info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are Men Really Supposed To Accept Misandry And Anti-Male Bigotry? I Strongly Suggest That They Don’t…
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Ejercito
Apr 7, 2019, 12:16:01 PM4/7/19
to
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/04/07/are-men-really-supposed-to-accept-misandry-and-anti-male-bigotry-i-strongly-suggest-that-they-dont/
Are Men Really Supposed To Accept Misandry And Anti-Male Bigotry? I Strongly
Suggest That They Don’t…
APRIL 7, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
…unless they want to allow women to make them second-class citizens as
pay-back for all those years of male domination.
Just as anti-white racism is considered justifiable and benign by a large
lump of progressives, misandry and flagrant anti-male rhetoric has been
similarly given a stamp of approval by much of the Left and the mainstream
news media. I’ve been pointing out this unethical double standard and
hypocrisy for a long time, notably in 2011, when ABC News hosted an
all-female roundtable to discuss how inferior men were as managers and
leaders, and how much better women are.*
It has only become worse and more blatant since then. The Washington Post
published this op-ed by Suzanna Danuta Walters, Professor of Sociology and
director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at
Northeastern University.. A sample:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all
the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this:
Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge
to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of
anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your
crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to
hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time
to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Meanwhile, the New York Times didn’t feel that misandry AND racism should
disqualify their choice for a place among their editors, Sarah, from whom a
typical tweet is “white men are bullshit.” Now one of the three, generally
awful in various ways, women who are certain to be the Democratic
Presidential nominee in 2020, Kristin Gillibrand, tweeted out last year,
“Our future is: Female. Intersectional. Powered by our belief in one
another. And we’re just getting started.”
Imagine any other group in place of “Female,” and what would be the fate of
the author. Yet it is just a few ticks from the primary message of the last
women to run for President, who repeatedly argued that her gender alone
should be enough to make voting for her the right thing to do.
The latest installment of the increasingly open anti-male bigotry from
progressives, Democrats and the news media arrived last week in a
jaw-dropping piece of misandry from Tina Brown, the British tabloid mistress
who is only regarded as less odious than Rupert Murdock because of her lack
of male genitalia, and the fact that she’s a feminist, of course. I know I
do a lot of fisking on Ethics Alarms, but sometimes, as with Brown’s
steaming plop of rhetorical offal, merely pointing out is general that it
stinks lets the sample off too easy. This thing, called “What Happens When
Women Stop Leading Like Men,” demands vivisection. Read the whole
ridiculous, insulting thing if you must, but here is what you are in for.
It begins with sufficient signature significance to make anyone expecting a
fair or rational essay to give up on the spot:
“It has been another bad inning for male leadership. Besides the hourly
flatulence of Trumpian twitterings and the addition of Brazil’s Bolsonaro to
the confederacy of bullyboy power, we have been treated to a second wave of
masculine mayhem. The reputations of the Patriots owner Robert Kraft, R.
Kelly, the philanthropist Michael Steinhardt and even the sainted co-founder
of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees, are the latest to circle
the drain.”
This kind of dishonest cherry-picking is res ipsa loquitur for a bigot.
Imagine listing recent black miscreants in the news and writing, “It has
been another bad inning for American blacks.” In fact, this same “inning”
hasn’t been so great for women, either.
Theresa May is flopping left and right as she tries to manage Brexit.
Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, responded to a single
terrorist attack by constraining the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders
and censoring information. The biggest corporate scam artist in the U.S. is
a woman, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, as a brand new HBO documentary
reveals. The most infamous athletic coach of the moment is also a woman,
Sylvia Hatchell, the University of North Carolina’s Hall of Fame women’s
basketball coach. One of most revered figures in the sport, Haskell is under
investigation after suggesting that her mostly black players would get
“hanged from trees with nooses” at an upcoming game if their performance
didn’t improve, and forcing players to play despite serious injuries.
Another female basketball coach, Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame—coaches are
leaders, right?—has announced that she refuses to hire men for her staff.
That’s still gender discrimination, at least unti the Clinton-Brown
Gillibrand law gets an OK from an all-female Supreme Court.
Just this week a female social justice warrior, doubtlessly inspired by
female House member Maxine Waters’ exhortation that Trump supporters should
be accosted and harassed in public, abused a Starbuck’s customer—male, of
course—for wearing a red hat with a patriotic message. Meanwhile, two of the
young, exciting women elected to the House are working hard to Make
Anti-Semitism Great Again, while the old, annoying female House Speaker lets
them get away with it.
And then there was that famed female editor who wrote an op-ed extolling
anti-male bigotry while throwing ad hominem insults at the President. No, it
has been a rough “inning” for women too.
But Tina is too busy obfuscating and spinning to mention that. In her next
paragraph she extols Ardern for taking action that would be
unconstitutional here. Would I be sexist if I explained Brown’s affection
for gun-grabbing as the widespread female malady of finding guns “icky”?
Probably.
Then we get the recitation of cases where women being put into leadership
positions is automatically a wonderful thing. No, Tina, it’s a wonderful
thing if they are any good at it. To Tina, though, HIllary’s Delusion
rules. The fact that a woman is a women is not only sufficient for her to be
believed when she accuses a man of anything, it is enough to make her
trustworthy:
“Countries from Georgia to Ethiopia have recently elected their first female
presidents. Women now lead industries where once the thin air was inhaled
only by men. For the first time, women have the top jobs at the New York
Stock Exchange and at Nasdaq. With the ascension of Kathy Warden to C.E.O.
of Northrop Grumman in January, four out of five of America’s biggest
defense companies are run by women. Chicago is about to get its first black
female mayor…”
Yes, about those female mayors, Tina. It was just a year ago that Female So
She Must Be Good Nashville mayor Megan Barry resigned in the throes of a
sex scandal that she never honestly acknowledged. Or was that a different
“inning”? Then…
Democratic leading light Stacey Abrams just drew a line in the sand when she
squelched the idea of running for vice president with the crisp rejoinder,
“You don’t run for second place.”
You mean the same Stacy Abrams who has emulated Hillary Clinton by refusing
to acknowledge her defeat in an election, and who is trying to exacerbate
racial division and public distrust of our institutions by claiming, without
evidence, that the Georgia gubernatorial election was rigged? You know, when
I was a kid, guys claimed that women shouldn’t play sports because the girls
were poor sports and cried when they lost. My personal experience taught me
that the stereotype was baloney, but now Tina tells me that women who
exemplify and reinforce that stereotype are good leaders.
Well, I’m just a stupid man; I can’t be expected to understand.
Among the 42 new women sworn into Congress, young rock stars like Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez electrify all of us with their passion and verve…
Passion, verve, ignorance, arrogance, incompetence…
I guess if the idea is to call all female leaders excellent regardless of
what they say and do, then Brown is right, all female leaders are excellent!
“I don’t contend that women are naturally and invariably better at running
governments than men.”
This is exactly what this essay does, and she does it just a couple of
sentences later with this howler:
“[W]e can at least argue that women are afflicted by what Hillary Clinton,
who has spent a lifetime with someone who lacks it, once called “the
responsibility gene.” I can bet a bucket of Bitcoins that we’ll never learn
that any of the four married women plausibly seeking the Democratic
presidential nomination are secretly sexting pictures of parts of their
anatomy to a boyfriend.
Has your head exploded yet? Hillary Clinton has “the responsibility” gene?
Funny, she refused to take responsibility for illegally using a home-server
to send and receive classified e-mails. She refuses to take responsibility
for losing the 2016 election, as if there was some other inept, distant,
coughing, lying, spinning hypocrite running wearing a Hillary mask, and
making embarrassing ads asking plaintively, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?”
When she was being questioned about the slaughter at the Libyan outpost, she
simultaneously said that she accepted responsibility and blamed the fiasco
on her staff.
That’s some gene.
“But there is a deep lesson here. During thousands of years of civilization,
women have evolved to deal with the intractable perplexities of life and
find means of peaceful coexistence where men have traditionally found roads
to conflict. Women have accumulated rich ways of knowing that until recently
were dismissed in male circles of power. The alchemy of what has made women
the way they are is mysterious: Is it a result of centuries spent trying to
survive and prosper in societies where they’ve been viewed as lesser? Or,
until recently, of always being appointed the family caregiver, bearing and
raising children, tending to elderly parents and disabled siblings, so often
left to shoulder the unpaid burdens of real life? Women have learned and
taught lessons about how to cope with seeming impossibilities in ways that
men traditionally — and to this day — have not. Coaching a slow learner on
homework after a day of hassles at the office provides a deep experience of
delayed gratification. A woman’s wisdom comes, in part, from the great
juggle of her life.”
In other words, Brown is arguing that women ARE superior, and using junk
science and generalities to do it.
“Who will forget the image of the stoically seated CBS anchor Gayle King
intoning in a soothing tone “Robert, Robert” to a flailing, weeping, lying
R. Kelly?”
I won’t. I will remember it as an example of a confrontation-averse woman
who was too intimidated to do her job, which involved telling an
out-of-control guest to sit down, calm down, or leave.
Tina concludes,
Salvation doesn’t lie in pursuing traditional male paths of ejaculatory
self-elevation. In drawing on women’s wisdom without apology and pushing
that wisdom forward into positions of power, we can soothe our world and,
maybe, even save it.
Nice bigoted rhetoric there, Tina: “ejaculatory self-elevation.” Your essay
rebuts your point: successful women abuse power pretty much the same way men
do, and have. There’s no evidence that they are any better at leadership and
management than men, just evidence, like this Times piece, that they have
convinced themselves that the remedy for past discrimination is for women to
be bigots themselves.
If men let them get a way with it, they really are inferior.
__________
*”The sweeping generalities, stereotyping, and flat pronouncements of male
inferiority were unrestrained. “Women run for office to do something and men
run for office to be somebody,” said Amanpour at one point, summarizing an
exchange. “There’s something about a group of men and testosterone, you
know, making risky decisions ,” said Claire Shipman, an ABC correspondent
kindly given the chance to peddle her nauseatingly-titled new book,
“Womenomics.” Shipman spouted various unidentified studies purportedly
showing that women in power achieved uniformly better results than those
bumbling male counterparts: better hedge fund profits, better corporate
performance, pretty much better everything. “Very often, men will compete
for the sake of competition. It almost doesn’t even matter what happens,”
Clarke declared, to no objections or qualifications from the assembled
experts of the Superior Sex. “Men aren’t attracted to powerful women,” added
Amanpour.
“The male-bashing and female-worship went on for fifteen minutes, with no
hint of restraint or irony. The political right’s favorite tactic to show
news media bias is to rhetorically ask how differently the media would
handle a scandal or other news story if the political affiliations of the
parties were reversed. That tactic is often abused; frequently the answer
is, “they would report it exactly the same way.” Not here. An all-male panel
smugly talking about how “Estrogen really is a problem” and how decisions
made in the throes of PMS are inherently untrustworthy would guarantee a
feminist march on ABC headquarters, blogger and op-ed fury, NOW declarations
of war and the rolling of network heads.”
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Are Men Really Supposed To Accept Misandry And Anti-Male Bigotry? I Strongly
Suggest That They Don’t…
APRIL 7, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
…unless they want to allow women to make them second-class citizens as
pay-back for all those years of male domination.
Just as anti-white racism is considered justifiable and benign by a large
lump of progressives, misandry and flagrant anti-male rhetoric has been
similarly given a stamp of approval by much of the Left and the mainstream
news media. I’ve been pointing out this unethical double standard and
hypocrisy for a long time, notably in 2011, when ABC News hosted an
all-female roundtable to discuss how inferior men were as managers and
leaders, and how much better women are.*
It has only become worse and more blatant since then. The Washington Post
published this op-ed by Suzanna Danuta Walters, Professor of Sociology and
director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at
Northeastern University.. A sample:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all
the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this:
Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge
to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of
anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your
crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to
hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time
to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Meanwhile, the New York Times didn’t feel that misandry AND racism should
disqualify their choice for a place among their editors, Sarah, from whom a
typical tweet is “white men are bullshit.” Now one of the three, generally
awful in various ways, women who are certain to be the Democratic
Presidential nominee in 2020, Kristin Gillibrand, tweeted out last year,
“Our future is: Female. Intersectional. Powered by our belief in one
another. And we’re just getting started.”
Imagine any other group in place of “Female,” and what would be the fate of
the author. Yet it is just a few ticks from the primary message of the last
women to run for President, who repeatedly argued that her gender alone
should be enough to make voting for her the right thing to do.
The latest installment of the increasingly open anti-male bigotry from
progressives, Democrats and the news media arrived last week in a
jaw-dropping piece of misandry from Tina Brown, the British tabloid mistress
who is only regarded as less odious than Rupert Murdock because of her lack
of male genitalia, and the fact that she’s a feminist, of course. I know I
do a lot of fisking on Ethics Alarms, but sometimes, as with Brown’s
steaming plop of rhetorical offal, merely pointing out is general that it
stinks lets the sample off too easy. This thing, called “What Happens When
Women Stop Leading Like Men,” demands vivisection. Read the whole
ridiculous, insulting thing if you must, but here is what you are in for.
It begins with sufficient signature significance to make anyone expecting a
fair or rational essay to give up on the spot:
“It has been another bad inning for male leadership. Besides the hourly
flatulence of Trumpian twitterings and the addition of Brazil’s Bolsonaro to
the confederacy of bullyboy power, we have been treated to a second wave of
masculine mayhem. The reputations of the Patriots owner Robert Kraft, R.
Kelly, the philanthropist Michael Steinhardt and even the sainted co-founder
of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees, are the latest to circle
the drain.”
This kind of dishonest cherry-picking is res ipsa loquitur for a bigot.
Imagine listing recent black miscreants in the news and writing, “It has
been another bad inning for American blacks.” In fact, this same “inning”
hasn’t been so great for women, either.
Theresa May is flopping left and right as she tries to manage Brexit.
Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, responded to a single
terrorist attack by constraining the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders
and censoring information. The biggest corporate scam artist in the U.S. is
a woman, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, as a brand new HBO documentary
reveals. The most infamous athletic coach of the moment is also a woman,
Sylvia Hatchell, the University of North Carolina’s Hall of Fame women’s
basketball coach. One of most revered figures in the sport, Haskell is under
investigation after suggesting that her mostly black players would get
“hanged from trees with nooses” at an upcoming game if their performance
didn’t improve, and forcing players to play despite serious injuries.
Another female basketball coach, Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame—coaches are
leaders, right?—has announced that she refuses to hire men for her staff.
That’s still gender discrimination, at least unti the Clinton-Brown
Gillibrand law gets an OK from an all-female Supreme Court.
Just this week a female social justice warrior, doubtlessly inspired by
female House member Maxine Waters’ exhortation that Trump supporters should
be accosted and harassed in public, abused a Starbuck’s customer—male, of
course—for wearing a red hat with a patriotic message. Meanwhile, two of the
young, exciting women elected to the House are working hard to Make
Anti-Semitism Great Again, while the old, annoying female House Speaker lets
them get away with it.
And then there was that famed female editor who wrote an op-ed extolling
anti-male bigotry while throwing ad hominem insults at the President. No, it
has been a rough “inning” for women too.
But Tina is too busy obfuscating and spinning to mention that. In her next
paragraph she extols Ardern for taking action that would be
unconstitutional here. Would I be sexist if I explained Brown’s affection
for gun-grabbing as the widespread female malady of finding guns “icky”?
Probably.
Then we get the recitation of cases where women being put into leadership
positions is automatically a wonderful thing. No, Tina, it’s a wonderful
thing if they are any good at it. To Tina, though, HIllary’s Delusion
rules. The fact that a woman is a women is not only sufficient for her to be
believed when she accuses a man of anything, it is enough to make her
trustworthy:
“Countries from Georgia to Ethiopia have recently elected their first female
presidents. Women now lead industries where once the thin air was inhaled
only by men. For the first time, women have the top jobs at the New York
Stock Exchange and at Nasdaq. With the ascension of Kathy Warden to C.E.O.
of Northrop Grumman in January, four out of five of America’s biggest
defense companies are run by women. Chicago is about to get its first black
female mayor…”
Yes, about those female mayors, Tina. It was just a year ago that Female So
She Must Be Good Nashville mayor Megan Barry resigned in the throes of a
sex scandal that she never honestly acknowledged. Or was that a different
“inning”? Then…
Democratic leading light Stacey Abrams just drew a line in the sand when she
squelched the idea of running for vice president with the crisp rejoinder,
“You don’t run for second place.”
You mean the same Stacy Abrams who has emulated Hillary Clinton by refusing
to acknowledge her defeat in an election, and who is trying to exacerbate
racial division and public distrust of our institutions by claiming, without
evidence, that the Georgia gubernatorial election was rigged? You know, when
I was a kid, guys claimed that women shouldn’t play sports because the girls
were poor sports and cried when they lost. My personal experience taught me
that the stereotype was baloney, but now Tina tells me that women who
exemplify and reinforce that stereotype are good leaders.
Well, I’m just a stupid man; I can’t be expected to understand.
Among the 42 new women sworn into Congress, young rock stars like Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez electrify all of us with their passion and verve…
Passion, verve, ignorance, arrogance, incompetence…
I guess if the idea is to call all female leaders excellent regardless of
what they say and do, then Brown is right, all female leaders are excellent!
“I don’t contend that women are naturally and invariably better at running
governments than men.”
This is exactly what this essay does, and she does it just a couple of
sentences later with this howler:
“[W]e can at least argue that women are afflicted by what Hillary Clinton,
who has spent a lifetime with someone who lacks it, once called “the
responsibility gene.” I can bet a bucket of Bitcoins that we’ll never learn
that any of the four married women plausibly seeking the Democratic
presidential nomination are secretly sexting pictures of parts of their
anatomy to a boyfriend.
Has your head exploded yet? Hillary Clinton has “the responsibility” gene?
Funny, she refused to take responsibility for illegally using a home-server
to send and receive classified e-mails. She refuses to take responsibility
for losing the 2016 election, as if there was some other inept, distant,
coughing, lying, spinning hypocrite running wearing a Hillary mask, and
making embarrassing ads asking plaintively, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?”
When she was being questioned about the slaughter at the Libyan outpost, she
simultaneously said that she accepted responsibility and blamed the fiasco
on her staff.
That’s some gene.
“But there is a deep lesson here. During thousands of years of civilization,
women have evolved to deal with the intractable perplexities of life and
find means of peaceful coexistence where men have traditionally found roads
to conflict. Women have accumulated rich ways of knowing that until recently
were dismissed in male circles of power. The alchemy of what has made women
the way they are is mysterious: Is it a result of centuries spent trying to
survive and prosper in societies where they’ve been viewed as lesser? Or,
until recently, of always being appointed the family caregiver, bearing and
raising children, tending to elderly parents and disabled siblings, so often
left to shoulder the unpaid burdens of real life? Women have learned and
taught lessons about how to cope with seeming impossibilities in ways that
men traditionally — and to this day — have not. Coaching a slow learner on
homework after a day of hassles at the office provides a deep experience of
delayed gratification. A woman’s wisdom comes, in part, from the great
juggle of her life.”
In other words, Brown is arguing that women ARE superior, and using junk
science and generalities to do it.
“Who will forget the image of the stoically seated CBS anchor Gayle King
intoning in a soothing tone “Robert, Robert” to a flailing, weeping, lying
R. Kelly?”
I won’t. I will remember it as an example of a confrontation-averse woman
who was too intimidated to do her job, which involved telling an
out-of-control guest to sit down, calm down, or leave.
Tina concludes,
Salvation doesn’t lie in pursuing traditional male paths of ejaculatory
self-elevation. In drawing on women’s wisdom without apology and pushing
that wisdom forward into positions of power, we can soothe our world and,
maybe, even save it.
Nice bigoted rhetoric there, Tina: “ejaculatory self-elevation.” Your essay
rebuts your point: successful women abuse power pretty much the same way men
do, and have. There’s no evidence that they are any better at leadership and
management than men, just evidence, like this Times piece, that they have
convinced themselves that the remedy for past discrimination is for women to
be bigots themselves.
If men let them get a way with it, they really are inferior.
__________
*”The sweeping generalities, stereotyping, and flat pronouncements of male
inferiority were unrestrained. “Women run for office to do something and men
run for office to be somebody,” said Amanpour at one point, summarizing an
exchange. “There’s something about a group of men and testosterone, you
know, making risky decisions ,” said Claire Shipman, an ABC correspondent
kindly given the chance to peddle her nauseatingly-titled new book,
“Womenomics.” Shipman spouted various unidentified studies purportedly
showing that women in power achieved uniformly better results than those
bumbling male counterparts: better hedge fund profits, better corporate
performance, pretty much better everything. “Very often, men will compete
for the sake of competition. It almost doesn’t even matter what happens,”
Clarke declared, to no objections or qualifications from the assembled
experts of the Superior Sex. “Men aren’t attracted to powerful women,” added
Amanpour.
“The male-bashing and female-worship went on for fifteen minutes, with no
hint of restraint or irony. The political right’s favorite tactic to show
news media bias is to rhetorically ask how differently the media would
handle a scandal or other news story if the political affiliations of the
parties were reversed. That tactic is often abused; frequently the answer
is, “they would report it exactly the same way.” Not here. An all-male panel
smugly talking about how “Estrogen really is a problem” and how decisions
made in the throes of PMS are inherently untrustworthy would guarantee a
feminist march on ABC headquarters, blogger and op-ed fury, NOW declarations
of war and the rolling of network heads.”
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
PhantomView
Apr 8, 2019, 9:34:45 PM4/8/19
to
Jews traditionally did not complain much about anti-semitism.
See where that got about six million of them, within living memory.
"Blacks" and women DID complain about '-isms' directed against
them.
Now they are the favored ones.
So no, you are quite correct, do NOT accept misandry and sexist
stereotyping. Complain loudly, sue often. Those who let themselves
be beaten up will be beaten up more, and more often. It seems to
be human nature to persecute "weaklings", those who cannot or
will not fight back.
(well, not just human nature ... note where the term
"pecking order" came from)
See where that got about six million of them, within living memory.
"Blacks" and women DID complain about '-isms' directed against
them.
Now they are the favored ones.
So no, you are quite correct, do NOT accept misandry and sexist
stereotyping. Complain loudly, sue often. Those who let themselves
be beaten up will be beaten up more, and more often. It seems to
be human nature to persecute "weaklings", those who cannot or
will not fight back.
(well, not just human nature ... note where the term
"pecking order" came from)
PhantomView
Apr 8, 2019, 10:16:27 PM4/8/19
to
Michael Ejercito
Apr 9, 2019, 12:03:55 PM4/9/19
to
"PhantomView" wrote in message
news:Y4adndKSwY_onTHB...@earthlink.com...
http://old.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/ag1ug7/why_are_progressives_so_deterministic_when_it/
It just blows my mind. They understand that for poverty, simply being born
poor is a strict disadvantage. They understand it's not always a clear cut
discrimination, but a long series of subtle things that happen all
throughout life.
They understand that some poor people making it out does not negate the
experiences of the others, and does not mean we should expect all poor to
make it out.
They understand that a person born rich can essentially make constant
terrible life decisions and still come out ok, whereas a poor person has to
play the game perfectly just to fare moderately well.
Yet suddenly, when it comes to looks, despite lookism being well documented
and observed, their so called progressivism goes flying out the window and
they become Ben Shapiro.
Can you IMAGINE if the shit they said about looks was transferred over to
wealth?
"Poor people need to stop making excuses and realise the problem is their
fault"
"Being born poor isn't even that big a deal. My friend was born poor and now
he's rich"
"Employers can sense your negative attitude, that's why they won't hire you"
"You aren't entitled to money. Companies are not objects where you put job
applications in and money falls out"
"I'm a 36 and I've been homeless all my life, but I don't let it get me down
:)."
"Poor people are a danger to society. How much crime is commited by poor
people? They need to be put on a government watch list"
"If they hate capitalism so much why do they even want a job?"
"Having money won't make you happy. If you think being trapped in poverty is
the cause of your problems then you're wrong"
"Stop focusing so much on poverty. If you go around talking about things
like gini coefficients people will think you're weird. And you wonder why
you can't get money."
It's simply astounding the hypocrisy.
walt.h...@att.net
Apr 9, 2019, 1:31:10 PM4/9/19
to
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 12:16:01 PM UTC-4, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>
> Are Men Really Supposed To Accept Misandry And Anti-Male Bigotry?
>
>
>
>
>
That should be an easy one for you Gookboy. Just continue
>
>
> Are Men Really Supposed To Accept Misandry And Anti-Male Bigotry?
>
>
>
>
>
jacking to your online porn collection. However, no need
to post anymore of it here on this newsgroup. Except for
Jews, on one is interested in your sex habits.
Michael Ejercito
Apr 9, 2019, 2:11:30 PM4/9/19
to
Michael
walt.h...@att.net
Apr 9, 2019, 2:21:16 PM4/9/19
to
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>
> So I post an article about misandry, and you reply with a comment about online porn.
>
>
>
THEN QUIT POSTING IT HERE, you birdbrained Mongoloid simpleton!
>
>
> So I post an article about misandry, and you reply with a comment about online porn.
>
>
>
PhantomView
Apr 13, 2019, 9:38:57 PM4/13/19
to
Being born poor *is* a serious disadvantage. Some, through
luck or energy, manage to climb the ladder but many do not.
The problem may be worse today than it was 100 years ago,
even 50 years ago, because of declining opportunities. As
everything becomes more regulated, more scrutinized ; as
our need for "base-level unskilled labor" diminishes (soon
to largely evaporate as the robots move in), it becomes
increasingly difficult to work your way out of poverty.
Our "land of opportunity" has difficulty living up to that
title now. We have become more like europe, stratified,
and whatever class you were born into you will remain for
all of your life.
Unfortunately the left thinks it can just fix the issue
with money. Steal from the rich, give to the poor. The
problem is that this alters many parameters of the economic
equation and the poor really will not gain. It also means
the rich are less eager to spend, to innovate, to hire, so
even more paths to opportunity vanish.
Trump has a more realistic idea here, the "rising boats"
perspective. You improve things for the poor by revving-
up the overall economy. More money around, more kinds
of opportunities. The living standard for the poor gets
better. They may still be relatively poor, but it is not
nearly as bad as it once was.
But how did we get here from misandry ?
luck or energy, manage to climb the ladder but many do not.
The problem may be worse today than it was 100 years ago,
even 50 years ago, because of declining opportunities. As
everything becomes more regulated, more scrutinized ; as
our need for "base-level unskilled labor" diminishes (soon
to largely evaporate as the robots move in), it becomes
increasingly difficult to work your way out of poverty.
Our "land of opportunity" has difficulty living up to that
title now. We have become more like europe, stratified,
and whatever class you were born into you will remain for
all of your life.
Unfortunately the left thinks it can just fix the issue
with money. Steal from the rich, give to the poor. The
problem is that this alters many parameters of the economic
equation and the poor really will not gain. It also means
the rich are less eager to spend, to innovate, to hire, so
even more paths to opportunity vanish.
Trump has a more realistic idea here, the "rising boats"
perspective. You improve things for the poor by revving-
up the overall economy. More money around, more kinds
of opportunities. The living standard for the poor gets
better. They may still be relatively poor, but it is not
nearly as bad as it once was.
But how did we get here from misandry ?
walt.h...@att.net
Apr 14, 2019, 2:14:26 AM4/14/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 9:38:57 PM UTC-4, PhantomView wrote:
>
> But how did we get here from misandry ?
You must be new to this forum. The Gook is a Mongoloid simpleton
>
> But how did we get here from misandry ?
inhabiting the Long Beach area of California and dreams of miscegenating
with Caucasian women. Hence, Rejecto's posting of online porn featuring
Caucasian models/actresses/whatever....
Michael Ejercito
Apr 14, 2019, 11:48:43 AM4/14/19
to
wrote in message
news:a4128bcf-4cf3-4bc8...@googlegroups.com...
Michael
walt.h...@att.net
Apr 14, 2019, 3:50:28 PM4/14/19
to
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 11:48:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:a4128bcf-4cf3-4bc8...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 9:38:57 PM UTC-4, PhantomView wrote:
> >>
> >> But how did we get here from misandry ?
>
>
> >You must be new to this forum. The Gook is a Mongoloid simpleton
> >inhabiting the Long Beach area of California and dreams of miscegenating
> >with Caucasian women. Hence, Rejecto's posting of online porn featuring
> >Caucasian models/actresses/whatever....
>
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to impregnate Caucasian women.
>
>
>
Only in your dreams, you bird-brained Mongoloid simpleton. The only
> wrote in message
> news:a4128bcf-4cf3-4bc8...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 9:38:57 PM UTC-4, PhantomView wrote:
> >>
> >> But how did we get here from misandry ?
>
>
> >You must be new to this forum. The Gook is a Mongoloid simpleton
> >inhabiting the Long Beach area of California and dreams of miscegenating
> >with Caucasian women. Hence, Rejecto's posting of online porn featuring
> >Caucasian models/actresses/whatever....
>
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to impregnate Caucasian women.
>
>
>
thing you can do in that regard is post miscegenation porn onto this
newsgroup, and then 'wang' to it. Stupid slanty-eyed bastard.
0 new messages