marketed, the sex trade boils down to a very simple product concept: a person (usually a man) can pay to sexually access the body of someone (usually a woman), who does not freely want to have sex with him. He knows that’s the case – otherwise he wouldn’t have to pay her to be there. The money isn’t coincidence, it’s coercion. And we have a term for that: sexual abuse. Getting governments to facilitate a commercial market in sexual exploitation therefore requires masking it with myths such as: that demand is inevitable; that paying for sex is a consumer transaction, not abuse; that pornography is mere “fantasy” and that decriminalising the entire trade, pimping and brothel keeping included, helps keep women safe.

This is some top-shelf nonsense. By her standard of “coercion” every person who works a job for money is “exploited.” How many men throw garbage into trucks because they freely choose to dig into other people’s waste? How many people mop floors because it edifies their soul? How many men’s life long dream is it to be a truck driver, or a gravedigger, or any of a hundred more dangerous and lower paid jobs than being a whore?

In Pimp State, I set out to track down the reality behind these myths.

It took me to a multi-storey brothel in Stuttgart, where I accompanied Sabine Constabel, a local support worker, as she went room to room to let women know there was a doctor available for them to see that night. Thirteen years earlier, the German government had bowed to calls for pimping and brothel keeping to be decriminalised, so this one operated openly and legally, with fewer regulations placed on it than the restaurants we passed to get there. Constabel didn’t hesitate when I asked her who drove efforts for prostitution to be recognised as work. “It was people running the brothels … they wanted these laws that made it possible to earn as much money as possible.” Those laws have certainly delivered for some. Germany is now home to a chain of so-called “mega-brothels” and a sex trade estimated to be worth €16bn (£14.5bn) annually.

That sounds pretty civilized to me. People petitioned the government, the government approved of their petitioning, and they got what they wanted. No guns needed to be fired, no blood was shed, no one was beaten, or killed, or anything of the other events arise when political discourse breaks down.

The women Sabine and I met that night in Stuttgart lived and “worked” in their single room in the brothel. None spoke German as a first language, and all were young – most around 20 years old. The brothel owner charged each woman €120 a day for her room, which translated as having to perform sex acts on about four men every day before she could even break even. “I have women here, young women … They say: ‘I died here,’” Sabine told me. “I can empathise with what they mean. I believe them. I believe them that in reality the ‘johns’ can damage the women to the extent that it is not possible for everything to go back to normal.”

And now…it’s time for math!

€120 for four johns equals €30 per hour. That’s some pretty economically-priced pussy. I am assuming that the brothel-keepers, in line with industry standards in America, stipulate that the €30 covers the first hour or the first nut, whichever “comes” first, so whores are typically not getting railed for an hour straight. Four hours covers the expense of the room. If a whore works four more hours, she walks away with €120 in her pocket. According to Glassdoor.com a McDonald’s Crewmember in Germany earns €8.85 per hour. In the same eight-hour shift, our non-German speaking whore would gross €80.50 for the day. Our actual whore is grossing €39.50 more than our imaginary McDonald’s worker in the same period of time for less physically rigorous work.

In the feminist narrative, no female would WILLINGLY sell pussy. In reality, selling pussy is not only an economically sound decision for many women with few useful job skills, but it is a smart economic decision for an attractive woman who could easily clear €120 in an hour or less.

Researching Pimp State also led me to spend hours speaking to johns – sex buyers – after placing an ad in my local paper for men willing to talk about why they pay for sex. Based on the response my advert got, there is no shortage of sex buyers ready to ruminate about what they do. Indeed, the number of men who pay for sex in the UK almost doubled during the 1990s to one in 10, with a survey of 6,000 men finding that those most likely to pay for sex were young professionals with high numbers of (unpaid) sexual partners. I heard a range of justifications rolled out by the men I spoke to about why they pay women for sex: “I don’t have any option … At the moment I’m just single so I have to buy it”; “It’s just a male thing where it’s get as many as you can” … “I think it’s just a fact of ‘I’ve done my duty’,” for instance.

I’m not certain why it is more honorable to bid for pussy with food and entertainment than it is just pay for it with actual cash.

What united these men, however, was an overpowering sense of entitlement to sexually access women’s bodies. Some explicitly drew on the notion that they were merely consumers availing workers of their services. One complained about occasions that had been “poor value for money” – which he defined as “them clearly not enjoying it”. Another man described having paid for sex with a woman who obviously didn’t want to be there as a “very bad service, very”. He recalled over the phone: “We went upstairs and, how can I say, she was, like, very frigid. Very frigid. It was very disappointing in the sense I was paying … no touching in places like I would like. Even the sex was really, really crap. It was really, really disappointing.”

Yes, when you pay for prostitution, you are buying a service. If you paid for a massage and the massuese spent an hour beating you in the head with a stick, you would probably complain that it was a bad massage and you didn’t enjoy it. If you went to a restaurant and the waiter slapped you across the back of the head everytime he passed you, you would complain about the service, no matter how good the food was. If you hailed a taxi and the drive crashed into every lamppost on the way to your destination, you would complain that it was bad service, despite reaching your destination.

An “expectation” is not an “entitlement” but a customer in a freely-bargained for exchange of goods for services is entitled to complain when the services aren’t what he bargained for or expected.

Above all, the journey of unpicking the myths that surround the sex trade led me to the inescapable conclusion that change is possible, that we don’t have to live within cultural and legal lines laid out by pimps and pornographers, that there is an alternative. And it is the courage and compassion demonstrated by the many inspirational campaigners I met while writing the book that is required to get us there. Campaigners like Diane Martin CBE, who after being exploited in prostitution in her late teens, spent nearly two decades supporting other women to exit the trade, and now campaigns for an abolitionist law in the UK. First pioneered in Sweden, the abolitionist legal framework works to end demand for the sex trade. It criminalises sex-buying and third-party profiteering, but it completely decriminalises selling sex and provides support and exiting services for people exploited through prostitution.

Ah, the “Nordic Model.” And how is that working out?

Amnesty International published a report on May 23, 2016 about the effects of the “Nordic Model” anti-prostitution law in Norway where “buying sex is illegal, but selling sex is okay”. Let’s take a quick peek:

Police are required to enforce the ban on promotion, the law against trafficking and the ban on buying sex. The regulations are based on the legislators’ view on prostitution as an unwanted phenomenon, and a wish to stop all forms of organization of these activities. The tasks of the police when meeting with people in prostitution are, therefore, complex and challenging.

As a preventative measure against the establishment of the brothel run by foreign human traffickers, the police in Oslo for example enforce the Penal Law through their prohibition to rent out facilities for use in prostitution. People who sell sex from rented apartments risk being evicted, since the landlord may incur criminal liability based on current legislation.”

Prostitution by whores who don’t own their own premises are grounds to evict them. Good job, feminists.

The concept of “promotion” under
the law is broad enough to include sex workers working together or with any other person, such as a cleaner, receptionist or security guard, for the purposes of safety. Working together also increases the likelihood of raids and subsequent evictions as is likely to be viewed by police as “organized prostitution”.

Prostitutes can’t hire security or screeners or door guards, because that would be “promotion” and “organization.” Good job, feminists.

Amnesty International’s research found significant evidence that sex workers continue to be criminalized and penalized directly and indirectly in a variety of ways by the legal framework in Norway – whether they are selling sex from rented premises or hotels or working together or whether they are migrants and in the country on tourist visas. Sex workers also told Amnesty International that the threat of losing their livelihood meant they were unlikely to go to the police to report buyers unless they were extremely violent. In terms of seriousness, the threat and impact of forced eviction, deportation and loss of livelihood on people who sell sex far exceeds the implications of a 15,000 – 25,000 kroner (US$1,700–2,850) fine for buyers. Amnesty International does not consider that buyers now “have most to fear” from the police in Norway. The aim of the “Nordic Model” that the balance of criminalization should be shifted from seller to buyer -has not been realized for the majority of people selling sex in Norway, particularly the most marginalized, who are still penalized, and potentially criminalized, under the law.

Whores will only go to the police if a john roughs them up too much, and whores are afraid to report johns out of fear of losing their livelihood? Good job, feminists.

Here’s another place where the feminist narrative and reality part ways. There is a concept in criminology and economics called the “black market premium.” The more penalized a good or service is, the more expensive it becomes (evading law enforcement ain’t cheap) and the more likely it is to draw dangerous people into supplying and producing it (a person who willingly commits one felony for money will likely commit other felonies). In America, we saw alcohol prohibition turn portions of America into a war zone between law enforcement against criminals and criminals against each other. American and European drug prohibition has turned petty criminals into millionaires and warlords. Sex prohibition has created multimillion dollar human trafficking operations from Eastern Europe and South East Asia and parts of Africa.

But feminists will never let collateral damage happening in the real world tarnish their affection for plainly destructive and irrational policies.

Back to the article:

A trade based on men paying to sexually access women’s bodies is fundamentally incompatible with sex equality. It is up to us to make sure equality wins out.

The sexes are not equal. Pussy is expensive and dick is cheap. That concept is universal across all sexual species on Earth. Males demonstrate value, females accept value in exchange for access to sex. It doesn’t matter if it is a wedding ring, a house, or a €30 toss in the sack.

Until females are willing to buy dick, or stop trading pussy for resources, the sexes will never be equal. Men will play the game for sex, not by the “rules” that feminists articulate, but by the rules they see females actually playing by … which is pussy for resources and status.

Source

The Women’s March: Feminist Eunuch Zach Stafford Would Like To Remind You That Good Men Are to Be Seen and Not Heard

The projected 900,000 attendance at tomorrow’s inauguration of the Avatar of Kek, the Great Wall-Builder, the Master of the Deal, the Slayer of Clinton the Terrible, Donald J. Trump, has the Feminist ignorati a little nervous.

While Feminists are, as they have taken great pains to inform us, “Strong and Independent and Don’t Need No Man,” they still feel the need to send out Eunuchs to try and drum up male support for their pity party, I mean, Women’s March.

Enter Zach Stafford.

As the Women’s March on Washington, D.C. now looks to have participation in the hundreds of thousands, eyes have begun to shift from the inauguration of the president-elect, who has struggled to secure A-list talent, and onto this massive, grassroots-led response to his unpopular election. And it should surprise no one that this overwhelming response is coming from women.

Oh noez! Trump can’t secure A-list talent for the inauguration! What a tragedy!

I am sincerely glad. This is the United States. We have a President, duly elected to a term of office. He is inaugurated into the office, not coronated as king.

This past election cycle was rough on all of us, but for many women even more so. From never-ending news cycles that gave archaic thoughts on women’s reproductive rights and in turn gave fresh hope to the Right to the never-ending allegations of sexual assault surrounding reality-TV star Donald Trump to even how we treated Hillary Clinton as a woman, it was an 18-month attack on women’s bodies – a successful one that in the end got a man elected.

Now, after we’ve enjoyed a moment of feminist hyperbole (NEVERENDING ALLEGATIONS), let’s look at some facts.

Thousands of people (and a few women) are transported annually through the area of the Clintons’ last “humanitarian war,” Kosovo.

Compare and contrast with a dozen accusations, none of which has been adjudicated, one of whom, Summer Zervos, has enough balls to sue Trump for DENYING her accusation, seemingly oblivious to the fact that falsely accusing someone of a felony is defamation per se.

But we’re getting lost in the trees here.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton has a history of warmongering; Trump is not.

Hillary Clinton has a history of lying under oath; Trump does not.

Hillary Clinton has a history of abusing the power of public office; Trump does not.

Hillary Clinton has a history of bribe-taking; Trump does not.

If Hillary Clinton is the best “Women’s candidate” you can bring to the election, if that’s the Feminists’ best shot, then I will happily never, ever vote for a woman for President.

While women walking shoulder to shoulder and yelling truths they’ve always known this Saturday does seem like the correct response to this very unfortunate chain of events, it is not, however, going to be enough to create the systematic change needed to redirect us out of the Twilight Zone we enter on January 20th. And as we now work to figure out what that ‘enough’ is as we enter this new presidency, where that work begins for men is standing with women on Saturday and beginning to own the fact that we’ve become far too great at taking women’s rights away and not great enough at fighting for them.

What rights do I, as an American citizen, possess that a woman, also an American citizen, does not?

I’ll go ahead and answer that: NONE.

But Feminists aren’t concerned with “rights,” as that term is conventionally understood. Their concerned with privileges and licenses, namely their “privilege” to live at the expense of many men through taxes and subsidies, as opposed to the privilege to live at the expense of one man (marriage).

The reluctance of so many men to get behind an event that doesn’t mention them is striking proof of that fact.

Ever since ideas around a march began to percolate after the November election, there was immediately an obvious lack of men signing up on Facebook groups and other organizing pages. The reason many have come to admit is because organizers have been unapologetic in the ways in which they marketed: “This is a movement that is led by women, but it is not just for women. It’s for all people,” Linda Sarsour, one of the march’s lead organizers, recently told the Washington Post. “You have to be okay with being led by women.”

I’ll repeat my earlier response here and add to it:

I’m okay with being led by a competent leader, man, woman, or Dalek. But because Feminism is a female-supremacist movement, its members are expected to submit only to female leadership, but never male leadership.

As for the addition, I find it interesting that Feminists are quick to offer advice to those outside of their group that they would never accept if given to them.

Hypothetically, let’s say a political group, a hypothetical Democrat Party one day came together and issued a statement containing the following:

“This is a PARTY that is led by men, but it is not just for men. It’s for all people. You have to be okay with being led by men.”

Don’t like that one? Try this one out:

“This is a CORPORATION that is led by men, but it is not just for men. It’s for all people. You have to be okay with being led by men.”

Let’s go with one more:

“This is a COLLEGE that is led by men, but it is not just for men. It’s for all people. You have to be okay with being led by men.”

Now, does anyone believe Feminists sit still for that? Of course not. They would shit enough bricks build Trump a new hotel. But this is the hypocrisy of the people who are supposedly in favor of “equality.” They don’t favor equality; they favor female supremacy.

Due to the justified centering of women and their bodies in what could be the largest singular political protest we’ve ever seen in the U.S., many men critiqued the movement with worries around this tactic. Men like New York magazine writer Johnathan Chait who tweeted out worries about the branding of the event and stated many have concluded “it’s a march for women, not for all Trump critics.”

I have to confess, I get a little wood when Progressives/Socialists/Feminists/SJWs start slitting each other’s throats in the name of ideological purity.

And while he is right that these reasons may contribute to men not wanting to participate, it is these reasons like “branding” that, at the end of the day, are the same misogyny that got a reality television star elected. So it’s here where men can and should work to create radical change by moving past their feelings of being left out that somehow always arise even though the entire history of the world has always been more focused on their bodies over women’s.

Here again, Feminists offer men “advice” that they would never accept themselves.

“Men need to move past their feelings”?

Translation: “Fuck your feelings.”

This is just another example of Feminist hypocrisy run amok. Feminist cry out that men don’t express their own feelings enough or in a manner women deem “appropriate” (by binge eating and crying, I suppose). But when men do articulate their feelings of being dismissed or left out, Feminists say “Man Up,” “Move Past Your Feelings,” or “Fuck Your Feelings.”

Feminists demand better treatment from you than they are ever willing to give to you.

As we’ve come to learn through the power of social media over years: #masculinitysofragile, and many men must feel explicitly included in anything in order to participate or take part. This habit even trickles down to having close relationships with other men (bro-mance) or even the toiletries they use in the shower. It’s a habit that exists due to us living in a patriarchal society that values men over women, even though women bear our children and participate in more free labor that keeps us all alive, while facing rates of higher discrimination in every way across the board.

And its maintenance is not because there is a true difference in the sexes that justifies men being paid more on the dollar than woman, for instance, but because men don’t want to let go of the privilege they’ve taken unjustly. The strength of this stubbornness in male privilege is clear through the fact that the potentially largest demonstration in U.S. history pulled together against a demagogue is led by women and is ignored by men even as democracy begins to sway.

Ha.

Men do, and have done more, to preserve the lives and comfort of women, than women have ever done for men.

Waste management? 81.4% men.

Sewage treatement? 88.9% men.

Water and irrigation systems? 79.6% men.

Agriculture across the board? 75.4% men.

Construction? 90.7% men.

Mineral, oil, and gas extraction? 86.9% men.

Want “society” to be less “Patriarchal”? Try putting 50% of the “privilege of carrying civilization on your backs. Feeding babies and wiping asses doesn’t keep the lights on, the shelves stocked, or the water running.

But I forget myself. Feminists are so narcissistic and delusional and so blind to the existence of most men, that they believe the only “equality” that matters is among men who hold financial, political, or social power.

Taking part in the Women’s March this weekend would not just be powerful in regards to the optics of droves of men coming out and supporting half the population of the world in efforts that are connected to their lives, but in what men will learn while there. Things like how to take part in change and not think a man has to be the hero for once; things like being in a space with women and not talking over them; things like learning how to stand with women and not stand in front of them; things like acknowledging that women are powerful beyond measure and are punished for that daily.

Every man is the hero of his own life, if he chooses to be.

Sorry, buddy, but I have better things to do than hang around Feminists and be a prop for their public agitation.

Because it is these things that all men must learn if we want to not just stop Trump from creating the damage many fear, but also ensure we never elect another version of him again. And this is possible — I saw a version of this done the day after Donald Trump was elected president and I was at the Chicago rally outside of his tower. It was one of the numerous that erupted out of the pain of his win. As activists and citizens who had never been to a protest before sat on the street and chanted, a well-known women’s protest call-and-repeat began that left me almost in tears.

I don’t give a fuck about your tears or your pain or fears.

Guess why?

Because I am offering you the same advice you offered men not a few paragraphs ago:

“Move past your feelings.”

No, let me go ahead and hit the quote I like.

“Fuck Your Feelings.”

While women yelled at the tower “Our bodies, our choice” the men stayed quiet and once the women finished they responded “Their bodies, their choice”, and this went on for some time. And it was in that moment that I knew that we, men, had it in us to allow women to lead.

I agree. Your body, your choice.

But my money should stay safely away from your body and not finance any of those your choices.

As long as we show up in support and get out of their way.

Oh, I play to stay out of their way. Far out of their way. About as far out of their way as time and geography reasonably permit.

As for support, you can just pretend I do. Feminists are delusional in all other respects. Might as well add one more delusion to the pile.

Archived Source

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Erin Keane

Yeah. You already know what it is.

More nonsense about the “Women’s March” on Washington. It’s pretty typical fare. A Feminist showing open disdain for men while demanding that men offer up themselves to serve Feminism.

The Women’s March on Washington, like all responses to the election that made Donald Trump our next president, has incurred no shortage of close readings as Americans and those watching us attempt to make sense of where we are culturally and politically in the wake of 2016 and in the dawn of the Trump presidency.

Nothing suggests rationally trying to make sense of a fact like putting pink wool cat ears on your heads and waving signs around. In fact, this is the very height of reason.

It began, as things do these days, on social media. Facebook drove its early momentum much in the same way that activists galvanized protests against police brutality in Ferguson and Baltimore on Twitter in 2014 and 2015 as the Black Lives Matter movement took shape.

Which has accomplished approximately…NOTHING.

What started with a couple of unrelated posts tapped into widespread desire for a show of solidarity and strength in opposition to Trump’s inauguration. Now organizers are bringing thousands of people together to descend on Washington on Jan. 21, with concurrent sister marches planned in cities across the country.

Bus rental companies across America are rejoicing.

And as with any initiative that begins with individuals and not with a focus group, there have already been growing pains. On Jan. 9, the New York Times examined the “contentious racial dialogue” that the march’s organization has sparked, somewhat along generational lines between “the personal is political” approach, which often ends up benefiting affluent white women the most, and those who highlight more intersectional concerns. Among other internal clashes over feminism, race and class, a quote posted on the organizing page by feminist scholar bell hooks about “confronting the ways women — through sex, class and race — dominated and exploited other women” apparently put some white women off the march and the movement around it.

Nothing says “solidarity” like accusing your supposed allies of inherent moral defect based on their ancestry and/or race.

Conversations like this are necessary — painful, perhaps, for women on all sides of the discussion, but very necessary — as the brand of female empowerment that Hillary Clinton came to symbolize for the women she most visibly represents (and I resemble that remark myself) is interrogated and expanded and refined for the more inclusive and, we can only hope, more successful feminist future. If the march is going to organize an effective feminist response to the current political and cultural climate, it’s good to start off on a less self-indulgent foot than Pantsuit Nation, another Facebook-grown collective now turned into a puzzling publishing endeavor, did.

“Conversation” being the latest Progressive/Social Justice buzzword for a Struggle Session, wherein you stand in the circle as Feminists accuse you of various unspeakable privilege-crimes like being

1) White

2) Male

3) Wealthy

4) A FUCKING WHITE MALE!!

It would be great if activists didn’t have to pause their work to have these conversations with women whose feelings are hurt by an intersectional focus to help them figure out how to move past their personal responses. But if we were already there as a country, we probably wouldn’t be in this position to begin with. As it is, women definitely have enough on their plates without having to make sure that men also feel sufficiently included and excited by the event to join in with their full and active support.

It would be equally great if Feminists didn’t excuse themselves from civil discourse while on their Holy Pussy Jihad. But in intersectional feminist la-la land, when you are an “oppressed class” you are free to behave in any way you deem fit against an “oppressor class,” no matter how personally accusatory or objectively offensive that behavior may be.

But heaven forfend that you even suggest that a woman let you grab her by the pussy.

The people who profess that they are working for “equality” have one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for those not in their tribe.

Might I suggest — lightly, so I don’t hurt any men’s feelings and give them another excuse for opting out — that this is not an invitation to a second cousin’s wedding, but an opportunity to participate in an organized effort to salvage our ravaged democracy? And that there is a certain amount of “get over it” they need to hear and act upon?

1. I cannot “opt out” of something I was never a participant in to begin with.

2. America is not a democracy; it is a republic. No matter how much you and your ochlocratic ilk would like to put individual rights up on the altar of the howling mobs, you cannot wish the Constitution away.

3. Donald Trump won. Get over it. Donald Trump defeated the warmongering, lying, corrupt, plutocrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

GET. THE. FUCK. OVER. IT.

Gosh. I love “get over it.” It’s such a brief, yet clear exercise in sneering contempt and handwaving in place of good faith argumentation.

Perfect for a Feminist.

Dear men of America: If you have been waiting for your engraved invitation to participate in this march, please consider it delivered. Imagine me slipping an envelope under your door late at night, like a bid to an exclusive social club instead of a public protest. There are conditions on this invitation, however. You will not automatically be put in charge, which might be a shock to some of your systems. You are being invited instead to do what women have done for generations: Show up and ask “What can I do?” You will be put to work.

You can offer up all of the imaginary invitations, engraved, verbal, written, you like. What you, nor anyone associated with this overwrought hen party has done is offered up a good reason why I, or any other man, should be involved this.

You have nothing going on that entitles you to any man showing up and asking “What can I do?” Your cause is not worthy of any honest or decent man’s contribution of time, intellect, or strength.

I am truly sorry that our culture has conditioned you to automatically reject anything branded as a “woman thing,” out of fear of violence and/or social rejection.

This is a highly compressed nugget of bullshit.

First, Keane has spent the last three paragraphs laying the snide condescension men like a cement mixer. Now, she has switched gears to phony sympathy with a bit of shaming (I’m sorry you’re “scared” of violence/rejection i.e. less than a REAL MAN(tm)).

A “Real Man” to any particular female, is one who does what is most useful to her at the particular moment in which said female challenges your manhood.

The only “rejection” that Western culture has trained men to fear is rejection by women.

But now is not the time to be a quiet and passive supporter of women. Perhaps after this march you can have your own painful and necessary dialogues about why you waited for women to organize a powerful show of resistance and then, instead of being grateful for the opportunity to participate, some of you pouted about not having a seat at the planning table.

Because females are “Strong and Independent and Don’t Need No Man.” I am a man. I do not render aid or service where it is not needed. I don’t waste my time or effort on the demonstrably ungrateful or the outright spiteful.

Perhaps you can have your own painful and necessary dialogues about being in thrall to superficial branding over substance, because this march and the movement it is galvanizing are about women’s lives, not our lifestyles, and deserve to be treated with accordant gravity.

I’ll pass, thanks. I don’t fetishize hurt feelings quite like Feminists do.

Please, do talk amongst yourselves on these issues. But don’t lean on women to educate you, unless you are hiring them in a professional capacity to do so. Women are busy; they don’t have time to lead you gently by the hand through this process.

I’d rather talk to other men about how fucking daffy and arrogant Feminists are to expect men to come and accept second-class status, based on sex, in the Feminist milieu as “Equality.” I would rather laugh at the outright hypocrisy Keane displays in expecting men to voluntary surrender their time and labor to Feminist idiocy while demanding that men hire Feminists to defend their ideology against questioning.

Men are busy. We don’t have time to listen to you, follow you, or lead you gently by the hand ANYWHERE. (I hope you noticed the pivot back to snide condescension.)

In the meantime, if you believe the ideals a Trump presidency is sure to shore up will be toxic for the country, show up. March alongside and behind your partners, mothers, daughters, sisters, neighbors, colleagues and fellow citizens. I assure you that your masculinity will remain fully intact — it may well be enhanced! — even if you slip on a pussy hat for the event.

So wait, is this the pro-Women March? Or the anti-Trump march? Didn’t a bunch of females vote for Trump? Did they get their V-cards pulled for voting the wrong way?

But, on the topic of cards, I know what card you won’t be pulling; my masculinity card for your own petty political benefit.

Archived Source

The Washington Post Wants You to MAN UP and March for Women; I Think I’ll Pass

In about a week and a half, the Avatar of Kek, the Great Wall-Builder, the Reigning and Defending King of New York, Donald J. Trump, will be sworn into office and the 45th President of the United States.

Supporters of the defeated candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, however, are still incredibly salty about this. In response, a number of feminists and veteran Hillary campaigners have organized a March for Women on the day after Trump’s inauguration (January 21, 2017).

On Donald Trump’s first day in office, organizers of the Women’s March on Washington are calling on “all defenders of the human rights” to join together to stand up for women and other groups that have been marginalized.

The author re-establishes the narrative in the first paragraph: ALL women are marginalized. Marginalized by who?

Non-women, or as they are commonly known, MEN.

All men are oppressing all women.

Check that feminist article of faith off of the checklist.

But there’s one group, comprised of about half of the population, that is hard to find in the social media and logistical frenzy leading up to the highest profile event protesting Trump’s politics: Men.

Sorry, I’m rather busy marginalizing women and can’t participate. It’s kind of a full-time gig.

Of the 175,000 people who indicated they are going on the March’s Facebook page, just a fraction appear to be men. And the #WhyIMarch Twitter feeds show far more mothers and sisters than fathers and brothers. On the ground, march organizers in Houston, Cleveland and Pittsburgh reported that just a handful of the seats on their buses have been reserved by men.

“This is a movement that is led by women, but it is not just for women. It’s for all people,” said Linda Sarsour, one of the march’s lead organizers.

One caveat: “You have to be okay with being led by women,“ she said.

I’m okay with being led by a competent leader, man, woman, or Dalek. But because Feminism is a female-supremacist movement, its members are expected to submit only to female leadership, but never male leadership.

The same test that played out when Americans went to vote for the nation’s first female president is now playing out in the anti-Trump response to the election. Some scholars of gender and politics say that while plenty of these men believe in women’s rights and abilities to lead, many still aren’t comfortable shouting their views through a bullhorn or spreading them on Twitter. Even those who show up might be unlikely to signal so beforehand.

You had a chance to vote for the nation’s first female vice-president in 2008. The response from the feminist orthodoxy was to shit on Sarah Palin from great height and with great volume.

You had a chance to vote for a female president in 2012. Again, the feminist orthodoxy shit on Michele Bachmann from great height and with great volume.

Clearly, you are not looking for a “woman president.” You are looking for a person who adheres to certain political positions, to assume power. And that would be fine, but for the fact that you also want that person to be a woman (oppressed class) to give them a built-in defense against opposition to those political positions (“Disagree with President Hillary? YOU’RE SEXIST!”)

“A lot of men are quiet supporters of women,”said Jackson Katz, author of Man Enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity. Millions of men voted for Hillary and support women’s rights both politically and personally, he said, but they don’t have a powerful voice.

Plans to attend the march formed quickly among female friends and relatives, many of whom also took to social media to channel their disappointment after the election. Katz attributes the more muffled support among men in part to efforts that Trump and other Republicans have made to challenge the masculinity of men who support liberal causes or women in leadership. Trump repeatedly cast himself as the strong man.

Alex Mohajer, co-founder of Bros 4 Hillary, an advocacy group, said it this way: “There is a sense [that] if you outwardly support a woman you are less deserving of your man stripes.”

Let’s just pretend that Hillary Clinton did not cynically attempt to manipulate and shame men to vote for her by trying to ding their manhood.

The November election exposed the largest gender gap in more than 40 years, with women favoring Clinton by 13 points and men favoring Trump by 11 points. The gap was most stark for white men, in particular non-college educated white men, 71 percent of whom voted for Trump. For this group of economically challenged men, Trump’s appeal to a simpler time when men ruled the family resonated.

Men are wrong for favoring Trump, but women are right for favoring Hillary.

Got it.

At the same time, millions of men went to vote for Clinton as the first female president. Among them, 82 percent of African American me and 63 percent of Latino men. Younger men — aged 18 to 29 — were also more supportive of Clinton and also are likely to support gender-equality when it comes to a range of family-friendly policies.

We need to be deliberate about understanding the different paths that can land women in prison, be more attentive to women’s unique needs while they are incarcerated, and do more to support women and their families once they are released. I will institute gender-responsive policies in the federal prison system and encourage states to do the same …

-Hillary, April 27, 2016

“Gender-responsive,” not “gender-neutral,” and not “gender-equal.” Hillary believes that there are too many women in prison.

The number of men in prison?

Just right.

Katz said these men will need to speak out if they don’t want to see abortion outlawed, given Trump’s pledge to appoint anti-abortion judges to federal courts. They will also need to make known, he said, that they believe preventing sexual violence should be a priority, after Trump openly bragged about assaulting women.

Men should be more concerned about preventing violence in general, as men are the primary victims of violence in general.

Secure your own mask first before helping others.

“That means taking some risks in challenging other men, and literally standing up to the bullying that comes from the right about masculinity,” Katz said. Women are leading the charge for the march, heading up logistics and legal work, while male volunteers are playing mostly supporting roles. It’s a contrast to the 1963 March on Washington, when women largely worked behind the scenes.

Rather than improving on the model of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (notice, they did not call it the “March For Blacks”), feminists have decided ex ante that all male participants, regardless of their skills, qualities, or talents, must be relegated to subordinate or supporting roles.

Tell me again about how “Feminism means equality.”

“This is all a part of straightening that bend in the road that women did not have a voice through the years,” said Harry Belafonte, the music legend and civil rights leader who worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. and was asked to be an honorary co-chair of the event with feminist icon Gloria Steinam.

“A lot of women are going with their friends, their sisters, and their mothers,” said Leah Burnett, a musician who helped organize five bus loads of marchers from Cleveland. “I think it’s a bonding experience.”

She counted less than 10 of the more than 250 seats that she can confirm have been reserved by men.

Many men who have pledged support for the march on Facebook say they are motivated to attend to continue the progress that women have made.

Tim Riddick, a 36-yeard old photographer from Woodbridge, said he plans to join the march because he wants to set an example for his three young sons.

“I am worrying about the way my boys will treat women when they are older. I want to make sure they not only respect women but that they fight for women as well,” he said.

Riddle me this, Riddick: Why are women, as a class, entitled to “respect” (respect being synonymous with “esteem, regard, high opinion, admiration, reverence, deference, honor, etc.)?

Riddick calls himself a “purple elephant,” a rare liberal who is also an observant Christian. He believes that women should be leaders in the church and also in the nation – and he believes women’s rights will not be successful without support from both genders. That means blending the line on what is considered a “women’s issue” to start with, including access to abortion and birth control.

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”

– 1 Cor. 14:34

Observant Christian, indeed. Cafeteria Christian would be more accurate.

Jeffrey Allan Ellis-Lee, a public school teacher in New York City, volunteered to be a bus captain, helping to shepherd a fleet of more than 60 buses that are scheduled to bring protesters from New York City and building on organizing work he did during Clinton’s campaign.

“This was such an anti-woman campaign,” he said. “There are so many issues, but this is the issue that I am standing up for during the march itself.”

“This was such an anti-woman campaign.”

But “44 boys is too many!”

Gerald Dudley, 33, is attending a solidarity march in Austin, Tex, where he works for a company that hosts pub quizzes. He said he wants to be much more outspoken in his support for women’s rights. “It’s not enough to say, ‘I’m not a misogynist,’” he said. “This year I am trying to put my money where my mouth is.”

To him, that means donating to feminist causes, seeking out more women’s perspectives in his reading, and calling out sexism when he encounters it. “When I hear a joke where the butt of the joke is a woman … Maybe I could say, ‘I don’t get it: Why is that funny?’”

Because females are unintentionally hilarious. Like birds flying into glass doors.

Darren Battle, a 51-year old chef in Atlanta, is coming to Washington for the March because he wants to support equal pay and other equal rights.

“There are not many female chefs. But if they are doing the job, they should be making what I am making,” he said.

Agreed. If they are doing the same job as you at the same level with the same experience, then yes, they should be offered the same money.

Duncan Chaplin, an education policy researcher in Petworth, said when he heard about the Women’s March he immediately planned to go and invited friends from out of town.

“Being part of a loyal opposition is important,” he said. “I want to oppose what Trump stands for, and women’s issues are clearly a part of that.”

Wait…does Trump stand for women’s issues? Or are women’s issues in opposition to what Trump stands for?

Anyway, this is just one thing, among the many things, that is so despicable about Feminists:

Out of one side of their mouths comes “EQUALITY!” (which they shall not practice when given the opportunity to do so)

Out of the other side of their mouths comes “UTILITY!” (men should make themselves useful, and even put themselves in harm’s way, for the cause of Feminism, which relegates them to a “supportive” role based on their sex, or, as most of us might comprehend it, sex-based discrimination).

To Feminists who tell me to MAN UP, and support Feminism, I give the following musical answer:

Archived Source

“Hoes Gon Be Hoes featuring Annaliese Nielsen” Or “How To Not Engage Stupid People In Real Life”

Lauren Southern of Rebel Media, blonde Becky news-chick and professional IRL troll of social justice types, published a Youtube video today. The video is mostly dark, but one of the parties recorded is alleged Annaliese Nielsen.

Who is Annaliese Nielsen? More importantly, why do I care?

Two great questions that should routinely be asked. Annaliese Nielsen is an entrepreneur and pornographer, occupations which would ordinarily put her in favorable standing, except her niche, rather than being something respectable like lesbian double-anal fisting is tattooed, pierced, smug hipsters (Suicide Girls with more self-importance). Nielsen is also one of the founders of a small social networking site called “Crushee.” Nielsen also runs a (sort of) secret Facebook group called “Girls Night In,” centered around Los Angeles. An online Tupperware party, if you will.

Long story short, Nielsen is a “GRRL POWER!” social-media butterfly with a head full of “Wymyn’s Studies,” “Patriarchy,” “Rape Culture,” etc.

So Annaliese gets into a Lyft rideshare, clearly inebriated and with what little filter between her lizard brain and her oversized mouth left in the bottom of a liquor bottle. She sees that the driver has one of those goofy Hula girl things on his dashboard and proceeds to freak out.

Note: Nielsen actually recorded this video as though it would make her look good.

Nielsen: You thought that was adorable, you didn’t think about the pillaging of, like, the continent of Hawaii?
Driver: I didn’t even know there was pillaging.

Nielsen: Oh, you didn’t?

Driver: No.

Hawaii isn’t a “continent” as is commonly understood (the seven large continuous landmasses on Earth). I guess they need less gender theory and more geography in “Wymyn’s Studies.” Seven continents. Five oceans.

Nielsen: Okay. So you won’t get rid of the doll then? Because that was like “a really cute pick that you found at Goodwill.”

Driver: No. I’m not going to get rid of it because of that. I just didn’t realize that it was offensive to anybody.

He made a mistake right here. He should have never framed his reply around “offensiveness,” because you are stuck in arguing over…a Progressive/SJW’s FEELINGS! Never argue with another person over their subjective emotional reactions.

The correct answer to this would have been “yes, I found it at the Goodwill. I liked it, bought it, and put it in my car. That is the correct answer. Good job.”

Nielsen: But, so obviously, like, you as, like, a white male, you are, like, the least, like…

Driver: But now you’re judging me, you’re assuming where I’m from.

Remember the bolded part. It’s going to be important in the second act.

Nielsen: No, I’m not, I’m not judging you. I’m just saying, like the, perhaps like you might be the person who is least hurt in the situation.

Nielsen: I’m a passenger in your car, like, that doll is offensive to me, but you don’t want to take it down because you, like, “found it at Goodwill and it was a good find.”

Driver: Uh, I don’t know where to go from here; you want me to take down something I just put on because…

Nielsen: Yeah, no I do want you to, because it’s actually deeply offensive and I do want you to take it down.

She’s inviting him to argue with her about her emotions. His first instinct is the correct one: don’t take the bait. His instincts as a man are telling him “don’t argue with this dummy! DON’T DO IT!” But, he kept on going.

Driver: Alright, well obviously you’re going to give me a one star, but I’m not taking it down, so I’m sorry about that.

Mistake. From the way the driver talks, he’s probably partially indoctrinated in Progressivism and passive-aggressive Newspeak, based on this boilerplate non-apology that Proggies are really good at giving (I’m sorry you feel that way).

The correct answer is, never apologize. Not even once. Progressives don’t have the capacity to show mercy or the grace to show forgiveness.

Nielsen: I’m gonna do worse than give you a one star.

See what I mean? Instead of taking the phony-baloney apology, she’s motivated to cause this man pain and suffering and harm.

Driver: Do whatever you like, I’m not trying to offend you, if you want me to drop you off over here or at the next exit I can do that.

Nielsen: No, I would like you to take me to my destination.

Driver: I will do that, but…

Nielsen: Thank you.

Driver: But I don’t know why my beautiful Lady Lola is offending you.

Oh for fuck’s sake! You had the end of the conversation right there. As soon as she said thank you, turn up the radio, watch the road, and pretend that bitch isn’t in the backseat of your car. Instead, he practically asked her “please, whisper more of your drunken irrational bullshit in my ear. I’m so interested.”

Nielsen: What’s your name? You’re going to be on Gawker.

Driver: I’m not on Gawker.

Nielsen: No, on, you will be published on Gawker. And you’ll be like the next Internet meme, and it’s going to be super funny.

Nielsen: Yeah, I mean, like God forbid anyone take your special Hawaiian doll away from you.

Notice how easy it is for the feminist woman to offer to subject her targets to social shaming and ridicule. “I’ll put you on Gawker”/”Write your name on the bathroom stall and say that you eat boogers!” Gawker has thankfully breathed its last desperate gasp thanks to Hulk Hogan running wild on that pitiful scandal rag with his 24 inch pythons of civil litigation.

Way to keep up with the plot, Annaliese.

Driver: I mean, what’s more comedic is how offended you’re getting by that…

Nielsen: Um, because it’s a thing that actually affects my life, and a thing that doesn’t affect your life.

Seeing as how he expended time and money to find, acquire, and affix the doll to his dashboard, yes, it does actually affect his life, Annaliese.

Driver: No, I’m Asian as well, so…

Ohhh. Remember when I told keep it in mind that Annaliese called the driver a white male?

Welcome to the second act.

Nielsen: Okay, so what is your Asian heritage?

Driver: It’s irrelevant.

Nielsen: No, it’s not irrelevant, it’s actually super relevant.

Driver: Really?

Nielsen: Yeah, so which part of it is not relevant?

Now, if the driver had the proper frame of mind, he would have, at this point, hammered her into silence by reminding her that she called him a white man not more than a few minutes earlier. He could have told her it’s irrelevant because she’s such a racist that she can’t tell the difference between Asian men and white men, and that any further discussion with such an evil, racist, thoughtcriminal like her was “triggering” him, and then watch her brain explode.

Passenger: This whole conversation is irrelevant. The fact that you care that much about something that’s on his dashboard…

The voice of reason cries out from the heavens.

Nielsen: Yes, I do, actually care a lot.

Passenger: That’s sad.

Nielsen: It’s not sad. It’s important.

Passenger: Pretty pathetic.

Isn’t it fun to listen to two females in conflict argue with each other? “You’re sad!” “No! You’re sad!” “You’re pathetic!” “No I’m not! You’re pathetic!”

Nielsen: Did you say it was pathetic? Can I have your name, please?

Passenger: Yeah. Jade.

Nielsen: And your last name?

Passenger: [Redacted]

Nielsen: Thank you.

What is this thing with Progressives/SJWs demanding to know people’s full names? Do they think they are the world’s hall monitors and they can write people up for cutting class or smoking in the bathroom? That dumb chick Zarna Joshi was doing it in Seattle. Now this dumb chick is doing it.

Must be a Wymyn’s Studies thing.

Driver: And now the passengers are fighting, I’m so excited.

Driver: Wow, you’re the first bad experience I’ve ever had with Lyft, and some portion of it has to be like that.

Dude, why? you were free of this conversation. Just let those two argue in the backseat and drive.

Nielsen: And I’m excited.

Of course she’s excited to be an inconvenience to someone else.

Driver: I’m a very respectful person, and the fact that you’re taking offense to that, like, I’ll take a picture of it…

Nielsen: That’s a disrespectful object that you have in your car, and whether you’re Asian or not you should be considerate to the fact that you have passengers that don’t find that thing to be…

Wait a minute. Didn’t she just say that his Asian-ness was “super relevant” to…whatever point it was she believed she was trying to make? Now she’s pivoted to, “whether you’re Asian or not, your Hula doll offends me.” Nielsen is contradicting herself. Again!

Driver: Considering the fact that you want me to rip it off of my dashboard when it’s superglued…

Nielsen: No, I just said you can set it down for a second, it might not be amusing to all passengers, you’re going to experience this again, by the way.

Driver: Okay.

How’s he going to set it down when it’s superglued, smart guy?

Nielsen: And so I hope that from this lesson, like, today…

Driver: What’s the lesson? Like, you’re being rude, actually.

Nielsen: No, I’m not being rude.

It must really be nice to have the confidence and security of a vagina in the United States, to have the confidence that you can just wag your finger at complete strangers and not worry about any repercussions, not even that you might be told to fuck off.

Driver: There’s one way to tell somebody something, and then there’s another way. You’re doing it in…you’re not being pleasant.

Nielsen: Oh, because I wasn’t “nice enough” to you?

Driver: I’ve been pleasant to you this whole time…

Nielsen: I wasn’t “nice enough” to you for this thing? That’s fine. I’ve been video recording the entire time. I’m excited.

Driver: That’s cool, and I’m being respectful to you…

Nielsen: No you’re not. You have been actually very rude and extremely entitled…

I’m confused, is the driver “White male” entitled? Or “Asian male” entitled?

Driver: Oh, I’m sorry that my Hawaiian lady has offended you.

Nielsen: Yeah, I’m sorry that you have no consideration for actual Hawaiian people who don’t want to be a bobblehead item in your car while you’re driving for Lyft.

Nielsen: You fucking selfish dumbass idiot.

Verbal abuse. What a charming lady.

Driver: I’m being rude?

Nielsen: You are being rude. You have no connection to this culture.

Nielsen: You know, that is a cute little bobble item that you have in your car, that you don’t know anything about, and you’re an idiot.

Driver: Thank you very much for your opinion.

Nielsen: Yeah. You’re welcome. Maybe you will think about it, tomorrow when you wake up in the morning.

Driver: I very much will. This is going to be awesome. Thank you so much. I’m ending this ride right now so if you’d like to call another Lyft, you can go ahead and…

Praise baby Jesus! His sack dropped and he told this bitch to hit the bricks. I understand why cabbies generally don’t talk to fares.

Nielsen: You can take me all the way to my house.

Driver: I actually don’t have to, it’s not…

Nielsen: No, yes you do.

Driver: It’s my car. I’m confirming a dropoff. Here’s a sidewalk. Have a wonderful night.

Nielsen: Thank you. I’m so excited. Can I have your name again?

Driver: Nope. Have a great night.

Excellent. Excellent. But again with the “what’s your name?” Does this bitch think she’s Lynyrd Skynyrd?

Nielsen: Yes, I can. Can I have your name again? Well, I’ll just stay here, then.

Driver: Well then. Oh my God. This is my car, can you please get out of it?

Nielsen: No, I won’t. Call the police. Call 911.

Driver: Okay.

Nielsen: About how I won’t leave your car.

Passenger: I wish you would.

Driver: Can you please exit the vehicle?

Nielsen: No, I can’t but you can give me your first and last name.

Nielsen: Here’s what I’ll do instead.

[Nielsen exits the vehicle.]

[Driver drives away.]

Nielsen: Holy shit.

Nielsen: The weirdest night of my entire life. And he could not get away fast enough, so that I couldn’t get his license plate number. How cute.

Christ almighty, that was like having an argument with a three-year-old.

To tie this up nice and neat, consider the following:

Ridesharing people (LYFT, UBER, etc.) seriously consider buying a dashcam of some kind with audio and video and nightvision. I believe they are $20 at Walmart. You never know what kind of childish degenerate might get in the backseat of your car and you might need this for your own protection later.

Engaging stupid people in an argument. Thanks to the internet, extricating yourself from dealing with idiots has never been easier. The block function on forums and networking sites is proof Aqua Buddha loves his children and wants what’s best for us. Unfortunately, there is no block function for the idiots wandering around IRL disguised as human beings, desperately seeking to draw you into a meaningless conflict with them so as to feed their hunger for emotional energy and feedback. So, what to do?

With respect to the video above, Nielsen didn’t actually want the bobblehead down. It was never about the bobblehead. Notice how Nielsen kept saying how “excited” she was. Idiots feed on conflict and drama. They don’t want to reach a productive or satisfactory conclusion to anything. She wanted to force this man to engage with her on her own level (which he did partially) and comply with her demands (yield to her, which he did not do).

Recognize the goals and recognize the tactics. I can’t give you are definitive list because I don’t have one. The goals are almost universal (engagement and compliance). The tactics vary from person to person and situation to situation. You saw a good offering of tactics Progressive/SJW idiots use both IRL and online (shaming, outrage, mockery, name-calling). A good way to foreclose engagement with stupid people who claim to be offended is to assume the following posture:

“I acknowledge that you might be offended by X. But I don’t care whether or not you are actually offended. Fuck your feelings. We’re done here.”

The driver finally adopted this posture when he told her to get out of his car and what happened? After some last ditch attempts to keep the conflict going, she got out of the car and he drove off, extricating her from his life.

Long story short, when a stupid person attempts to engage with you, indicate, verbally and non-verbally, that you do not give a damn what this person has to say and that you will not give them the gift of expending your time and energy to treat their stupidity as though it has merit.

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Meghan Murphy

Meghan starts with a grandiose condemnation of the “bepenised ones.” I’m guessing this is feminist-speak for men. Because we are really just walking dicks, sort of like how women are just tits and vaginas. That’s how this thing works, right? She moves to decry the #RefugeesWelcome groping, molesting random women on New Year’s Eve. She waves off the fact that:

The German authorities on Friday tied asylum seekers for the first time to the wave of violent assaults on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve as debate intensified over whether the country had made a mistake in opening its doors last year to more than a million migrants.

The Interior Ministry said 18 of the 31 people identified so far as suspects in the violence in Cologne had applied for asylum in Germany. The disclosure further stoked fears about security and culture clashes between the newcomers, mostly from Muslim countries, and Germans who are confronting the costs of assimilating them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/cologne-new-years-eve-attacks.html?_r=0

Meghan bemoans that mayor of Cologne would dare make the positively misogynistic suggestion, that strong, independent women who “don’t need no man” be careful, sort of like how men have had to mind their own safety for millennia and still are the primary victims of violent crime in the world. How dare he give women the same advice that men receive.

She then peddles a little more fearmongering, in case the her vegetative readership didn’t fully get her point. Women are scared. Scared at home, scared walking, scared at parties, scared in their cars, scared at the bus stop. It’s a wonder women manage to put on skirts (or pants) without worrying about a random dick attack.

Meghan then calls for a “feminist revolution.” What would this revolution entail? Who knows because she certainly doesn’t disclose HOW it will come about, but she does have an amusing list of expectations:

• “Real consequences for men who rape, harass, and abuse women” (because….prison isn’t a real consequence?)

• “Ensuring women are financially independent and that they are able to leave abusers safely” (women with jobs and their own money? Sounds like a plan.)

• “A cultural shift that addresses male entitlement” (Translation: Send men to reeducation camps since the already feminized education system isn’t indoctrinating men sufficiently)

• “Porn culture” (My body, my choice…except when it’s time to take dicks on camera for money)

• “And the objectifying male gaze” (Unless you’re Christian Grey or Magic Mike. Then you can objectify her all night long)

• “An end to masculinity” (Feminists don’t hate men. Honest guys. Feminism is for you too. Don’t you trust Emma Watson?)

• “And more broadly, gendered socialization that says men are actors whereas women are passive recipients (It would be nice if women got off their asses and stopped expecting men to do all of the relationship work)

She goes on to denounce “liberal feminists” for their counterrevolutionary refusal to regard men as the spawn of Satan and reminds the readers that, well, women are scared of stuff and adds cabbies to the list of things she checks under her bed for. Amusingly, she thinks men have free reign to behave how the wish, disregarding the hundreds of thousands of men who did what they wished and landed in prison for their trouble.

With all that said, she finally gets to her “modest proposal”: a curfew for men only. Because a minority of men break the law, Meghan decides it is appropriate to deprive ALL men of their freedom based on their sex. Her reasoning is that it would “send a message.” What message? That despite all of the feminists 140 years of howling that they are equal to men and that men are unnecessary to women, when the rubber meets the road, you have little Meghan running to the front of the class demanding that the teacher do something about mean, yucky boys? That feminism once again exposes itself to the world as a cult of female supremacy which regards the penises the same way slaveowners regarded black skin as the mark of a cursed, servile race? Who would implement this curfew? Who would enforce it?

Now, this is the usually the part of the program where the less bloodthirsty adherents of the feminist cult claim “oh, she doesn’t represent feminism.” My answer to this is, she is a graduate of Simon Frasier University with a Master’s Degree in Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies (i.e. useless shit). Her credentials in said useless shit make her better indoctrinated and more in tune with the academics who rule and direct the feminist cult than even the most devoted Jessica Valenti reader.

When confronted with usual feminist talking point that “feminism is about equality/unity/puppies & rainbows & sunshine” Meghan quickly slaps down the bepenised LukeReddin and reminds him that he is guilty of original Patriarchal Sin and that violence suffered by men is of no concern to her.

MMurphy01

Question: If feminists don’t care about violence suffered by men, why should men care about violence suffered by feminists?

When asked how this male only curfew to be enforced, she is surprisingly honest in her expectation that men with badges will threaten violence other men with violence in the name of feminism (which is technically true, but still pretty damned appalling):

MMurphy02.jpg

If by “plenty of men” she means male feminist quislings, there isn’t enough fortitude among them to enforce order at a Middle School boy/girl party, let alone enforce an extended curfew across any given municipality.

Of course, this isn’t the first time when feminists have had the perfectly rational idea that the only way to protect the holiest of holies known as The Vagina was to strip men of their right to travel. In 1991, when false rape accuser Janet Berger claimed that some skateboarders had raped her, feminists helpfully provided support in the forms of flyers and graffiti containing helpful ideas like “Dead Skaters Don’t Rape” and “A Curfew For Men.”

The most amusing part of this is that “curfew for men” and its rationale sounds suspiciously similar to a policy once enshrined in several states and municipalities that established a “curfew for Negroes.” Notably, Mobile, Alabama, in 1909, passed an ordinance forbidding black residents from leaving their homes after 10 p.m. the reasoning being that blacks roaming around after dark, apart from being hard to see, would make all kinds of mischief, including violating the most sacred white vagina via rape. It’s good to see that feminists are still the handmaidens of tyranny and the enemies of liberty, even in the 21st century.

If you want read Meghan’s nonsense for yourself, here’s the link.