Saturday, 26 December 2015

Samantha Wright - cute woman decides men finding her cute is CRUSHING?!!

The Pixie Weightlifter [Version 1] by Berzie-Berzington on DeviantArt

Ms Wright, in "Don't Call Me The Cutest Weightlifter", demands that men just stahhhhp!

Every day, this woman suffers the "crushing" burden of being cute. Woe!!!

"While the originator of this title may have believed it to be a compliment"

Because it was. Cute is a desirable quality. One you knowingly pursue.

" I interpreted it as nothing short of objectifying"

It's funny that it was the female gaze, in the myths, that was supposed to destroy others.

Feminism has taught you to be paranoid. Someone expressing appreciation for your appearance does not, can not, turn you into an object. If lust had that power, only a few of us would be other than things - clearly, it does not.

"... and sexist"


What the hell?

Women thought you were cute, too?

Oh right - women can't be sexist, I forget, sexism = (power + privilege) * (genital type) ...

No, that's garbage. It's an attempt to move the goalposts of what sexism is - different treatment for men and women. Had you been a cute guy, do you really think anyone would take your complaints seriously?

Lesbians also consider you to be eye-candy.

But you don't care - it's male sexuality - or the amorphous 'society' -  that you see as poisonous and vile.

"beauty and strength, are not antithetic"


Cheryl is by far the strongest. Only someone blinded by Feminism will claim she is as attractive to most people as the others are.


His greatest equipped squat was 457.5 kg[4] at the USPF National Championships on March 9, 1996,[5] which stood as the world record until Andrey Konovalov squatted 460 kg on November 4, 2012.[6]

You think people sing praises to his loveliness?

Eddie is impressive, but no-one will swoon over his beauty.

Mariusz Pudzianowski's poster is not pinned to the walls by teenage girls.

There is no possible way you could be unaware of this. Either you are lying, because it's convenient to a toxic ideology - or you are brain damaged. Did you inject something into your skull? Tsk, tsk, use arm next time.

" Athletes of the rebranded Legends Football League (formerly the Lingerie Football League) must tackle each other in their uniforms bikini tops and cheeky underwear"

Oh, the suffering! If only they had the choice to seek other employment, like men do!

Oh wait - they do - they literally do - in fact, they have more opportunities than men, as men do not have the sexual power women do. Men with their level of aptitude will not be employed as footballers, sexy or otherwise.

"Individual athletes, like Ronda and the Williams Sisters, can’t enter the competition stage without announcers picking winners, for the match and the ‘hottest’ look."

The Williams Sisters use their sexual attractiveness - they get endorsements because of it.


Male athletes can try to do it too, but they will never make as much money out of it as women can - they just don't have the same amount of sexual power in today's society.

I don't know if it's biology or not that means that men are not seen as being beautiful by women to the same degree - even bisexual women are more interested in the beauty of other women than of men - men must compete for their attention by being powerful as well.


Samantha do you realise the athletes of the past - the  gladiators of ancient Rome - were praised according to their hotness, and were hotly lusted after?

Oh right - female desire empowering, male sexual desire harms women, because men are wicked, men are lustful demons praying upon the innocent wimminz.

Celadus [a stage name, meaning Crowd's Roar], thrice victor and thrice crowned, the young girls' heart-throb, and Crescens the Netter of young girls by night.

"This idea, that a woman can't reach success in sports without society examining it through sex-tinted glasses, is crushing us."

What hysteria. Should I find you a fainting couch? And nice little dig at the judges, btw - you accused them of favouring you over others because you are sexier. You actually shot yourself in the foot just then, you know - you are saying you would have failed had you been less appealing.

"Just as an ocean wave is at once beautiful and powerful, so too are we athletes"

Some waves are lovely.

Some... aren't.

The Progressivist idea that everyone is beautiful flies in the face of biological reality.

A few people get to be beautiful, mostly for a brief time in their lives.

People paid to see you. They stopped - to pay attention to you.  In a decade or two, they won't.

Life's tough. Almost everyone who has ever lived didn't even get that time.

Some have it cut too short.

Others never got to have it at all.

And yet - we make the most of it.

We even find the time to find the joy in life.


We don't sit around, crying, because people judge us by our looks; we go and do things to make our lives worthwhile.

And if we are men, and we suffer, no-one cares. If we cry, it'll be Feminists like you who will mock us; mock our pain, mock our grief. You will boast of drinking our tears.

And you are the one claiming to be a victim?

Jesus bloody Christ! My heart bleeds, woman! My heart bleeds for you!

Thursday, 17 December 2015

Men’s violence in unacceptable!11!!

 Your tax dollars hard at work! archived from

"men’s violence in unacceptable"

Is it? Whereabouts? I can't see it in that word. Maybe if I was a feminist... I just need to believe it and then I can see it... Listen and Believe, my child, Listen and Believe.

"we are pro-feminist"

In the same way Scientologists are pro-Scientologist, yes, not sure why you have to spell it out, however.

"individual change is not enough"

I thought "the personal is political" was one of your slogans? Now you need to have the State micromanage every individuals actions? Not sure how that will work. Cameras in every home? Random monitoring to make sure everyone loves Big Brother?

"we are accountable to women and children"

But not to men - or those women and children who women hurt. The truth is, you're not accountable to anyone, as Erin Pizzey pointed out decades ago. You get paid by the State to have a continuous crisis.

You can never actually solve these problems or your pay-checks will dry up.

"men need help to change"

The sad thing is I have to archive that site - - as Feminists hate it - it may be disappeared at some stage)

" Large epidemiological studies have demonstrated that domestic violence is most commonly reciprocal and that when only one partner is violent there is an excess of violent women. "

Science says otherwise.

Feminism is an anti-science. It is funded by the State, answerable to no-one, and acts like a cult.

And it must be stopped.

Sunday, 13 December 2015

Is Fallout 4 the End of the Line?

I decided this for myself a while ago now .

The futility of it all is very strong; it seems like the previous protagonist's sacrifices were all meaningless, the sides you can pick from are all corrupt and genocidal, and a lot of the time I felt like I was playing an XBox, not a PC game - which means being railroaded into shooting things to advance through the cut sequences, rather than playing a roleplaying game.

I don't mind hard. I don't mind frustrating. But there should be rewards for effort. There's none. You built amazing settlements? It doesn't matter. It doesn't build a new nation.

You made friends with robots, artificial humans, ghouls and super-mutants? It doesn't matter. You cannot build any bridges. You cannot influence anyone to change, to co-operate to something other than just another nuclear war, with humanity becoming ever more degraded.

You get to make things explode. That is it.

Which is fun for a while but there are a lot of games like that. Fallout used to be different. It used to feel like you made a difference.

I've put in a request over at the modding community for a solution to the lousy ending, even if it's purely text based. I'd love to see some positive results from the community-building ingame you do, beyond "it makes money".

(Admittedly, settlements have their own problems - for example, unlike in the Sims, you don't know if the objects you build are a waste of resources, like walls turn out to be, or have some concrete benefit.

No-one seems to agree on whether paintings, for example,  increase happiness, which you would think was pretty much fundamental, and the sort of thing a tutorial would explain)

The ABC bias is ever more blatant

When I say the ABC is biased, people are usually confused by what type of bias I refer to. They think of it as left-wing perhaps (which it is by staffing, overwhelmingly) although I actually see it as somewhat fairer than you'd expect in that matter.

A survey of over 600 Australian journalists, conducted by a senior academic from the University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, has cast a revealing light on the political beliefs of Australian journalists.

It shows that over 40 per cent of ABC journalists support the Greens, over 30 per cent support Labor, and just 15 per cent support the Coalition.

Liberal and National voices are, despite this, occasionally heard on their programs, and there is criticism of Labor governments when they are in power. In that left-right political axis, they do make some effort at fairness, at least.

Compare the topic of "antifeminist". Doesn't exist according to the ABC? Yet at least antifeminism gets some representation from other news sources.

Now, imagine if their stories had that many topics which were pro-Labor, for example. And none that were pro-Liberal.

Yet most people aren't Feminists. The ABC, supposedly "Australia's most trusted source of local, national and world news", only represents a minority PoV. It doesn't acknowledge any other perspective, except occasionally with quotes from their ideological enemies, demonising the alternatives.

It's like if it only reflect the viewpoints of Muslims, and if anyone disagreed with that, and asked for other voices to be heard, they responded with "but why do you hate Arabs? You must hate Arabs, if you aren't pro-Islamic!"

It's a manipulative tactic, a deflection, but one that has served them well.

Here's a typical example of an ABC story.

"The resource has ruffled some feathers before even being released publicly, with criticisms from men's rights groups..."

So do they interview any of those groups? Or even quote the criticisms? Open the market place of ideas?

Heavens, no! They will only ever interview Feminists on why opposition to them is wrong, naturally!

Can you imagine if they were to do this with the Liberals and Labor members? If every time Liberals spoke up against Labor policies, the ABC would interview someone from Labor, who would inevitably dismiss their opponents as reactionaries and lunatics, instead of ever printing the Liberal Party PoV?

p.s. there was a very good video on the erasure of men in the media - for example, reporting one hundred sailors drowned, instead of one hundred men drowned - even though all the sailors were men - which is followed by the emphasis on the victimisation of women.

Boko Haram slaughtered tens of thousands of school boys, for example - and the ABC etc never even reported it. They became frantic when a few hundred school girls were kidnapped, however.

The video was there for years, but Feminists complained about it constantly, and Youtube crumbled. And so that antifeminist voice was silenced.

Most people aren't Feminists. They do not believe there is some global conspiracy by men against women. But they are isolated - they never hear from others like themselves. They are manipulated, and their sources of information are controlled.

We, men and women, want to protect women - and we are constantly told by the media that if we do not support Feminism, then women will be hurt.

The Feminist always says: "if you don't love Feminism, the bunny will get it, and it will be your fault."

Don't let them twist you.

Don't let them get away with their lies.

Saturday, 5 December 2015

Clementine Ford, the ABC's favourite Damsel in Distress?

Does the ABC love professional victims?

Does it adore the manipulative ploy of the fainting couch?

"A group of women are tackling online abuse by naming and shaming "trolls" in a twitter campaign.... Earlier this week, a man lost his job after he wrote a sexually explicit post on writer and prominent feminist Clementine Ford's Facebook wall." (source)

Who is she? Someone who loves vile language:

"Sydney author and columnist, Kerri Sackville, is leading the charge against the trolling[sic] and says she is sick of seeing women maliciously threatened online."

The man she had fired was responding to her topless photo and her sexually explicit comments and the fact she calls other people sluts (and worse) all the time. Look at what she calls Miranda Devine.

"Hey #Sunrise get f***ed" was written across her chest.

No mention of that in the ABC, of course. Feminists can do no wrong.

She's painted as a damsel in distress. Oh woe! Where is her fainting couch? Someone has called her a rude word - a word she calls other people all the time.

She is a fanatical feminist - and feminists hold that that word is positive, that slutty behaviour is a good thing, that home wrecking should be celebrated (c.f. Laci Green).

So let's summarise - she has no problem calling other women sluts, she belongs to a movement that claims being a total slut is fantastic, she allies herself with people who boast about destroying homes, she publicly uses offensive language at Sunrise with impunity - and she is your hero, ABC?

I remember when you had a reputation for objectivity, for not being politically partisan. How far you have fallen.

Oh, one last thing - a troll is someone who just wants to stir up the ants and see them run about.

You have no evidence these people are insincere - all you know is that they express opinions feminists don't like.

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

by Alien Entity September 22, 2002

Update: March 3rd, 2016

Guess she doesn't like it when you call her out!

Thursday, 3 December 2015

Exams are misogynistic if men are better at taking them?

Minister declares that exams must be reworked
until men fail more than women.

"The entrance exam for medical and dental remains deeply misogynistic. "

It exhibits hatred for women? Does it force them into a worse life on the basis of their birth?
"Flemish Minister for Education Hilde Crevits (CD & V) will make the exam sift through to see where the girls stumble."

So it doesn't matter that the exam is the same for everyone - it matters that the outcome be that your preferred group does better. Why not just pass anyone with a vagina, if that's your goal?

Tell me that's not what you are going to do...

"Throughout our teaching girls do better than boys.. it appears in all of higher education that girls are more successful than boys."

And feminists are totally happy with that outcome! Feminism is Equality!(TM). But some are more equal than others!

" But in the entrance examination for the studies (tooth) doctor showing just the opposite, says Flemish Parliament Tine Soens (SP.A)."

Oh no! Men are surviving despite all the things we do to them!

" Soens find it unfair and therefore wants to test thoroughly rework."

Imagine whites and blacks were doing exams, and the blacks were doing worse until they got to the last exam - where they did better. And the Minister for Whites announced that the exam would have to be reworked until white people did better.

No-one would doubt that that Minister belonged to a racist hate movement.

Feminism is a hate movement.

Sunday, 29 November 2015

"Our Watch": An Aussie government funded, anti-free-speech, anti-male propaganda site

"The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human."

from "The Olive Tree", by Aldous Huxley (1936).

"Our Watch"

What do you notice about this?

It is paid for by government funds.

It claims to be "working to change community attitudes & encourage Australians to reject violence."

Now, straight away, we are told this will reject violence, and the presumption is that means violence against people.

Not plants, not even animals, but people - ALL people - not just people who are white, or black, gay or straight.

Now guess which group are NOT regarded as people?

"Our Watch has been established to drive nation-wide change in the culture, behaviours and attitudes that underpin and create violence against women and children."

Yup. Men. If violence is happening to you, well, you are in the same category as a plant or a possum. It's not their problem!

Because they are working from the Duluth Model, which holds that all violence is the fault of men, and all women are pure and innocent.

And if a woman slaughters her seven kids and her niece, why, some man must have made her - she can't be held responsible!

Men are always, always the enemy. It's #Feminism 101.

Recently, they changed the TOS of the page to silence any criticism.

Please note that your comment will be deleted and you may be blocked from our page if you:
• Disrespect another person on this page
• Deliberately attempt to derail the conversation
• You make another person on this page feel unsafe
• You diminish or minimise women’s experience of violence.
Disrespect another person on this page?

Why on Earth should I respect these people? Did they respect me? Of course not!

Way past time to get rid of the 'poor menz' brigade

Does that sound like respect to you?

Negativity can trigger stress in some survivors!
Uninformed opinion stated as fact. And of course, they don't want to have that challenged; facts are triggering, and reason is Patriarchy.

Sometimes the only way to reduce the power of misinformation is to censure [sic] it
Which is the claim of every authoritarian regime since the dawn of time.

Countries with free speech know that disinformation is demolished in the "marketplace of ideas", and it can only thrive if dissenting views are silenced - like this government organisation is doing.

You make another person on this page feel unsafe

Why the Hell is this here? Note: this has nothing to do with what sane people consider safety. If you make a reasonable threat, you can be pretty confident the boys in blue will be knocking on your door.

So this is about unreasonable threats. This is about the threat a bigot feels from the object of their loathing. A racist feels from a black man or woman, a homophobe feels from a gay or lesbian, or a sexist feels from a man, or a woman.

And this site is government funded sexism.

It discriminates against men actively, despite taking funds from everyone and claiming to serve the people... which is everyone, black and white, straight or gay, male and female..

You diminish or minimise women’s experience of violence

Woman: "OMG! That man looked at me! That's stare-rape!"

Man: "Looking at someone isn't rape."

Woman: "OMG! You minimised my experience of violence! Banned!"

 • ‘You are restricting freedom of speech’. Everyone is free to share their opinions if they are communicated in a respectful, productive way.
In other words, everyone is entitled to say anything that Feminists already agree with.

Barbara David

Fabulous! I was very disappointed when, early in the conversation Our Watch formally posted that speaking about violence against women, didn't mean that men weren't victims too.

No, I wasn't disappointed, I was livid. It sounded like an apology to the "men too" brigade, as if you had been persuaded by the trolls who were already telling us about their superior understanding of violence and manipulating with charm, false statistics, pleas for sympathy, manly assertiveness and an overwhelming insistence on "winning" the argument they had initiated ("domestic violence is NOT a gendered issue").

But I was wrong. Hallelujah! You really are a safe place, a refuge. Thank you for standing strong.

Szczepan Hołyszewski
Szczepan Hołyszewski

"Men too" is not a "brigade". It is a fact. Here, let me assert it: men too.

Barbara David
Barbara David OurWatch, please note that the above comment is in breach of your new guidelines.

Barbara David
Barbara David
You get it Kris! I believe that the new OurWatch guidelines are there to ensure we only get to interact with people like you and don't have to constantly pay attention to people who diminish the experience of women by insisting we pay attention to men as victims of abuse.

Feminist says "men are never victims", man says "well, they are", feminist minimises his experience of violence and calls for his removal.