Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 5. (Read 80438 times)

13 months ago:






Now:

Yahoo Article Asks Parents to Teach Sons that Females are Victims of Society



In an article published in Yahoo, "11 Things to Teach Your Teen Sons About Girls" asks parents to teach their sons that girls are victims of society.

Written by Soraya Chemaly, the piece says when boys turn 10, they should be taught the following lessons, some of which are demonstratively false:

1. Just as your physical horizons are expanding, those of the girls you know are usually shrinking, something that girls have as much interest in as you would if it happened to you.

2. Rape is prevalent, real and girls have to think about it. Most boys do not have to think about being raped, or adapt their behavior.

3. You have the luxury of laughing off sexual double standards.

4. Girls, and a lot of the LGTBQ kids you know, are being harassed regularly in public.

5. Traditional school dress codes and enforcement of dress codes are optimized to ensure, for the most part, that you aren’t “distracted,” by girls.

6. You will be paid more for your work, because you are male.

7. Girls do not accumulate cultural credits from seeing themselves represented in culture that you do.

8. People are more likely to believe you, think you are competent, and to let you speak uninterrupted.

9. When you experience pain, doctors will take you seriously and not say it’s all in your head or, worse, your own fault.

10. You may not be having a lot of sex, but male sexual entitlement in our culture is real and a problem for the girls you know.

11. Lastly, to state an obvious one, girls cannot walk away from pregnancies or their outcomes.


http://www.thesocialmemo.org/2015/07/yahoo-article-asks-parents-to-teach.html

Somehow he is a lucky husband. His wife comes back in their bed alone, not with Paulo to take care of him too...

What a deluded and spineless fool...

NY Mag Article: "Feminist" Men Should be Okay with Wives Having Sex with Others



As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.

Before my wife started sleeping with other men, I certainly considered myself a feminist, but I really only understood it in the abstract. When I quit working to stay at home with the kids, I began to understand it on a whole new level. I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing. Now that I understand the reality of that situation, I don’t blame women for demanding more for themselves than the life of the housewife.

Still, as a man, I could, if I wanted to, portray what I’m doing as “work,” and thus claim for myself the prestige men traditionally derive from “work.” Whenever I tell someone I stay home with the kids, they invariably say, “Hardest work in the world.” They say this because the only way to account for a man at home with the kids is to say what he’s doing is hard work. But there’s a subtext in the compliment that makes it backhanded: We both know no one ever says it to a woman. Mothers care; fathers provide care. The difference is crucial. Despite my total withdrawal from the economy and the traditional sources of masculine identity, I can still argue I am a provider. I provide care. 

In this way, my masculine self-image was stretched but not broken. Diaper bag notwithstanding, I was still a Man. It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it and wanted to do more than kiss next time that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife fucked only me.

***

When people ask how it started, I say this: We married young. She’d had sex before me, but only with a handful of people a handful of times. She never had a boyfriend, never had a lover. I was the first man she ever had the chance to get to know intimately. By her mid-30s, having already had our children and entering her sexual prime, she felt keenly her lack of sexual experience. Happily for me, she was willing to talk about it, willing to ask if I’d be open to exploring other options. We opened a bottle of wine and started talking, and talking, and talking.

She didn’t present it as an issue of feminism to me, but after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control. We aren’t afraid of their intellect or their spirit or their ability to bear children. We are afraid that when it comes time for sex, they won’t choose us. This petty fear has led us as a culture to place judgments on the entire spectrum of female sexual expression: If a woman likes sex, she’s a whore and a slut; if she only likes sex with her husband or boyfriend, she’s boring and lame; if she doesn’t like sex at all, she’s frigid and unfeeling. Every option is a trap.

Feminism always comes back to sex, even when we’re talking about everything else. The point isn’t that all women should be sexual adventurers. Celibacy is as valid an expression of sexuality as profligacy. The point is that it should be women who choose, not men — even the men they’re married to. For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap. She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months — many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine — before I knew it, too.

When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist.

***

That was two years ago, and today we’ve never been happier, more in tune, closer, tighter, stronger. Whatever power I surrendered, I don’t miss. I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone, but I tell everyone it works for us.

How does it work? We take turns going out. Because we have small children (ages 6 and 3), one of us stays home. (We don’t like to use babysitters because it gives us a curfew; we’d rather go out unfettered than worry about turning into a pumpkin at midnight.) Going out alone to hooking up with others was an easy transition. It does work both ways and, yes, I too enjoy sexual carte blanche. I just don’t use mine as much as my wife uses hers. What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

How does it feel? It feels great ... mostly. Most of the time, it feels like a mature, responsible way to address our needs and desires within our loving, mutually supportive marriage. It feels very adult, especially because it depends on open, honest communication. We take great pride in all the talking we do. I meet a lot of people who say they’ll never get married because they don’t want to get divorced, and hearing it always makes me sad, because they are cutting themselves off from the possibility of the magic that happens when two people share their lives. People don’t divorce because they can’t stand sharing anymore; they divorce because they feel like they can’t share enough. I never forget that my wife is a whole person unto herself, a complete and dynamic individual, and though we are together, we’re not one. Too often people get trapped in the roles of husband and wife, and a gulf opens between what they think they should be and who they really are. Opening our marriage has allowed us to close that gap so that the person I call “wife” is the same person my wife sees in the mirror. Lying to each other begins with lying to yourself, and now we don’t have to lie to anyone.

There are of course moments of jealousy, resentment, and insecurity. Recently, my wife went on a date and fell asleep at his apartment. I hadn’t heard from her since 10 p.m., she still wasn’t home at 6 a.m. My texts went unanswered and my calls went to voicemail. A tight knot of dread lodged in my stomach as I imagined all kinds of dire scenarios and realized that I not only didn’t know where she was, I had no idea whom she was with. I pictured myself going to the police saying, “I think she’s in Red Hook with a guy named Ryan. I don’t know his last name, but I think he’s a graphic designer?” I’m not sure there’s actually a word for the unique blend of acute terror and unforgivable shame I felt that morning imagining that I’d lost my wife to Ryan, the maybe graphic designer. When she finally texted me at 7:30 a.m., relief coursed through me like morphine. She wrote, “fuckfuckfuckfuck Im soooooo sorry. Fell asleep.” I replied, “Just glad you’re ok, but next time, no radio silence. Remember: you’re not alone.”

What surprises most people is when I tell them it’s not the sex-with-other-men that bothers me. The sex is the easy part, the fun part. It’s what the sex connects to, stands for, reveals that can be difficult. I don’t want her to fall in love with anyone else, and every time she goes on a date, I confront the possibility that she might. It happened at the beginning: The first person she dated after we opened up fell hard in love with her, and my wife, overwhelmed by his ardor, tried to love him back. Watching it happen, I was confused, angry, and terrified that she wanted to leave me. She assured me she didn’t, and whatever feelings she had for him didn’t lessen what she felt for me. Believing her then was the ultimate trust exercise. We survived because eventually I did believe her, and also because I learned to trust myself.

This has been the great challenge of my open marriage: to draw strength from vulnerability. Doing so requires supreme self-confidence. You must first really, truly love yourself; it is the foundation upon which all the other love is built. From everywhere comes the message that what I’m doing is for weaklings, losers, failures, pussies; that if I had money and status, I could keep my wife “in line”; that her self-discovery comes at the expense of my self-esteem. My open marriage has made heavy demands on my ability to silence the voice of doubt in my head, that gnawing feeling of worthlessness. But I find I can meet those demands, and that I am able to build my self-confidence out of nothing more than the basic dignity we all possess. I’m grateful to my wife for pushing us to take this leap, and whatever happens to us in the future I would do it all again. And when she comes home tonight and crawls into bed beside me with a hot story about her date with Paulo, she’ll do it all again, too.


http://www.nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech






What’s believed to be the first case in Canada of alleged criminal harassment-via-Twitter is just a judge’s decision away from being over.

After hearing closing submissions Tuesday from Chris Murphy, who represents 54-year-old Greg Elliott, Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan is expected to rule on Oct. 6.

In the balance rides enormous potential fallout for free speech online.

Elliott is charged with criminally harassing two Toronto female political activists, Steph Guthrie and Heather Reilly, in 2012.


Allegations involving a third woman were dropped.

The graphic artist and father of four lost his job shortly after his arrest, which was well-publicized online, and if convicted, could go to jail for six months.

These are astonishing repercussions given that it’s not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them.

Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.

He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to “sic the Internet” upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red.

Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor’s “hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience” and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game.

Elliott disagreed with the tactic and Tweeted he thought the shaming “was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.

Until then, the two were collegial online, with Elliott offering to produce a free poster for Guthrie’s witopoli (Women in Toronto Politics) group.

As serious as the ramifications of a conviction could be for Elliott, so could they be dire for free speech online, Murphy suggested in his final arguments.

He said the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter”.

In fact, Murphy said that contrary to what Guthrie and Reilly testified to at trial, they weren’t afraid of his client — as suggested by both their spirited demeanour in the witness box and their deliberate online campaign to call Elliott out as a troll.

Rather, Murphy said, they hated Elliott and were determined to silence him — not just by “blocking” his Tweets to them, but by demanding he cease even referring to them even in making comment about heated political issues.

To all this, Guthrie pointed out once in cross-examination that feelings of fear, like all feelings, “develop over time”, and snapped that she was sorry she wasn’t “a perfect victim” who behaved like a conventional victim.

The criminal harassment charge is rooted in the alleged victim’s perception of the offending conduct.

The statute says if that conduct caused the alleged victims “reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety”, that’s good enough.

Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out.

“They were not vulnerable,” Murphy said once. “They are very accomplished, politically savvy women. If they can’t handle being mentioned in the tail end of a political discussion (on Twitter), then they’re in the wrong business.”


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

Yes. I am guessing once they win their war they will eliminate all the communist and feminist men... Just to be sure.

There's A Growing Movement of Feminist and LGBTQ Hacktivists
Their online manifestos emphasize freedom through anarchy---not unlike early declarations made by the decade-old Anonymous, another hacking group




A new network of feminist and LGBTQ hackers is pushing for radical gender equality in everything from biohacking to deep web anarchy—and it looks like they’re about to expand with a meetup in Latin America.

The network, TransHackFeminist, held their first conference last year when 90 feminists, queer and trans people met at a “post-capitalist colony” called Calafou, west of Barcelona. There, they rebooted off-the-grid servers—Systerserver and Anarchaserver—with the aim of creating safe digital spaces for women and LGBTQ activists. They also launched the GynePunk collective, an effort aimed at developing do-it-yourself gynecological tools for themselves and others, including socially disadvantaged women such as refugees and sex workers.

Don’t be fooled by the hackers’ environmental focus: Their online manifestos emphasize freedom through anarchy—not unlike early declarations made by the decade-old Anonymous, another hacking group. “Nature was to the witches what technoscience is to us,” TransHackFeminist says. “We infiltrate the machine with our hands.”

The second TransHackFeminist event will be held in Mexico at the end of the month, with room for over 200 participants who are “hacking the patriarchal–capitalist system.”

http://www.vocativ.com/news/209247/feminist-hackers/

https://vimeo.com/104189764

This is an organized and active Marxist movement within the US. That is why they all seem to have the same methods of propagandizing. It has nothing to do with feminism, environmentalism, LGBT rights, racial activist groups, workers rights, etc any more than the stripping of our rights by the government have to do with preventing terrorism.

It is all a game of misdirection. Anyone who speaks out against these groups is automatically branded a wasteful/misogynist/homophobe/racist/rich white guy. This helps these groups achieve their Marxist goals while hiding under a veil of social justice. I challenge you all to do some reading on Marxism, as I find the general ignorance of these ideologies in the US is the primary contributing factor to its spread. One of the main identifying features of Marxism/Communism is that it sounds really nice and promises the world, but usually delivers nothing more than the destruction of the society it infects.

Seven “Revolutionary Communist” Pro-Abortionists Arrested For Stopping Traffic In Seattle…






To protest against pro-life laws in… Texas




SEATTLE, July 8, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) –Seven protesters from a Communist front group called Stop Patriarchy were arrested in downtown Seattle on July 1 for blocking traffic.

Stop Patriarchy staged the July 1 events to protest new laws set to come into effect that day in Kansas, Texas, and Tennessee, calling them part of a “national onslaught against abortion rights and birth control.”

Stop Patriarchy is a front organization for the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a splinter group which views all sexual relations in free market societies as expression of male dominance. It advocates the use of “confrontational, dramatic non-violent” tactics to raise the alarm over recent legislative restrictions on abortion passed in Texas, Tennessee, and Kansas.

Their website added, “Over 330 restrictions have been introduced nationwide already this year…None of these laws have anything to do with ‘life.’ They are about slamming women back to the Dark Ages, reducing them to mere breeders.” For this the group blames “Chistian fascists,” “fundamentalists,” and, of course, men.

The seven women were released by police shortly afterward. The Seattle prosecutors’ office has not responded to LifeSiteNews queries about whether charges will be laid.

Seventy-five of its supporters briefly delayed hundreds of thousands of pro-life marchers for 20 minutes in Washington, D.C., during this year’s annual March for Life.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seven-revolutionary-communist-pro-abortionists-arrested-for-stopping-traffi

Life is but a long, heavy necklace made of 'but-this-is-just' pearls...


 

This is just a coloring book...
And the comment about Restroom Signs is just one picture in the entire article. 

HuffPo Article Claims Restroom Signs "Sexist" because Women Do Not Wear Pants in Them






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/25/feminist-coloring-book_n_7657950.html?utm_hp_ref=arts

New plan: Let’s all freak out over Amy Schumer



In case you missed it (and many of you no doubt have) comedian Amy Schumer has been on a bit of a roll lately. Her show on Comedy Central, Inside Amy Schumer, is already in its third season, her standup gigs have been selling out and she stars in a new romantic comedy which is just coming out. (Trainwreck.) But she’s still not some international giant of the screen in any sense, though her star seems to be on the rise. Unfortunately for her, she attracted the early and favorable attention of a number of feminists who (and this is a quote) were eager to embrace her as the new, fresh comedic voice of feminism.

I suppose that was a great idea except that they seemed to only be looking at a few snippets of her work shared around on feminist social media. The full body of work is rather different, and when the feminists found out about that the long knives came out quickly.


Amy Schumer has responded to a piece in the Guardian which scrutinized racially insensitive jokes from her stand-up special and recent stint hosting the MTV Movie Awards. In it, author Monica Heisey mused about whether a Schumer backlash would be inevitable given her sudden ubiquity.

“While there’s no denying that Schumer is an incredible talent, the material that doesn’t make the next morning’s feminist Facebook shares doesn’t fare quite so well under scrutiny,” Heisey wrote…

Last month, in a piece for the Daily Dot, Anne Thériault argued that Schumer had essentially been granted a pass on jokes that were insulting to minorities because the culture has been so eager to embrace her as the new, fresh comedic voice of feminism.

“… while her work is being called subversive and transgressive, the truth is that many of her jokes aren’t as enlightened as they might seem,” Thériault wrote. “Take, for example, a bit where she says, ‘I used to date Hispanic guys, but now I prefer consensual!’ No matter how you parse this joke, it’s racist and awful. It’s not a smart critique of rape culture. It’s a white woman blithely saying that all Latino men are rapists.”





http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/30/new-plan-lets-all-freak-out-over-amy-schumer/

-------------------------------------------
Humor. Comics. Fun. Sarcasm.


***************

Jerry Seinfeld and the Progressive Comedy Pause


Tell a joke to a liberal. Between your punchline and his laughter, there is a Progressive Comedy Pause. In this second or two, the liberal will process the joke to make sure he is allowed to laugh.



Is that joke racist? He mentioned Obama, but didn’t make light of him, so to speak. He also mentioned Michelle, but I didn’t notice sexism. Is it dismissive of the LGBTQIA community? Latinos? Muslims? Vegans? Will this joke hurt progressive causes? Will my laughter trivialize oppressed communities? Will I appear intolerant? I think it’s okay if I laugh. Yes, I’ll laugh now to signal my appreciation and to indicate that I’m not a joyless liberal scold.


“Ha ha.”



https://ricochet.com/jerry-seinfeld-and-the-progressive-comedy-pause/

Once the U.S. solved it's actual pollution problems and public sentiment shifted to where it was know to not only be legally dangerous but also simply wrong to fuck up the environment, the bloated agencies like the EPA developed a problem.  What are all of the bureaucrats to do?

The solution to this problem was to make lemonade out of lemons and start shaking people down who were not causing any problems at all.  Further, the right to trade a free pass to create problems for future employment allowed the big corporations who's lobbyists write the laws a work around.

I know for a fact that our environmental agencies are doing exactly this (extorting the micro-fish who won't sacrifice $100k for the moral victory of wining in court) because it happened to me first hand.

I am sure that this is why our EPA has claimed all temporary rain puddles as 'waters of the US' for regulatory purposes and are enlisting an army of 'citizen scientist' (aka, eco-snitches) to act as lookouts on the ground.  Cultivation of greenies starts in early grade school these days.  The stuff is sick which is, I'll bet, exactly why the Chinese Central Party sees some potential down the road here.

Good move. Developing countries should also do their bit of environmental protection, rather than saying that everything is the fault of the developed nations. IMO, China is the no.1 polluter in the world right now. Not only they are polluting their own country, but they are exporting their pollution abroad by opening toxin-emitting factories all over the third world.

China cracks down on environmental protection, arrests thousands suspected of environmental crimes



China is getting serious about protecting the environment and expects its citizens to follow suit — or pay the price. China's Environment Minister Chen Jining told parliament on Monday that Chinese police arrested thousands of people suspected of committing environmental crimes in the last year. Jining reported that, in total, 2,080 criminal cases were handed over to the police by environmental protection departments in 2014. Moreover, an estimated 3,400 companies and 3,700 construction sites were found to have violated environmental laws last year, and more than 3,100 workshops had to be shut down because of violations.

These arrests and crackdowns on businesses are all part of China's newly declared war on pollution, which the country has allocated $1.58 billion in special funds to control. Part of this dedication to saving the environment, however, includes the country's new power to impose unlimited fines and jail sentences on citizens that repeatedly commit environmental crimes


http://theweek.com/speedreads/563536/china-cracks-down-environmental-protection-arrests-thousands-suspected-environmental-crimes


----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Politburo of the Communist Party of China has nothing to fear of course...

The link is about her, but posted by someone who is NOT a fan of her. He explains very well her ideology and the fallacies of the one she considers a mentor.

I have to say this is one of the best video explaining what a cancer this movement represents. I know it is a bit long (30min) for our 140 characters or less world but give it a try if you can.


EDIT:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”


― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Why do you keep giving this opportunistic narcissistic nutbag a platform and further attention by posting her videos?