Yes, "not all men."

Modern feminists or those who are tired of the rebuttal of "not all men" are [insert whatever men are being] that is uttered when the supposed patriarchy is the topic are practicing double standards. In fact, it's intellectual dishonesty. 

By using "not all men" modern day feminists are upset that men are being defensive. This is the same upset nature when people throw the "white privilege" card where white men, or even women, become defensive and say that they don't have such privilege. It is believed that by being defensive they are missing the point of what's being said; oddly enough by not understanding and accepting why men are upset modern day feminists skip over the "meet them where they're at" stage that is often practiced in therapy in fields like social work or clinical mental health. 

When people use a race or ethnicity nonchalantly in a critical way as in "black people need to focus more on education" to "black people need to raise their kids in a two parent household"; or even imply it like when Mark Cuban said that AAU basketball, which consists of a majority of black people, need to focus on fundamentals more and less on dunking, there is always a whoa whoa whoa wait a sec, What do you mean black people? or Are you saying that the culture found with AAU is inferior - that's racist. There's a double standard at play and I'm positive that those who accuse others of racism for making blanket statements are aware that the same technique is done to men, especially white men.

It's only fair that non-Woke men who hear blanket statements like "men are disgusting and are sexist", or hear things about the supposed patriarchy, that their emotions get riled up, get defensive and want to defend themselves. After all, their own sex is being criticized. Same thing with saying a white man has "white privilege." If a guy is just shooting the breeze at the local bar and says something like "women are too emotional" no doubt a modern day feminist would say that's an example of sexism and toxic masculinity. Of course, it's a general statement and typical, yes, depending on what country you're in women tend to be more emotional than men. 

Modern feminists want men to understand them yet it appears that the feminists refuse to understand men. It's as if they sorta kinda want men to literally not get upset by any blunt statement or presentation about dominating men and their beliefs. 

What modern feminists refuse to acknowledge is that men are not a monolithic entity, and when talks about patriarchy is brought up they expect men to nod their heads and agree that yes, the patriarchy is horrible. But modern feminists forget to point to an actual patriarchy. What are men to say? What state in what county and in what community? What country? There really isn't any specifics - just vagueness and anecdotal evidence here and there, especially if it's in the US. 

You see, as social liberals see the South and the Midwest as horrific places to live, especially for racial, ethnic and sexual minorities, modern feminists (a demographic within social liberalism) see men, in general, as sexist pigs. It's like when an actual racist in the US sees a black person and says quietly to himself That fuckin' nigger. So yes, I just did equate a modern feminist to an American racist - they share the same hate but just for different parties.

As one can see, the arrow usually goes one way, which has been the norm for the past number of year - give or take the last six or seven. You can utter a critical statement about the supposed patriarchy and  socially conservative beliefs, but you can't do that with certain demographics (i.e. racial and/or ethnic minorities, women, LGBT+) or else. White males are fair game alongside Christians when it comes to criticism, insults and condescension in the mind of modernism.

The patheticness of red pillers.

"Given my understanding of female nature, I sometimes wish I was gay. Heterosexuality on the part of men is somewhat akin to biologically enforced slavery."

I get the feeling that the poster doesn't know what enforced slavery actually is. I also get the feeling that he has little luck with women or that he's incapable of being in a long term relationship.

This is the first time I heard someone entertain the idea of committing sodomy acts for the sake not being "tied" to the opposite sex. Who in their right mind would ever want that?

Fuck these groups.

Namely because I find them to be self-righteous and smug bastards. These groups I find are just disrespectful bastards who are vindictive. If they want to fuck tradition because they're wallowing in their bitterness because EVERY FACET OF SOCIETY HASN'T ACCEPTED ME then I say fuck the world they want to build because I know it's going to be shit.

1. Gnus
2. immensely insecure LGBT people
3. SJWs (college students, third wave feminists, liberal professors)
4. anti-theists
5. people who accuse everyone for being a "cuck"
6. black people who are hypothetically on the plantation

Honorable goes to No Country types and moderates.

For numerous reasons I'm starting to lose patience with the LGBT community and their supporters. Why do they get the star treatment?

Sewanee caves into the feminists.

Over at Ivy Style, editor-in-chief Christian created a wonderful post about the joyous day of commencement at the University of the South, or simply known as Sewanee. It's a marvelous tribute to the tightness of the campus and to the well-dressed students.

But all was not well.

The post was so marvelous that Sewanee put it on their facebook page, only for it to be later taken down due to backlash of how the students were described. As Christian writes -

"So I was monitoring Google Analytics and social media today, and Sewanee put up a link to this post on its Facebook page, leading to another giant traffic spike that lasted for several hours.

Initial comments on FB were proud and positive. Then the feminists started complaining. I say feminists because the most vocal used that term in reference to her studies, and said she felt “erased” by the quote from the reader who said the female students in the post from last fall looked “ladylike.”

Several others complained that this post is sexist because of the terms “ladylike” and “fresh-faced and pretty.”

I went out for a couple hours and when I got back the link and discussion thread had been removed from Sewanee’s Facebook page."

The feminists are on every campus, even if it's in The South. It's almost a guarantee that someone will be offended if you give words that are complimentary to a woman that is genteel in nature. I can only assume that this is seen as a sin because, if I wear my feminist cap, unconsciously puts women "in a box" and creates images of a picket fence, marriage and - I dunno - slimness. A housewife may have popped into their feminist head alongside submissiveness. Modern day feminists don't like that.

Maybe they were triggered and thought that Christian's words were hints of sexual harassment.

What else? Fresh-faced and pretty. As suppose to what, hot? Babe? Bangable? Fuckable? Dour?

Maybe those that complained want the words like "independent," "strong," "empowered" as descriptive words instead of "fresh-faced and pretty." There's no doubt in my mind that the "fresh-faced and pretty" women captured in the Sewanee photos would describe themselves as such.

As a guy, I greatly prefer "fresh-faced and pretty." Add in "ladylike" as well. I suggest that you don't erase such a standard, or else you risk the future of young women not knowing was "ladylike" is and what it entails. You also don't want young men who have forgotten what being a gentlemen is, because without a lady, a gentleman would be incomplete - in some way.

EDIT: Since the Ivy Style Sewanee post was taken down from the university's Facebook page, a handful of students have ventured to the site and have expressed their views.

Students, Isabella Lilly and Rachel Head, wrote the following -

Speaking of privilege -

EDIT 4: I've met this mentality before - the scoffing off when someone mentions political correctness. That person was a homosexual. Go figure.

I've written back to most of these losers and I said that opposing views have taken into account the microaggression brigade. The reason why they're mad is because the "fellows" (the clowns, creeps and bores at Ivy Style) won't apologize; C'13 and his crowd are bitter because people actually stand up to their shit. The irony.

Come up with a better argument before you decide to pick a fight with your better-equipped peers online.

 You mad, bro?

I'm not sure what's so "short-sighted" about the article since it really didn't say anything about the university or student body besides acknowledging the sense of community and pride that permeates the pictures. It's obvious that C'13 is not up-to-date on the tracking and discussions about the feminist/microaggression crowd done by conservative blogs (see: College Fix, Minding the Campus) and think tanks (see: Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, YAF) and that the disparages are not without thought. Also note the arrogance of the poster. He believes that Isabella's and Rachel's posts were excellent counters to the article, and that the disparages are shallow.

This fucker actually believes that his indignant side is the "A-Team." He actually thinks that the people who expressed disagreement are in over their heads.

Then we get into some "you've been token up' heavily, eh?" territory.

EDIT 2: Paula Jones cared to join.

If you tell off the feminists, accusing them being "PC Stalinists," and refuse to apologize, you're the delicate snowflake according to poster "Ol' Nippy" -

"Me thinks the overly sensitive ones are the clowns calling out the “PC Stalinist” crowd. Who is the real snowflakes here?"

We got cunts who want to throw out all the accusations and then some. They're in the right. They aren't the snowflakes. You can't win because they aren't honest and they don't practice logic.

Clowns? Bores? These are all used to mock, denigrate, and silence the people they deem ill equipped to handle important discussion.

Note: Both C'13 and Paula use "better equipped" when referring those - and I don't who they're referring to - that no doubt feed their psychological imbalance.

EDIT 5: Sewanee student "Paul [Gibson] Naumann" issued this set of posts -

Since the article featured mostly whites (maybe he expected to see more minorities?) he accuses his own campus of having "white male privilege." Given a quick google search and if I can derive anything from his name, Naumann is white himself. As I try to make sense of his first post he's also accusing the article of having racist and classist undertones because it pictures mostly white and well-dressed students.

Naumann is the same student who wrote this student piece back in 2013. The topic? Douchebag frat boys and sexism. The boy even says that men assert their male privilege in the workforce and depend on it to get ahead while females have to work harder. Given his writing ability Naumann has demonstrated that he's a dumbass.

In his article Naumann posits that since the university's Alpha Phi Omega chapter, alongside others, is led by women that "male excellence" is debunked. I was in APO at my university and there were more females than male members, about 70-30 ratio. During my undergraduate years my chapter's president was male and then I later become president. Unless there's an even distribution of male to female at Sewanee's chapter, and that a male lost an executive position to the eventual winner who so happens to be female, Naumann's premise just doesn't work. He then accuses SGA (Student Government Association) of sexism since it's been dominated by males - too closed minded and lazy to elect a female. (Are we talkin' Hillary Clinton here?) That's weird, because Mizzou's SGA's executive board is led by a male. Yes, the Peyton Head who rang a false alarm about seeing a KKK member on campus. Not only does Mizzou has to deal with BLM, but also sexism! Naumann better give the heads-up to Mizzou! Right the wrong! What's strange is that Sewanee has more female students then male. I'm not aware of SGA at Sewanee being accused of male bias in the past, so I think Naumann is seeing things that only he sees due to his poorly developed brain.

Isabella and Rachel probably know each other. C'13 and BB c'17 probably have some ties to said students. Same with Paula. Paul is the perfect white knight.

#FogeyGate

Meet Sylvia Killingsworth.

The real secret to the patriarchy is that men are weak

— Silvia Killingsworth (@silviakillings) December 16, 2015

As you can see this tweet was created on December 15th. I suppose the holiday spirit was in well use in her life at that time.

Now if she's saying physically men are weak, I'd say that's blatantly false. Men in general are stronger than women. Mentally they're even smarter than women, but the saving grace is that there are more stupid men because of the intelligence bell curve being more spread out, as with women staying more-so in the middle of that bell curve.

I will say I find this tweet ironic because this statement is coming from a woman who holds a major position at one of the most respected magazines in America, coveted by her own political group - The Left and its liberal lackeys.

Killingsworth is the Managing Editor at The New Yorker and for someone who has some authority over a major, prestigious literary/politcal magazine she's awfully low on details. It's as if she's getting her talking points from Jezebel or The Huffington Post.

Apparently it's all well and good to express anti-men thoughts when employed by The New Yorker. If any editor of a major newspaper or literary outlet said that patriarchy was because women were weak they'd be publicly shamed and they'd be forced to offer an apology, if not be urged to resign. I don't believe editor-in-chief, David Remnick, said anything about her outright display of hatred for men.

This isn't the first time Killingsworth has expressed extraordinarily rude views. When Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died she tweeted this -

It would be interesting to learn how much Killingsworth actually knows about Scalia besides whatever talking points she's heard through the grapevine. It's not if she's a law/political nerd and keeps tracks on what SCOTUS judges say, and I doubt she has read any of Scalia's books. I say this because the people who are broadcasting their psychopathic thoughts aren't even lawyers or professional activists, but just "political" in the sense that they're surface thinkers.

I would also not be surprised if her only exposure to Scalia was his dissent towards Obergefell v Hodges, where the faces of the four justices that dissented were put on paper, blown up and marched through a victory parade in the following days to show their supposed bigotry.

With people like Killingsworth I always wonder what drives to be bitter. I sense that it's partially due to her own work environment, publishing being a very liberal world, and maybe her own upbringing and most likely her university experience. Either way she's someone who I don't want to meet nor do I think she'll be a "catch" for any man simply for the fact her twitter makes her into some kind of pathological bitch.

Thanks feminism, you made men stupid.

And men who are already stupid, well, you just became more stupid. If ...

Men who are supporting women to be put into selective-service are bringing forth horrid, horrid arguments.

A good majority of the arguments that I've come across are balancing on one thing: anger towards feminism and their push for "equality." The argument goes like this -

Man: Why is it okay to send our boys overseas to get killed? Isn't it sexism to value one sex over another and think one sex is less capable?

That pretty much how it goes.

Well here's one thing, I'll go back in time actually during the colonial period, men were the fighters. I'll fast forward from that time period and go to WWII. Men were the fighters. They were the drafted ones. I'll creep forward to a more present time when the Gulf War happened where both men and women were sent overseas. At that time combat roles were all men. The USA didn't have a draft because they didn't need one. Women were mostly in supporting roles if they chose to join the military. Let's go back a little before the Gulf Wars and look at Vietnam. There was a draft and all the draftees were men. Most became infantry because that's what drafts are for: to fulfill infantry positions.

I don't think Man understands what the draft is actually for and what jobs, when the draft happens, are mostly for infantry. But Man is stupid and goes on to say, "But they can draft the women as nurses. In WWII that almost happened ... " I don't know if women were 'almost' drafted in WWII, but I do know there was an agenda to fill nursing roles by all the propaganda posters.  I don't believe there is a shortage in the nursing corps, so I having a huge influx of female nurses is pretty stupid. Man doesn't take into account that since women are allowed to be in combat roles that combat roles, if they were to register for the draft, would be open to them and that to exclude them from that MOS would defeat the logic of retard Ashton Carter and all the feminists.

When men support the drafting of women they fulfill the feminists Utopia because they support this bizarre notion of "equality" on horrid arguments. For whatever reason they're angry that "our boys" die. Welcome to war. All of a sudden you're for co-ed drafts. For what reason? "Because our boys die!" Okay, what if we send puppies? Men who support this are just as horrible as the feminists who really don't give a darn about the lives that are at stake, just that "equality" is accomplished. Men like Man are idiots for failing to recognize that they helping feminists win.

If you're pissed at the feminists who push for equality, backing up further insane "equality" metrics renders your backlash from feminism is pointless. Here's what you do: You don't support the drafting of women and debate that accepting women into combat roles was a horrid decision. It's like saying you're all for socialized healthcare because you're pissed at Obama, and you want all the people to suffer under a healthcare system you don't like in order to prove that it was a horrid plan.

One side is feminism calling for "equality." The other side is full of  idiots calling for the drafting of women because they're pissed "our boys" go to war but not "our women." Well, women do go to war, just not in conscription form (as of today). They voluntarily join the military and, if fates have it, deploy in a war zone.

There's a crying contest.

It's amusing when liberals indirectly admit that their feelings are hurt when they confess they've been called a "libtard" and/or "feminazi."

"How can you not support feminism?"
"Like I how I don't give two sh_ts about the polar bears. That's how."

Because "The Cause." It's all for "The Cause."

You can smell the feminists a mile away.

And it's horrifically foul smelling.

Take for instance this review of Brooklyn by Alex Heeney of The Seventh Row. All is fine, no political sneering involved until the very last paragraph.

Ronan’s Eilis is also not just flattered that Tony is interested in her enough to go along with things: she sees his sweetness and timidity, his insecurities and worries. Cohen plays him with depth, always letting slip through what Tony tries so hard to hide, making Tony a healthy example of masculinity: theirs is a partnership of equals. It makes this a modern romance we can root for rather than a relic of the past, and it makes this thoughtful film an easy crowd-pleaser. I, for one, loved it.

I googled Alex Heeney learned that she's a Phd student at Stanford in its Management Science and Engineering track. As said in her biography -

I am a fourth year PhD Candidate in Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. I am specializing in Production and Operations Management, and currently working with Professor Warren Hausman and Professor Erica Plambeck on interdisciplinary research in environmental sustainability. Specifically, I research how operations management approaches can be used to reduce system-wide food waste in the US and its environmental impact.

And her twitter explains more -

So she's not actually an engineer just by her research interests. Heeney is more of a person with social justice inclinations getting a Phd in (management) engineering in order to direct actual engineers to fulfill her go-green social justice yearnings. This is mightily similar to Mary Anne Franks. If Heeney is considered an engineer then there should be a new academic doctoral program called "Social Engineering" in engineering departments. Wait a second - that's sort of already been a reality: English Literature, Sociology, Anthropology, African Studies, Psychology. Just amp up the quantitative focus in Sociology, Anthro and Psych and you get the pillars of this "Social Engineering" program.

Academia suffers from detachment from reality. I think that's a somewhat concrete statement that can be said with confidence.  We have people with law degrees and Phds, we you weren't aware that they hold such academic credentials were just plain idiots by the bile they spew. Both Heeney and Franks are self-proclaimed feminists. The professor in my last post, whom I believe concentrates on political science, would've fooled anyone with his astute understanding of the religious and the right. These aren't the only incidences where academics show their laymen understanding of the world. Sociology especially hasn't been blessed with twitter savvy professors: Saida Grundy showed how sharp her Phd made her. As written in her Boston College bio she's a "feminist sociologist." Interesting how feminist comes before sociologist. Another Phd holder by the name of Zandria Robinson tweeted that "whiteness is most certainly an inevitable terror." Robinson was fired from University of Memphis but later was hired by Rhodes College to teach in their Anthropology/Sociology department.

EDIT: This Minding the Campus article succinctly explains what has plagued and taken over academic life, most particularly the humanities & social sciences.

America’s universities are collapsing into a miasma of nihilism, postmodernism, political correctness, multiculturalism, affirmative action, bureaucratization, and skyrocketing costs—and no one seems able to do anything about it.  With the exception of a few “Great Books” colleges, the overarching vision of higher education that once sustained the West for centuries seems all but dead.

American higher education is now defined by an aimless mish-mash of courses on trivial topics that present no clear view of what a human being must know in order to be considered liberally educated. The result: the liberal arts have been gutted and repackaged to serve various ideological and political interests.

This situation is why the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (CISC) has created the Lyceum Scholars Program, which is America’s first (and only) academic program dedicated to studying the moral, political, and economic foundations of a free society. Drawing inspiration from the Lyceum school founded by Aristotle, the Lyceum Scholars Program takes a Great Books approach to studying liberty, the American Founding, capitalism, and moral character.

Good for Clemson and good for the people who have acknowledged modern liberal arts education as a dumping ground of intellectual sophistry. My only real question is this: How will this institute effect academia on Clemson's campus?  

Hollywood & Feminism

Now I think this is a cute skit -- I'm not sure if feminists would take that as an insult, if not make that out to be a sexist remark, but you know what? Fuck feminism.

Everything was going fine until this part -

"Such a plain cup, for such a pretty lady ... "
Lashes whip at knight.
"Man, I'm a respected professor of archaeology! Times have changed."
"I'm sorry! I meant it as a compliment."
"I have degrees. Have you ever been to college?"
"No, just 'knight' school."

Logic isn't a strength of the movie industry.

 Old age is getting to you, (Cate) Blanchett.

You've been on a role in the past couple of years. From your fossil fuel campaign, to your red-carpet complaining of cameras focusing on your dress, your annoying and tiresome complaint about the gender gap of women on screen and power positions within the movie industry and your supposed confession of having "many" relationships with women (I hope your husband at least knew about your trysts),  when, in such good timing, your next film (which will probably garner you an Oscar nomination) Carol, is about a married woman having an affair with another woman.

You're a great actress, but your idiocy as of late tells me you are an idiot -- but not located in neither LA nor NYC, but in Australia. Gotta spread the acting idiocy around the world. It's only fair. I mean, the UK has Kiera Knightley, Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Emily Mortimer.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with the left and the movie industry getting upset with the fact that women are in less power positions (more men means there is a higher probability of them being in power positions), and obsession with diversity? Just look:

NY Times.
Katherine Bigelow supports ACLU.
(Ethnic) diversity in Marvel movie.

And their weird push for same-sex relationship to be shown on screen.

The movie industry is probably the most hostile towards conservatives besides academia, the most social 'progressive' and the most glamorous out of all the entertainment sects besides the fashion world yet there is still (will always be) complaints about sexism and the supposed patriarchy that sidelines females WITHOUT any real proof of actual sidelining due to ones sex. They need to get the uber-left ACLU to conduct an investigation for the 'proof.' It's almost sad, really. I guess the all the male nurses should ask ACLU to investigate nurse hiring practices. I mean, it's responsible thing to do, right?

Binders, sex and six figure incomes.

The movie industry,  in general, is one industry that deserves an eye roll. Why? Because its actors,  especially its actresses,  are beyond saving. They love to call "Hollywood" out as sexist even though they have benefited from exploiting their bodies and sexuality in roles and photoshoots.  Many of the women who do call the industry sexist are established.  Go figure. 

These are women,  after complaining that there are such few good (read: "challenging," "interesting" - whatever they mean by that) roles for women,  sign onto a project that would be deemed prestigious or coveted faster than Speedy Gonzalez running away from Sylvester. An unknown actress would probably cry herself to sleep due to joy if she landed a role with a two lines in a prestige film. These actresses who are vocal about this supposed rampart sexism are making well above six figures, get the better roles for females and have adoring fans. 

Now,  I bet they'll say that have to keep sexist  incidents (apparently it happens so often that they need to comfortably announce sexism during actor roundtables or photoshoots) under wraps for the sake of their careers, and that they love their 'craft' so much that they'd be willing to bite the bullet for it, but I call BS. This entire thing screams of "me lioness hear me roar of courage against patriarhcy" as I accept a deal with Harper Bizarre for a cover spread. 

It's like Al Gore warning the world about global warming as he travels by private jet and lives in a mega McMansion. Or when some LGBT kid says his small town community hates for his orientation even though there's no proof of physical or verbal abuse.

You see, the word "Hollywood" is safe to use and safe to accuse because it really isn't an actual thing. Many established actors, when they use the word "Hollywood," are mostly talking about the blockbusters, drug parties exclusive to industry insiders, the paparazzi and plastic surgery. What's amusing is that they see themselves above most of these (drug parties are an accepted norm as well as plastic surgery); the paparazzi are actually hired - for the most part; blockbusters are not seen as "real" art with sexist roles for females. It's a set up. Actors see themselves as artists (a word that is overused as much as "Hollywood" is used in disdain) against these blockbusters, victims of bottom-barrel stalking flashing lights and Davids against "the suits" when it comes to getting roles. Are blockbusters mindless and offer no good roles for women? Sometimes. Are the paparazzi prying rats? At times. Are "the suits" out-of-touch people who no nothing about film and the 'art' of it? I don't doubt that some are. But here's the thing: Many movies that are made are considered "independent" and many roles that most of the established actresses accept are within these "independent"/foreign movies films (because 'art'). They gain respect (and industry noms & awards) by doing these films as opposed to (the much despised, yet extraordinarily tolerated) mindless, sexist blockbusters.

The puzzle pieces from what my observant eyes collect, and from established actresses have in their pile, do not match.

You see,  we're just suppose to believe everything they say because they're propped up as heroes - and they see themselves as the enlightened - against the sexist, bigoted and archaic world that is Tinsletown. Who knew that living in LA and/or NY, while jet setting to places like London and Paris, that sexism is rampart. Oh dearies. Wherever is the hard proof? If Bill Crosby can be accused of countless charges of rape then where these "strong, independent" actresses? How come they "confess" of this sexism to entertainment 'journalists' and not to their lawyers? You'd think there is a publicly well-known group entitled something like "Artists Against Sexism In Hollywood" but there isn't, at least to my knowledge. Why? Because most of the accusations of sexism are fictitious, if not exaggerated. Actresses know that accusing "Hollywood" of such things only helps their public image - their careers are safe (because they aren't actually accusing anyone of anything). It really has no leverage besides that, and they walk away with themselves thinking they are throwing that deadly stone in the forehead of Goliath. Such bravery that every young woman should admire. Girl power at its finest!

So established actresses making a living in an industry (add in the music & fashion sects as well), that is probably the most socially "progressive" & perverted, accuse it of being extraordinarily sexist - color me confused. You're able to live your life like such rampart sexism never happened. Color the entire industry the color Irony.

Having conversations with a non-conservative is almost pointless.

I'm starting to become convinced that most people who are products of public education and university are dumber than when they entered. 

It's always makes me chuckle when someone admits to a stance that may discriminate against a certain group - specifically not agreeing or supporting so-called LGBT "rights" - and the person listening says "So you're fine with being a bigot?"

This indirectly makes the person being accused of being a bigot feel like an idiot. Living in the 21st century you're suppose to be up-to-date and "cool" with 'equality' and whatnot, it's seen similarly as having a smartphone and having the yelp app installed. The logic goes if you don't want to be bigot (a bigot is like showing up to class without your homework done or totally forgetting that there was a scheduled quiz) then either agree or at least vote in favor (appeal to separation of religion and state) of gay mirage and same-sex adoption.

It in the similar vain as not attaching the label feminist if you agree upon equal wage to the same job, with the same hours under the same boss. "What do you mean you're not a feminist?" It's expected that everyone under 35 be one because it's the default position.

All of these "Yes, I'm for 'equal' rights" and "Yes, I consider myself a feminist" to the average modernist/non-conservative is akin to "Yes, of course I love my pet gold fish." How could you not? That's the main feeling that runs through the veins and hearts of the Millennials. When confronted to explain their position they, the well-read and those who gave though to it, usually babble something pseudo that if you asked me when I awoke from slumber I could've grumbled the same thing as I prepared my mornings oats. When you present your position they either laugh or just ask "Why?" repeatedly or pull fallacies left and right, and when you point it out because it's messing up the conversation they say "So?" or "You see that's different ... "

Modernists/non-conservatives don't play by the rules. Their ace is relativism and their king is subjectivism. Their queen is feelings/emotions and "the heart." Their joker is saying "It's been documented/written, go look it up," as convenience. I do believe they think what they say is of sound body. No leaks, no holes, or least stronger to be deemed the winner with a nice gold shiny star. They (cleverly) use the tide of momentum to shut the opponent up. "Hey, we're winning. Deal with it," or appeal to the bizarre libertarianism card "They aren't hurting anyone, whats it to you?" or the libertine card "Not your life, not your body, so your opinion doesn't count," or the horrid mantra that counts as wisdom "As long you're happy, then do whatever you want."

Yes, there are many people who follow these cards, just take a look at tumblr, youtube and instagram.There are many who admire these types, just look at their defenders and the amount of "likes" and "reblogs" they receive. These people are considered role models. That prude and "nobody" down the street? What about that coward?

Youtube #DearMe

Self-esteem project. #GenerationPathetic

Now, before I watched it I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me predict the pearls of 'wisdom' that shall be said ... " This is what I came up with:

Be who you are.
Don't be ashamed of what you are (mostly geared towards LGBT).
Don't follow the crowd; be an individualist.
Be Crazy.
Be a Freak.
Follow your dreams.
Only you decide what is right and wrong.
Follow your heart.
Love is all you need.
Love is love.

Then I watched it. It's just a self-esteem/"YOU GO GIRL GO GET IT!" project. Not one single male.

Some were mentioned - others were decent enough advice. In the context that I'm thinking of the advice and what the youtubers put them in is completely different. 100% these are used in a modern context - to reject traditionalism and conservatism.

There was one comment that I did like, as I skimmed over the combox -

Let me clarify for all the feminist out there bitching that men are just whining because they are not the center of attention it is because we are not the center of attention it is because the internet is flooded full of these videos to help women and few to none to help men. If Google where to do something like this for mens day Google would be burned at the stake. 

 I don't think Google would be "burned at the stake" -- it's that Google would most likely would never attempt this for the men. If it were to do such a thing, there would be some sort of backlash, enough to make headlines that would more than click bait, and someone on the exec board would issue a formal apology.

Other comments that got the most votes -

Where is the guys
#Noequality  

 and "How about some older ladies with a little more perspective instead of a bunch 20 somethings who spent more time applying their make-up than they did on the video,"

and (transgender)

While I think this is a great project, I'm wondering why it has to be exclusive for women to do it? Just because it's women's day? 

I am a man, but I was born anatomically a woman. I went through the same struggles and still do because I don't pass well as a man. We should be working to inspire humans as a whole to be themselves.

 No, you're a women THINKING you're a man. If I were the person reviewing the submitted videos for #DearMe I'd automatically put you in the female videos. You got a a vagina and breasts, no matter small those breasts may be. You got tits that produce milk for babies. Men don't.

one more -

Why aren't all the men commenting in a negative way about how this is sexist make videos like this? What is stopping you from making serious content that shows that you don't have to be how society makes you feel? Just because women are giving other women advice (because believe it or not, we don't know what it's like to be a man and never will) doesn't mean anything against men, in this instance it's not about you because we can't speak on behalf of you. Stop commenting and get creating. 

Because society is just one uber patriarchy forcing women in boxes ... Sure ... Oh the horror! Oh the stifling atmosphere of non-creativity and squares! Bold:  Yes, I do see where you're going but many of these self-esteem projects are geared towards women or the "rebel with freaky hair" types. Also, be careful about the "We're different sexes so we can't give the other sex advice" -- that sort of blows up what the transgender said about "born anatomically a woman." I mean, is it based on biology now or based on #feelings? I'm confused. Italics: A very common tactic used. It, general, means: Stop voicing opinions/stop-discussion so to let the combox be devoid of anything critical.





Men who don't support "equal rights" for women ...

I promise, I'm not watching the Oscars, just spending some time on IMDb in its Movie Awards section. People there are giving updates on the wins. 

Patricia Arquette's Oscar speech for Best Supporting Actress is where she called for "equal rights" for women, in pay and in, well, everything I presume.

“To my heroes, volunteers and experts who have helped me bring ecological sanitation to the developing world with Givelove.org. To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

Now, I do like the idea of givelove.org -- it's a sanitation and compost project for clean water. The issue I have: Right at the southeast border of Wyoming there's a "green" rest area. Instead of concrete paths, it's rubber paths. Instead of flushing toilets, there are composting toilets. Oh, and I remember the stench coming from the dark abyss; the toilet seat was too wide for my butt so I had to dump my fecal matter mid squat. If I somehow I slipped, lost my balance, I would've either fallen into the abyss or gotten stuck with my legs sticking upwards and my upper body squashed against my knees. There was also no paper towels to wipe ones hands. 

According to one IMDb poster (not the OP of the thread) -

What's next, "men are afraid of 'strong,' 'independent,' and 'confident' women"?

Gotta leave it to movie fans to be low-info, sheep-like pathetic fools.

Gotta leave it to movie industry people to use the Oscar platform to always blurt out some modern day social issue like they're courageous and insightful. And as the crowd yelps and claps in agreement ...

On another thread on the speech -

According to "midwestmoviemaven" empathy is a qualification to make movies about the non-millionaires of the world. Did I say IMDb tends to attract people who tend to say very stupid things? No? IMDb tends to  attract people who tend to say very stupid things.

Then there's "RealDuality." This poster  just knows that source that debunk the unequal pay between men & women came from Fox News, either directly or indirectly. He's that good. This one's my favorite -

So it's Fox New's fault no matter what ... Then it's all the mainstream media trolls' fault ... "Well the world is just against women and their unequal pay!" It's just a fact. RealDuality just knows that women are unequally paid. Even if left-leaning news networks like ABC and CNN say that it's a myth, it's still a fact according to him, so "phooey" to them.  I would guess that the poster is reading some study that wasn't mentioned.

EDIT:  It turns out the winners for Best Song, rapper Common and singer/songwriter John Legend, for Selma took some political shots as well when they were given the mic. Talked about race.

Whoa. Whoa. UVA sexual assualt case: Apparently truth doesn't win out.

Like I said in a previous post, IMDb is the gift that keeps on giving. Check below for the discussion about the UVA sexual assault case.

Holy shit.

A poster named Gracie

wrote this on AT (American Thinker) of an article trying to refute the popular notion that marriage is an unpopular option -

"I would be lonely than miserable" Too many married women, after working 8 hours, must come home to cook, help children, do laundry while their husbands "are resting" after 8 hrs work. It's just too much, so many women would rather have the peace and quiet and be single again. Single men/women have "friends with benefits" that solve other problems. Whether married or single, a women must look hard and chose whatever will be easier for her in the future.....

Now I'll say this: Not everyone is meant for marriage - some people are called to the religious life (celibacy) and some people just don't do well in relationships so they're single forever. Some never find a person of their opposite sex worthy of a proposal; some women never are proposed to. I've even met some who said their profession, mainly single teachers (male), was their calling and the students were, in some way, their "children." Their quality of teaching is their legacy which, hopefully, resides and influences some of their students.

Onto Gracie. She later comments on another poster's "my wife keeps the house clean while I work outside" asking "Is your wife a stay-at-home-wife or does she work?" Based on the above quote I figure she has issues with women working and doing house chores. I also take that she sees  marriage and everything that comes with it as more of a burden - almost like "Whoa is me for having breasts and a vagina with fallopian tubes that aren't tied (yet) - than "it is what it is."

Though just a couple of comments, I think these types of quick "insights" of a modern woman is telling. I know I'm being judgmental, but this mentality is just a turn-off and comes across as sad, confused, pathetic, lost and plain narcissistic.

I don't care how, I want it now!

Due to a federal court in Texas siding with an abortion law asking to close down the existing abortion clinics within the state, I shall leave you with this:

No apology. Probably no shame as well.

Channeling Veroua Salt, I see. In the name of "rights", of course. I notice that most are tattooed. I 'hate' to be judgmental but I'm not surprised. And they' aren't attractive. at. all.

The "on demand" part always reminds of the "On Demand!" cable slogan. The "get all the latest & hottest movies" deal.

 
Oompa Loompas:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me
Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame:
The mother and the father!
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do

I also want to note that the Oompa Loompa's work in a factory, doing work that can be described as a routine and monotonous. What they do wouldn't be deemed to be exciting or creative (well, kinda). I wouldn't label it a field (candy making) that lends itself to self-expression. They aren't "their own boss." They make things (candy) that people consume and enjoy as shown in the film. It's practically a craft (in the traditional sense). I assume that what they wear in the video are their "work clothes" - so a uniform of sorts. Each has their own set of responsibilities, with Wonka calling the shots, and probably rarely go outside the factory, if ever. I don't know what they're paid for their labor.

They aren't worldly, but they're unique simply by being their own "race" (if we take the world of Wonka as it is). Their green hair and orange skin aren't fake - it's actually their real/natural color, driven by genetics & nature.

According to Willy Wonka, he rescued them from great danger in their homeland and asked them to work for him, where they'd be safe. The Oompa Loompa's also seem very content with their situation in life. Does this remind you of something very Americana?  

Motherhood & Modernsim.

Enter IMDb. Enter IMDb's forum. Enter some fucked up shit.

continued -

There's a mother who backs her -

continued -

And then there's always that guy -

TL;DR?

Run down:

(1) Independence (Me, Myself, and I are #1; choice - as always)
(2) Indignant that there's a "spinster" and "selfish" taboo attached to being childless.
(3) Lack of global (not personal) resources & carbon footprint.

No mention of "If I fall in love, have sex, maybe get married and it happens then it happens." (Cause, you know, maybe having a child is the natural outcome when both parties are fertile and when ABC isn't used.)

Interesting that poster ShoddyCursive talks about suppressing the biological urge to have kinds. I can expand on that much more, but for now I'll leave that to an "update."

Here are my experiences with childless women: The three I know of, two of which never married (I think they were never offered the chance) but were good with kids  - both served as godmothers to my sibling and I. They are practicing Catholics. The third is my aunt. She was married in her early 40s so I guess her biological clock ran out. I bet that if I asked each of them why they didn't have kids, and showed them the answers above, they'd be mortified and maybe quite upset.

And in case if you're wondering, I am not Yorick mentioned. Yorick is a poster that tends to espouse more conservative views when compared to the rest of the posters, not always though, but enough for him to stick out like a sore thumb when it comes to topics like this (as you can tell he's the butt of the joke).