Friday, 27 May 2016
The sour faced Australian lesbian really should have learnt by now that men are no longer cowed by condescension, denigration or humiliation because we don't care what a coven of over-painted, overgrown schoolgirls think of us. We're a lot bigger than that. Perhaps that's why she's so angry.
That aside, if men's minds are 'little one lane country roads', women's are no more than the tracks left by mindless scuttling insects on the jungle floor, when they are not simply crumbling sewers clogged with filth. The sad thing is that the poor cow clearly thinks she's sophisticated, piercingly intelligent and castratingly witty, when all can see that she's simply bitter, twisted and chronically immature, not to mention profoundly ugly and deeply unattractive.
Here's Paul Elam's excellent response to this risible whine fest:
Grow up indeed. Who could put it better than that?
Sunday, 22 May 2016
Thursday, 19 May 2016
Note that acid-faced woman's behaviour. She starts by adopting the eyes fixed, lips set, very serious, involved, 'thinking deeply' and all too obviously hostile look that media females commonly employ with male guests they intend to get the better of. I take that not as a sign that she is paying close attention to the guest's argument so that she can discuss it rationally, rather that she's in a heightened state of alertness for triggers she can react to, and this one takes the hook at 0:40 when Paul Elam states 'there is a very strong feeling that marriage has become unsafe ground for men'. Watch how she reacts: first there's a look of feigned surprise, her eyebrows raised, lips slightly parted, ready to challenge the assertion, which she does by repeating 'marriage' in a mockingly questioning tone, suggesting that PE's position is absurd and intended to humiliate him before his, and her, audience. The pronounced nod emphasises the challenge and effectively throws it at PE as a counter blow. That is followed up by the question 'why is marriage unsafe for men', asked in a condescending tone - more appropriate as a rhetorical response to a stupid question from an obtuse child than as an interview technique between intelligent adults - and vigorous head shaking intended to deny the validity of her opponent's opinions.
Being a man, Mr Elam has facts and reason to draw upon whereas his interlocutrix (2) has only her emotions; in answer to his reply she can only adopt precisely the same modus operandi and ask, in the same tone and with the same looks and gestures, another question: 'why don't they get a fair deal?' Less than a second's thought should tell one that this is a very stupid question. How on Earth can Mr Elam know why the legal system colludes with misandrous feminists to assault the natural rights of men and boys, to enslave and imprison us and to criminalise our masculinity? Without considerable analysis of the individual actors and actresses in the process, he can only show how that happens and not why. That probably doesn't occur to the woman but would it matter otherwise? All she's interested in doing is to humiliate another presumptuous male into shamed silence.
This wasn't an interview intended to ascertain and examine emerging alternative, divergent and dissenting intellectual positions, it was simply another hostile interrogation intended to break the victim. It's ironic that, despite the 'sophisticated' power woman hairstyle, the reassuring female armour of carefully applied make-up and heavy jewellery, the aggressive and all conquering female weapon of shiny red lipstick and an 'I'm way beyond your reach so don't even think about approaching me' pink sleeveless cocktail dress (for an interview) the interrogatrix showed herself to be precisely what she clearly intended to portray the object of her ire as: an unintelligent and immature child.
(1) The hyperlink given in the introduction at YouTube leads to the same clip at another site, with attendant irritating advertisement, so is pointless.
(2) As usual the feminine form of the noun is not recognised by the browser's spelling and grammar checker and the masculine form is suggested as a replacement.
Friday, 13 May 2016
Sunday, 8 May 2016
In response to this comment, from Stephen T (@stephen_town):
'Men can't expect women to carry the whole burden of fighting back. Plenty of men have sat back and listened to strident twaddle and said nothing.'on the item 'Feminism can only flourish under the protection of real men'
I wrote this:
'Men can't expect women to carry the whole burden of fighting back. Plenty of men have sat back and listened to strident twaddle and said nothing.'Thinking that perhaps 'poppycock' was too strong for the delicate flowers at The Conservative Woman, I reposted the comment with what I assumed was the offending word omitted but, to my surprise, it was again shown as under review and was subsequently deleted. Why do they bother? What do they think they can achieve if such innocuous opinions offend their sensibilities. I doubt a real man would find any of them attractive. Perhaps that's the root of their discontent.
Men haven't sat back', we've simply done what men always do, which is to accept changed conditions and new realities, made the best of it and got on with it, while few, if any, of those women now bleating that feminism has upset their apple cart made any complaint when the apples were fresh and sweet and most shouted 'yeah, you go girl' at each and every bite. Now that the fruit has been found to be rotten those same women are telling us that we need to grub up the trees for them and plant new ones in fresh ground.
'Once men believe in a cause, they fight well.'
A man who believes in himself says 'we' and not 'they'.
'We really need women allies ... '
They, we, what is to be? Regardless, this is not a war we are in any danger of losing and we do not need allies. The women you think can be useful to us are merely fighting a desperate rearguard action in the vain hope of regaining a position they abandoned decades ago. There's no going back, and certainly not as passengers on our backs.
' ... it's cowardice to just leave the fight to good women.'
No it isn't, you old white knight you; it's their fight because they brought it on, almost to a woman and with loud cheers and clenched fists punching the air. They're our equals now, which is what they wanted, and they must sort out the mess they've made without our help. We have our own battles to fight and their interests are not ours.
I would be a coward were I to do what I see is not in my best interests in response to such taunts. You sacrifice yourself for them if you wish to but do not tell me I'm a coward simply because I want none of it.'