The World Cup is Over,But Hypocrisy is Forever

The World Cup has finally ended. A worldwide event that has not only brought the world together to enjoy the pinnacle of human athletic ability, but has brought feminists together in their utter hypocrisy over how they apply the ideas of objectification. Between ranking male players by the bulge in their pants, their “Bootyful Butts”, their thighs, and playing games where you get to guess the six-pack the feminists of the internet are drowning in the overflow of their own lady juices. Which is a good thing, right? After all maybe now they’ll finally learn from this and stop trying to demonize any kind of male sexual interest in women now that it’s very obvious that they objectify and ogle men just as much as we do women?
Fuck no? What are you an idiot? Being a feminist in this world means never having to get off the high pony. So while /r/worldcupgirls is a deeply sexist and mysoginistic subreddit that degrades women and is part of the patriarchy and blah, blah, fucking blah, Amanda Hess has written an article explaining why it’s totally not the same thing with women doing it.
So we went to the trouble of doing a video response, and believe me it was painful. Very, very painful.

twittergoogle_plusyoutube

Feminism-or-How to Learn to Hate Women in Three Easy Steps

Mothers, have you ever sat back and wondered,”How do I raise my son to not be a rapist?”
Probably not, because you’re a decent human being who cares for your children and you’re smart enough to just assume that if you raise them lovingly and teach them good values mixed with some self-respect you won’t have to worry about that.
For all the rest of you (who shall henceforth be flippantly designated as “Mother of the Year candidates”), Miss GlossWitch has written an article to help you out. The answer, of course, is feminism.
So feminism will teach men to not hate women and be rapists? Even though it’s feminism that implicates………..huh?
Trust me. This gets better.
“In recent years specific guidance on raising boys has sprung up as an awkward counterpart to feminist activism. Positioned as a response to “masculinity in crisis” it seeks not to be anti-feminist, but to even up the balance sheet. Feminism for the girls, confidence-boosting for the boys. Who could argue with that?”
How about just confidence-boosting for girls as well? Feminism really does nothing but tell girls how weak and useless they are. It seems to me that if you gave confidence-boosting to the girls then feminism would no longer be…..oh, nevermind.
“As a feminist, I’ve never felt comfortable with this. It always feels like a thinly-veiled apology to the men of tomorrow for the fact that things won’t be as good as in the old days, back when women knew their place.”
Yeah, back in the good old days. When a man worked ten hour days doing heavy labour or spending long hours wage-slaving to support a woman who stayed at home all day with the kids. Getting bent backs and health problems that sent them cart-wheeling into early graves. Guys are just lining up by the millions to go back to that.
Look I can understand how women might not have been happy with the arrangements they had, but can we at least come to an agreement that it wasn’t exactly a picnic for those humans who happened to have a penis either? It’s almost as though nearly everybody has to deal with having a shitty lot in life. Though strangely for some reason only women get to bitch about it.
So here’s where we start hitting gold.
“As the mother of boys I know I’m expected to supress my resentment and get on board with the next pro-masculinity project, hoping that it will make my children into strong, confident men (or at least ones who don’t resent me for being too much of a harpy). I’m expected to wring my hands about their self-esteem and to panic about girls “stealing” all the A*s and university places.”
Yeah imagine that. As a mother people naturally assume that you’re going to care about the well being and self-esteem of your children. A shocking and unexpected revelation I know. Seriously? “I’m expected”. It’s not even an expectation, it’s simply a facet of basic humanity that you care for fucks sakes!
I must admit that I find it very disturbing how she phrases this as though it is some form of unreasonable burden being placed on her.
“I’m meant to worry about them disliking themselves, not about whether they will also learn to dislike women. I’m supposed to assume, glibly, that as long as they are content and fulfilled, they will not become misogynists, however filled with hate the air that they breathe. I simply don’t believe this. I watch the pro-boys movement, tracking feminist progress and launching one bad-faith countermove after another, and I know it will not spare my sons the misery of hating.”
I am attempting to find a means of putting into words how horrible this truly sounds to me, but there are so many ways in which this disturbs me that it’s hard to limit it to one or two. Firstly there is the disregard for the welfare of her own sons that she shows in these two statements. Placing their mental well-being and happiness as a lesser priority to whether or not they feel appropriately about women (I wonder if she would expect any daughters to do the same for men). Secondly there is the underlying assumption implicit in her words that hating women is the default for her children. Thirdly is that she seems to view this as some form of either/or scenario. Glosswitch says that she is meant to worry about her sons hating themselves, not whether they hate women. Does she not comprehend that one does not necessarily rule out the other? It is entirely possible to simply teach her sons not to hate themselves, women, or anyone else.
Truly. Some parents have actually accomplished that, I hear.
So what then, might I ask, will help to spare your sons the “misery of hating”?
Only feminism can do that.
Of course/of course.
Very well, I’ll take the bait this time around. Miss Glosswitch, will you please tell us exactly what you teach your boys about themselves from a feminist perspective.
I’m guessing it involves something about male babies consuming the blood of slain women.
The last babysitter we had for Tommy just didn't work out. Hmmm? Oh don't worry about the mess it's all right just ummm, don't turn your back on him ok?

The last babysitter we had for Tommy just didn’t work out. Hmmm? Oh don’t worry about the mess. It’s all right just ummm, don’t turn your back on him ok?

“However grateful women may feel that men are being helped to adjust to “equality”, what other social justice movement is expected to validate a counterpart “poor you” movement on behalf of the oppressor class? Isn’t it just typical? Can’t women and girls have anything for themselves?”
WTF??? I-I-I-I
Allow me, take a moment to compose yourself.
Miss Glosswitch, I have to ask. What oppressor class, where?
By “oppressor class” I can only assume that you mean men. So I can only draw from this that you believe that all or most men beat, abuse, or behave cruelly towards women. As that is the only way that this “oppressor class” could exist. That being the case why are women not in the kitchen chained up? If men are an oppressor class and society is oppressive to women then how can feminism even exist in the first place? Usually ending oppression takes a significant amount of violence, as one needs to defeat the powerful class first and they rarely go quietly so long as they have the power. All feminists really do is stomp around and complain about things, and they seem to be very good at getting whatever it is they want with (comparatively) little effort and time expended. So how do you explain this if women are oppressed and powerless. I would truly like to know.
You see Ms. Glosswitch, this is an example of oppression. Or this.
Newark
This is an image from the Newark race riots which were sparked after John Weerd Smith was arrested for a traffic stop and mysteriously ended up in the hospital. The National Guard was called in to deal with the violence that erupted and lasted 6 days, caused 700 injuries and killed 26 people.
This is what oppression looks like when you have an oppressor and oppressed class. It does not look a bunch of middle class women complaining on the internet that some male somewhere on someday just happened to look at her tata’s as opposed to her eyes.
By trying to apply this to yourself and your kind all you do is trivialize the truly oppressed. It is sickening.
And here I thought I did the moral outrage thing.
What exactly does she mean by “can’t women have anything to themselves?” Feminists set up their own internet sites, their own conferences for women, charities, scholarships, etc. There are women only schools, gyms, clubs, shelters, and magazines. Yeah, I can see what you mean sweetheart, it’s a pain in the ass when idiots with a gender agenda come barging into your places and your favourite pastimes  demanding to be accommodated. Isn’t it?
” When misogyny is naked and extreme, in men such as Peter Sutcliffe, Marc Lépine, Anders Breivik or Elliot Rodger, we’re quick to position it as an aberration but we know that it is not.”
Excuse me? Elliot Rodger? Just a-
Wait a second. It’s going to get better trust me on this.
“One of the double-binds that misogyny creates for women is that calling it out – actually saying “this culture hates women” – will lead to accusations that one is irrational, hysterical and unable to see nuance.”
In the interests of brevity we’re not going to go into great detail on this. Instead we will post an upcoming video on our youtube channel in a few days that will deal with this part. However, to make this quick.
Anders Breivik was a terrorist who bombed government buildings and a summer camp run by the Norweigan Labour Party in order to further his right-wing, anti-islamic, populist, ultranationalist, culturally conservative, paramilitary agenda. He does blame feminism as well for what he feels is the decline of society though at no point does he blame women. Apparently Miss Glosswitch believes that feminism is equivalent to all women; which goes without saying, I suppose. However his complaints about feminism were little more than an afterthought and his goal is clearly one of race and culture. He killed 77 people and injured hundreds of others, mostly men.
Elliot Rodger was a lunatic who killed four men and two women in a shooting spree. A man who left a manifesto detailing his hatred for every other human being on the planet.
Lépine was a crazed gunman who shot 14 women in a Montreal school because, claiming that he was fighting feminism. Misogynist? Probably a safe bet.
Peter Sutcliff was a serial killer who murdered prostitutes. While clearly disturbed there’s no real indication that he hated women per se, merely that he had a hatred for women in the worlds oldest profession.
Here’s the issue with this. She is doing what many feminists seem to want to do now these days. She is labeling any form of sensationalistic crime that might possibly have something to do with women a case of obvious misogyny. They are attempting to co-opt every possible tragedy and turn it into a victimhood party. A bomber who kills 77 people due to extreme xenophobia and nationalism is somehow an example of extreme misogyny just because he mentioned feminism once.
If this is not an aberration, as she claims it isn’t, then why is it so relatively uncommon? If this were normal, as she attempts to claim, then we’d be seeing people cutting up women left and right without batting a social eye. So why are men still far more likely to die of violence than women? Where is all of this extreme hatred of women that is everywhere and omnipresent? Surely she could have named better examples than the ones she did list if what she was saying were true? Why is it that out of your examples, two of them did not hate women in general, but feminism specifically?
Glosswitch claims that when she calls out misogyny there are accusation of being irrational, hysterical, and unable to see nuance. Yeah, I wonder why.
“Steve Biddulph’s Raising Boys has long been held up as a lifesaver for mothers trying to raise confident boys in the face of feminism’s monstrous regiments. Scratch beneath the surface and what it really offers is an entrenchment of male entitlement, albeit with touchy-feely justifications. It positions itself as distinct from men’s rights extremism but lies on the same continuum. It is snide and sneaky, suggesting to mothers that if their little boys are allowed to “feel good about themselves” then they can’t possibly grow up to hate women. As ever, women bear the greatest responsibility for men not despising them. Funny, that.”
Funny how? Children are generally raised  by their mothers. Most teachers, daycare workers, and child workers are women. Almost every person directly responsible for how a child grows up and views the world will be a woman. That’s why they have that saying about “the hand that rocks the cradle”, remember that? That’s how you wanted it. You guys called it the Tender Years Doctrine.  Let me take a moment to quote Caroline Norton:
How many worthy and celebrated men
have asserted that they owed all they were, to that
earliest and holiest guidance ! How many men
who have passed a dissipated and profligate youth,
have declared that the first impressions given in
childhood returned to them afterwards, and that
the precepts which cheered their declining lives,
were those which a mother’s voice repeated to
them in infancy !
It was feminist fugheads like you who insisted upon giving women the responsibility of raising children and teaching them about the world. So yeah, I think it is just a little fair to expect women to have the responsibility of teaching men why they shouldn’t hate them. Because if men are growing up to collectively hate women, maybe it has something to do with the way women are actually raising them. Lépines mother believed that his own hatred of women stemmed from her parental neglect of him due to her focus on building her career, combined with continued mistreatment from his sister. It’s almost like if you grow up as a child and all the examples of a group you meet are shitty people you might actually start to believe that all members of that group are shitty people.
Look, you feminists appointed women as the caretakers of children. Then you told those women to go out and have careers and work all day,leaving behind the children that you told them to take care of. Then you attempt to raise a generation of self-entitled, spiteful, raging narcissists, all the while telling the boys that they’re supposed to spend all of their time looking after and caring for these girls that tell them they’re as unneeded as a fish needs a bicycle. That they’re rapists, that their self-esteem does not matter, that misogyny is normalized and all their fault, serial killers like Sutcliff are common behaviour, etc.
Gee, I can’t understand for one FUCKING minute why some of them might grow up hating women.
Funny, that.
“Men do not need nice, kind, understanding women to help them realise their own humanity.”
WTF??Their humanity? You’re the one saying that mens wants and needs are only relevant in so far as they relate back to women.
“Biddulph may claim that “the antidote to ‘creepiness’ is an infusion of warmth, humour and openness” but it has to be more than that. Men need to recognise that women are human simply because we are – not as an endorsement of their own humanity. “
In other words you want to raise young boys to treat women as human, but you are not going to require that women actually treat men as human in return. Apparently it is perfectly all right to use, abuse , and show no respect or kindness to males. This view of humanity and human relations is very clearly based on nothing more than solipsism. As my opposite said, boys needs only matter insofar as they relate back to girls. We’re giving to you the shortened version of her article but this is a common theme throughout all of it. There is no point in this article where she treats men in general, or young boys in specific, as human beings in any way. They are tools. Not human beings who need love and affection from the people who’s job it is to nurture them.
Hey pal, if they can’t learn to love the women that emotionally starve and abuse them, it’s a failing of them as a man. Don’t blame women for all society’s ills. Women are never responsible for anything.
I sincerely feel sorry for her sons and if I were religious I would pray nightly that her children would be taken away and placed in a better environment because this women is clearly toxic.
“It is feminism that offers a release from this dependency.”
Of course/of course.
”Only feminism can stop my sons growing up to hate women”
Then that just goes to show what a shitty excuse for a parent you are. Most normal parents have no problem teaching their kids not to hate anyone. Not just women, but not hating anyone. Maybe you should be revising your own parenting skills if you can’t keep your own children from growing up to hate your entire segment of humanity. And if you’re more worried about your boys hating women than you are about them growing up to hate themselves maybe you should shove a dipstick up your ass and check your humanity levels because they seem to be slipping.
“I know this will sound ideological and one-sided to some.”
You think?/Ya think?
” I don’t actually care.”
That is very good to hear, because we don’t care either. You are a poisonous woman, one who should never be allowed to have any manner of child, male or female. I am unsure as to how you can even call yourself human at this point. If you truly wish to prevent your boys from growing up to hate women then don’t raise them to be feminists, raise them to be anything but. Simply show them love and kindness and teach them about the humanity of all people. You are their mother and, like it or not, you and other women will be the ones they are most exposed to in their formative years. You are the ones who will teach them about society and shape their views. So I implore you to not teach them about feminism. It will solve a lot of problems for everyone.
twittergoogle_plusyoutube

Germaine Greer Says Women Have Never Had it Worse, I Kind of Agree……..

I often find myself wondering in life just exactly how other people see and perceive the world. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to the minds and perceptions of the Social Justice Warriors. There’s a certain inherent detachment from reality that I find hard to comprehend and I can’t help but wonder if they truly believe the things that they say or if they are simply unwilling, due to some flaw in their makeup, to comprehend the world the way the rest of us do.
In other words you can’t tell if they’re liars or idiots. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say that outright?
Anyways this brings us to feminist “academic” ( a word that I amazed you can use with a straight face) Germaine Greer. Ms. Greer was recently featured in an article in the dailymail where she told the experience of women and the horrors they are subjected to online.
This is going to be one of those days, isn’t it?
“Germaine Greer has claimed  that women are worse off than ever because of the proliferation of  online pornography and the torrent of abuse they have to endure on social media such as Twitter.”
……………………………..
……………………………..
……………………………..Do you want to handle this?
Sure, why not.
So women are more worse off than ever, you say? You mean they are worse off than in the Middle East? Worse off than in the past where, at least you claim, women were treated as property and rape was considered normal? At a time when women receive much lighter prison sentences, do better in school, have more life options, live longer, almost never die or get injured on the job, etc., women are more worse off than ever? Pray tell, what great evil causes this and endangers all things woman?
Pornography and Twitter.
I really wish I could make this stuff up.
“The Australian academic delivers her damning verdict in a BBC TV documentary – Blurred Lines: The New Battle Of The Sexes – which looks at the threats of rape and violence directed towards women online as well as the ‘objectification’ of women in violent computer games and sexually explicit pop videos.”
Rape and sex. It always has to be about rape and sex.
The obsession is very strange. It’s almost Catholic in how much they obsess over sexual matters.
Hey, while we’re on the subject, isn’t this the same feminist who wrote an entire book on why women should be sexually objectifying young boys?
Yes.Yes she is.
“In 2003, The Beautiful Boy was published, an art history book about the beauty of teenage boys, which is illustrated with 200 photographs of what The Guardian called “succulent teenage male beauty”.[40] Greer described the book as an attempt to address modern women’s apparent indifference to the teenage boy as a sexual object and to “advance women’s reclamation of their capacity for, and right to, visual pleasure” (Greer 2003). The photograph on the cover was of 15-year old Björn Andrésen in his character of Tadzio in the film Death in Venice (1971). The actor has been quoted by journalists as complaining about the picture’s use.[41][42]”
Soooooo, just to be clear, she wrote a book about women getting off to images of young boys. Put a half-naked fifteen year old on the cover, apparently against his wishes, and is complaining about the sexual objectification of women?
Essentially, yes.
I think I just felt a brain cell die screaming.
Then I probably shouldn’t mention to you about the time when she was on the progam ‘J’accuse’ – youthism’ in 1992 and tried to proposition schoolboys in order to  show them an appreciation for older women?
No……no…..no you should not. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go and plunge my skull into anti-matter right now.
Huh,looks like I finally won one.

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, And they’re like It’s better than yours, Damn right it’s better than yours, I can teach you, But I have to charge

“Men are now more aware of women because women keep pushing themselves in.‘Nowadays women expect to share men’s lives, they want to do the same work, they want to play the same games, they want to have the same social life, and I think it’s driving men nuts. And the result would seem to me  to be that men are even  less tolerant of women than they were before.”

Yes, Ms. Greer, you’re correct. Just not in the way that you think you are. You see, it’s not that women expect to share men’s lives. It’s that feminist women expect women to share men’s lives. If women wanted to do the same work as men they would do it, as some do. If they wanted to play the same games they would do it, as some do. If they wanted to have the same social life they would do it, as some do. However the general majority of them don’t want that. Which is evidenced by the fact that they don’t make those choices. They choose to do different jobs. They choose to play different games. They choose to organize their social lives differently. It is not that men are becoming less tolerant of women. It is that they are becoming less tolerant of women like you. The ones who go to the work spaces, gaming networks, social clubs etc, that men (and again some women) have been utilizing for a long time and then demand that everything be changed to accommodate the needs of some theoretical woman who never before used those spaces, and likely never will.

Women are only pushing in because you and those like you are standing behind them shoving. Which is why you get the backlash you get from both sexes. It’s why there are so many women who refuse to identify themselves as feminists, because they understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to use them to gain more power and influence for yourselves and your group, and in the same instance you are hurting their fathers, their brothers, their children, their husbands, their lovers, with this toxic ideology. For example:

“Now if men have always needed women to be in a subservient, filial, ancillary position, when they [women] stand up and call attention to themselves, it produces reactions which are difficult to manage.”

This constant attempt to try and portray men as holding them in some sort of bondage, as though men cannot even countenance the presence of a women who isn’t a virtual slave to his every desire. Women, by and large, understand how demeaning this is. Not just demeaning to men, but people like you demean women too. All in the name of creating your victim narrative. Because let’s be honest, if women weren’t victims, then feminism would have to stop.
“Several high-profile women have suffered abuse at the hands of online ‘trolls’.”
This is essentially the “point” of the whole article it seems. Women are supposedly harassed all the time online. I can’t really respond much to the rest of this as nothing is ever really specified. It simply relates the story of two women who voiced controversial opinions, then supposedly received massive hate mail and backlash. And somehow these two anecdotal cases with no support of any kind are supposed to show that women experience terrible harassment online because……………women? I really don’t know.
She may as well go all the way and claim that she got PTSD from Twitter (oh and don’t worry, I’m going to get to that at some point, I promise you).
So women have to suffer the horror of online trolls. Which, I remind you, is the worst thing women have ever had to face in history according to Miss Bang-a-Boy here. I wonder how many of you ladies were aware of that? That nothing you’ve had to deal with in your life is as horrible as the feminists like her who have to deal with online trolls have experienced. Feeling empowered yet?

Before I get to my point, let’s take a look at trolls and hate mail from a male perspective. Professor Dawkins, will you take the stand and testify please?

Hmmm, so Richard Dawkins gets lots of hate mail and trolling. Including people wishing for him to suffer eternal torment. Yet here he is laughing it off and making fun of it and mourning at how pathetic the lives of those people are and how he feels sorry for them.
Ok, time for our next testimony. Mr.Amazing Atheist, will you take the stand and tell us your story please.
Huh.Same as Dawkins, interesting. So we have two men in the public sphere who say controversial things and receive a great deal of hate mail…..yet they don’t seem to care. It’s almost as though they just suck it up and deal with it rather than trying to play the victim to everybody. You also might want to google “Obama hate” or “Bill Maher hate”  or any other controversial figure that exists. Hell you should look at some of the stuff that I get. Which is fine, if I wasn’t getting hate mail from people I wouldn’t be doing my job. Which I understand because I’m not a child. And yes,I know that this is anecdotal as well, but it’s still a lot more evidence and context than they provided. But surprise, surprise, when you say things in public that other people vehemently disagree with they are going to get pissed off. You are going to get trolls and harassment whether you’re a man or woman it’s almost like, oh what’s that word? Oh yeah, equality. Congratulations Miss Bang-a-Boy, you finally have to deal with all the same crap that guys do. Now you just have to learn to deal with it like guys do and we’ll be all set.
But that’s not what you want is it? Your idea of equality means standing up declaring that you’re just as tough as men and deserve all the swag, then ducking your head low and crying about how you’re a put upon and victimized woman when the shit starts getting flung. Kind of like how you want to go on a BBC special and say things like this:
““Any woman of taste would have a boy for a lover rather than a man. He’s easier to manage. His sperm flows like tap water, which happens to be a biological fact. And quicker recovery time and all that kind of thing. More rewarding in all sorts of ways. Conversation might be a bit lacking, but then, who does it for conversation?
And not expect anyone to bat an eyelash for fear of being accused of stifling womens sexuality or some other feminist fuckism. Yet if I wrote this:
“Any man of taste would have a girl for a lover rather than a woman. She’s easier to manage. Her body is always ripe and willing for sex, which happens to be a biological fact. And quicker recovery time and all that kind of thing. More rewarding in all sorts of ways. Conversation might be a bit lacking, but then, who does it for conversation?”
You would label me a creep and a sex offender.
I’m just saying, I think I see something of a double standard here.
“Prof Beard is worried, though,  that such campaigns may deter other women from entering ‘the public sphere’.She said: ‘I have decided I am going to face the music. But there must be loads of women who think, that is not what I want. ‘I don’t want that kind of rubbish and it’s vile. It really is vile. Why would anyone bother to do this unless they were incredibly determined? It is very bad for women’s participation in the public sphere.”
Funny story. Back in the old days when it was asked about why women shouldn’t be allowed in male places, or in politics, or the public sphere in general, one of the main reasons given was because women were too emotionally fragile and delicate to cope with the harsh words and vitriol that comes about in the public sphere when people discuss important matters of politics and culture. Rather than proving such sentiments false, Ms. Greer and the rest of feminism seem determined to vindicate such ideas.
The truth of the matter however, is both far more sinister and far sadder. The simple fact is that feminists have a deep symbiotic nature with the people who troll them. Trolls troll them, make fun of them, pick on them, all for their own vicarious amusement. Meanwhile feminists use this as a safe means of allowing them to perpetuate their necessary victim narrative. None of those threats are real, they know that very well. Which is why they don’t actually do anything about it. Such as say, just not read those messages.  It’s the perfect arrangement for them. Melody Hensley is able to claim PTSD from Twitter and then get right back onto her Iphone and Tweet about her morning dose of sexism precisely because she knows that there is nothing to the threats that she experiences. However it gets her sympathy from the gullible and the unintelligent who then step in to defend her because she’s a woman and can only be a victim. Meanwhile she gets to have her own ego stroked and feel vindicated in her beliefs and tell herself that she’s strong and courageous for standing up to these imaginary threats, when really she’s the very picture of a trembling and disgusting coward.
Killed people in a war? Watched your best friend get blown in half by a mine? Spent three years in a concentration camp? Turned to alcohol and drug use to cope? Wife left you adn took the kids? Thinking of suicide? I totally get your pain. Someone once called me "Smellody" on Twitter.

Killed people in a war? Watched your best friend get blown in half by a mine? Spent three years in a concentration camp? Turned to alcohol and drug use to cope? Wife left you and took the kids? Thinking of suicide?
I totally get your pain. Someone once called me “Smellody” on Twitter.

Ms.Greer has said that women are now more worse off than ever, and I think I have to agree with her on this. While women are certainly more advantaged in terms of rights and privileges I will say that women have never been portrayed or depicted as badly in history than they have under feminism. Under feminism women went from being portrayed as virtuous, moral, and nurturing to self-centered, hypocritical, and childish. You really couldn’t manage to paint a worse picture of women than feminists do if you tried. And I really have to ask the women, are you truly all right with this? Are you truly all right with people like this claiming to represent you to the world. To the men in your lives, or that you want in your lives? Because feminism may be telling them that you’re an equal partner and a valuable person, but it certainly isn’t showing you as that. It is depicting you as a horrible example (borderling sociopathic) of a human being that anyone would be nuts to want to have around.
Feeling empowered yet?
twittergoogle_plusyoutube