San Diego PD puts ho's online

Prostitutes' photos, case details put online

EL CAJON – Mug shots of convicted prostitutes are appearing on the El Cajon Police Department's Web site. Police hope to discourage them from plying their trade in town using a 21st-century version of public flogging.

Naturally, they couldn't leave the men alone, could they...

Pictures of 11 women, details of their crimes and areas where they are banned from loitering were posted as of yesterday. Police said they plan to add pictures of convicted “johns” – the clients – within weeks. They are urging viewers to report when the offenders violate probation.

The goal of putting the faces of convicted prostitutes on the Web “is to move them and the crimes that come with them out of our city,” said El Cajon police Special Investigations Sgt. Mike Hook.

And naturally, some stupid academic with his head up his ass has a comment...

The tactic has drawn mixed reactions.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the Web site violates the women's right to privacy.

“It's an incredible invasion of the privacy of the women, with no real benefit to law enforcement,” Cohn said.

Like I've said, women have a right to privacy enshrined in law - Roe vs Wade. Men? Men don't have shit.

I'm betting that there will be a furor, an outcry, feminists will bitch and moan, and eventually they will remove the prostitutes from the website. But the men will remain. Oh yes siree, they will remain.

Here's my favorite.

Salinas, Elisa

Hispanic female 125 lbs 5’05” Brown eyes Brown hair
Arrested 647(b) PC found guilty in Superior Court
Geographic probation until 05-31-2010

Geographic probation conditions: Defendant shall not:

(1). Contact or attempt to contact passing motorists. (2). Engage or attempt to engage motorists in conversation, (3) Solicit or accept rides from motorists or, (4). Loiter, congregate or remain on a public street, sidewalk or alleyway without apparent lawful reason or business at the following geographical areas of the city of El Cajon:

(a) The 500 Block of West Main Street to the 1600 Block of East Main.
(b) El Cajon Blvd between 100 and 1300 Blk
( c) The 500 Block of West Douglas Ave to the 300 Block of Douglas Ave.

The following conditions were deleted in this case
Additionally not to be in possession of a cell phone, pager, beeper, or other communication device while in the geographical areas described above, except in the course of lawful employment.

A poignant observation

I was going through the threads linked by NO MA'AM on his post the other day, and one observation of his stuck out at me.

Another thing that you can notice almost instantly, that all married women do when they join the MRM, is right off assure everyone that they are not like that. In fact, they go out of their way to tell every male in the MRM, many of whom have been royally screwed by Western Women, that they are the epitome of the perfect woman & wife, which has been eluding all of us men our whole lives. Our lives would be perfect if we had just been lucky enough be one of these women's husbands.
So, it again becomes not all women are like that.
And they go out of their way to let us know that they are the perfect woman that we should all strive to find.
Oddly, these women's husbands are never posters on MRM boards, so we don't really know what their perfect marriage is really like, do we?

I think this man speaks the truth. The first thing any "anti-feminist" woman says is that "she's not like those other women" - the same way a girl trying to wheedle you into signing your balls over says "I'm not like those other women who will divorce you and take your money and children."

It has been said in the past, that dissimulation is the order of the day with women - it is what it is, you just have to guard yourself against it. You can't get mad at the rattlesnake for striking, and you can't get mad at the woman for her dissimulation and manipulation. That's why feminists call you a misogynist when you complain that women lie about rape or abuse or about basically anything, because it is in their nature. And to some extent people know it but don't want to say it.

I quite agree that things will be much worse for women than men. In fact, feminism's largest damage to women will be if men begin to see the natural manipulations that all women do, and men actually do make them equal and don't stick up for them anymore.
I don't really care what the women on the board think, and I am hardly talking to them, except to tell them to shut up. It irritates me though, to see women show up and start the mangina factory over and over again, and to see so many men that just love to come to heel for a "good woman." Of course, this is all just on these women's word. Every woman who's ever cheated on me told me she would never cheat on me at the beginning of the relationship too. Of course they are going to make us think that "they are not like that."
Notice that expat married men living abroad (of which I believe you are one) rarely talk about how good their marriages are compared to how the women in the MRM do. Basically, it seems that expat married men realize fully the nature of females, but have chosen to engage with one in a place where the law affords him the right to be in more control over her - expat married men are not preaching that "women are not all like that."
What we have going on in the MRM, in fact, what I view as the biggest problem overall, is that we are like a person trying to start a fire but there is someone right next to us who keeps blowing out the match before we can get it to the kindling. That's the effect that letting women into the MRM at the MRM's youthful stage has been having - they keep blowing out our matches before we can get the wildfire going.
Certainly, when the MRM reaches critical mass and takes off like a wildfire, there will be women involved. It is inevitable. Also, certainly when the MRM's message becomes more mainstream, it will tone down it's radicalness and become more docile and acceptable to the public in general.
Until it gets to that point, however, allowing women into the MRM and not pushing them away so we can get the damn match to the kindling, is going to be our eternal pitfall, as has been proven over and over by the MRM's history itself. Why are we still so small after being around for decades already?
I wish more in the MRM could see this, but they rarely do because they are just continually desperate to believe that all women are not like that.

Another good post.

I've noticed the "all women are not like that" crap a lot, but I never put it together the way Rob did here.

Why are all-girl schools ok while all-boy schools are not?

I've always been curious as to why, exactly, men's colleges are subject to legal challenges while women's colleges are not. Why the YMCA is open to both sexes while the YWCA isn't, and why the same fate has befallen the Boy Scouts and various fraternities but not Girl Guides/Girl Scouts and sororities.

Why Single-Sex Classes Are Generally Unavailable

When the US Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the Virginia Military Institute was violating the 14th Amendment by excluding women, it dealt an almost-fatal blow to same-sex education for boys. In the majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court retained full protection for any female-only programs that could be said to compensate for the disabilities women suffer: "Sex classifications may be used to compensate women 'for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,' to 'promote equal employment opportunity,' to advance the full development of the talent and capabilities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social and economic inferiority of women."

In light of this ruling, all-girls programs could still be seen as compensatory; all-boys programs, on the other hand, are regarded as discriminatory. The ruling puts a chill on all special initiatives for boys. However, while it discourages them, it does not strictly prohibit them. Programs that separate the sexes while offering each the same resources and opportunities remain permissible. In practice, however, single-sex education is an allowable option for girls, but rarely for boys.

This is straight from "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Society is abusing boys by treating them differently from women, and not in a good way. Boys are treated as trash and scum, and they grow up internalizing that message. Its a pity that so many parents love their boys less than they love their girls.

Men are responsible for their wife's behavior

Russell Yates was dragged over the coals over Andrea's multiple murders, just as the husband of that woman who drove the family car into the lake was questioned, even though she kicked him out and drove the car into the lake with the kids screaming, strapped in their car seats.

The man is expected to be fully responsible for his wife in America. Let me remind you that this is by definition domestic violence, but I guess men are expected to walk the tightrope over the Grand Canyon every day and be happy about it. How else would you explain the number of women who wait for men to approach them and cry sexual harassment when they do?

The man is expected to be responsible for his wife's murders, his wife's abuse, his wife's spending them into credit card debt, hell, he is held responsible for "driving her" to kill him.

Is there anything that society is willing to hold women responsible for?

Now we have a mom who has already saddled the family (husband) with $135,000 in debt, goes out shopping every day, spends $400 at Starbucks in a month, and doesn't see anything with it. She goes on Oprah, goes "Hell yeah!" and basically says "Fuck you all, I'm not changing."

She holds all the cards and she knows it. A simple divorce motion, and all that debt that she was the sole contributor to, her husband will be responsible for, all those clothes she buys, those are the "manner to which she has become accustomed" and the children will naturally go with her to maximize the wealth transfer through the inevitable child support.

Consumers Gone Wild

I love new clothes. However, I like getting rid of the clothes just as quickly to go buy new ones."

This lady who appeared on Oprah lives the life of a big house in the burbs, new cars, six beautiful kids, and spending way beyond her husband's $5,000/month salary. Felice drops $400 a month on Starbucks, $240 on tans and manicures, and her children have no health insurance.

"I have six kids and I sell their toys sometimes just because I don't like them."

When money runs dry, as it often does, she takes out cash advances. She handles the family finances and hides receipts from her husband underneath a baby blanket in a drawer.

When I do shop, I do kind of get a rush. It makes me feel good... but afterwards, though, I get depressed. I'll buy something even if I really don't like it because I have to come out with something.

On page 5 you learn they're on the brink of being totally financially destroyed with $135,000 in credit card debt, $1,700 a month for three cars, two mortgages at $685,000, and are two weeks behind on their mortgage payment. Before you make Felice out to be the totally baddie, the husband is just as culpable for not asking more questions and making sure the numbers add up. He even says that he would get credit card bills and not know where $10,000 of it came from.

Lady? That fucking cow is no lady, let me tell you that. Why do idiots like this collaborationist Ben Popken insist on calling cunts and whores ladies?

Anyway, take a look at that last sentence and let it sink in. "The husband is just as culpable for .... .... .... not asking questions and making sure the numbers add up." All while the wife claims that she can’t go get a job because she has to be “home for the kids.”

This is what you're in for.

Look down. Have a penis? Congratulations, society considers you scum no matter what you do.

Unrelated link: Susan Smith - Child murderer or victim?

Wife strikes gold with husband's death

Another dead man, another rich wife. Another "wrongful death" lawsuit. What's new here? Well, she and her lawyer and naturally the accomplice judge, raided another dead man's estate to pay the fiend.

$4.5 million awarded in Carrera GT case

Over two years ago a crash involving a Porsche Carrera GT during a Ferrari Owner's Club track day killed two event participants when they hit the wall at over 100 mph while trying to avoid a Ferrari merging onto the front straightaway. The driver and Carrera GT owner was Ben Keaton, an avid automotive enthusiast who regularly shared his wisdom on the website 6SpeedOnline.com. The car's passenger was Corey Rudl, a prospective Carrera GT buyer who wanted to take a ride. The tragic loss of these two lives brought out a great debate in the safety of California Speedway's tight infield road course, the responsibility of the event organizers, and the design of the Porsche Carrera GT itself.

Tracy Rudl, the wife of passenger Corey Rudl, filed a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by many parties associated with the track event. She recently received a settlement of approximately $4.5 million. The contributing parties to the settlement fund were 2% from the merging Ferrari driver, 8% from Porsche, 41% from California Speedway and Ferrari Owner's Club and finally 49% from the Carrera GT driver's estate.

The Ferrari driver was not found very responsible since he was waved on by a track worker, Porsche was found liable because (believe it or not) they didn't put Traction Control in the vehicle. Maybe I should sue Chevrolet if I get in an accident because my car doesn't have traction control and runflat tires and all the other assorted safety features it never had and I know it never had them?

The track is paying because the track worker waved the Ferrari into the track, and the GT driver is responsible because?? Oh, that's right, he had the money. Forgot that justice is always about getting the biggest payoff in the US.

Sickening. Why is it that judges and juries just can't help forcing other people's purse strings open whenever a woman comes along with a few crocodile tears?

Noted female chefs say that bias smolders inside the kitchen

Accomplished female chefs still face deep-seated bias in the restaurant business, seven prominent female chefs tell New York magazine.

Seven prominent and presumably accomplished female chefs claim to struggle against Teh Patriarchy when they skated in on their Pussy Pass? Will wonders never cease?

In the fine-dining atmosphere where restaurants are identified with their chefs, these female cooks contend with regular reminders that the industry isn't comfortable with the idea of women in charge.

Here, naturally, the industry is wrong and the little princesses are right...

The chefs, all of whom have run well-known kitchens, describe situations in kitchens in New York or Paris where male colleagues insult or ignore their female counterparts.

And of course, male colleagues never insult or ignore their male counterparts, female colleagues never insult or ignore their male counterparts, and female colleagues never insult or ignore their female counterparts. Nope, no way. Or maybe they do, but its only notable when men do it to women. Its funny how the chefs find the time to be such good cooks when they're patriarchally oppressing these poor widdle women all the time.

Chef and restaurant owner Anita Lo says that her mail is frequently addressed to "Mr. Anito Lo."

Now that's just hilarious.

Wary of the machismo found in the main kitchen, women are more likely to gravitate toward pastry, a relatively calmer and more traditionally female area.

Ah yes, can't stand the heat, so they get out of the kitchen and whine about it. That is these women's motto. The pastry area. Relatively calmer, more female dominated, pays less but the work is easier? Sounds like all the pink collar jobs women flock to in droves. And when women run HR, guess who they hire. And bonus, they then whine about "the pay gap" and want to be paid more for less work.

Woman wants to ban books without happy endings

What in the fuck... this stuff is better than any satirist could come up with.

We want happy endings for kids' books

04 October 2007 09:43
A crusading mother-of-three has made it her mission to ensure children grow up hearing of only the good things in life.
Norwich woman Clare Hughes is spearheading the eastern arm of a new national campaign to put a stop to children's books that don't have a happy ending.
The 42-year-old has been appointed head of the Happy Endings Foundation's East of England Cheering Committee, which urges parents to only let their children read books with happy endings.
The group was set up after its founder, Adrienne Small, read the first book in the series A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket to her daughter.
She said the books caused her daughter to take a more negative approach to life, which only got worse when she subsequently read all 13 books in the series.
Mrs Hughes, whose children are 13, 12 and nine, said: “I've seen the way my children respond to news that goes on in real life, whether that be the disappearance of a child, like Madeleine McCann, or bombings, and that gives them enough nightmares.
“Books should give them a sense of good triumphing over evil and let them be rest assured that the goodies will come out on top.”
“It's about encouraging children to read books with positive values. Look at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, there are some unpleasant characters, but Charlie wins out in the end. That's the type of book we support.”
As part of the campaign, letters have been sent out to school libraries asking them to remove Lemony Snicket books from the shelves and HEF are holding a number of activities, such as Bad Book Bonfires, where they are encouraging people on Guy Fawkes's Night to make their bonfires from “bad books”. Other reads on their “bad book” list include Villette by Charlotte Bronte, The Wide Sargasso Sea by Jeah Rhys, The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Anderson and Shockheaded Peter by Heinrich Hoffman.
However, Harriet Cox, librarian for Norfolk's School Library Service, said the campaign was unnecessary.
She said: “It's patronising children if there are only books with happy endings and they will see through it because they know there's good and bad in the world.”
Are you campaigning for or against an issue that concerns you? Call Kate Scotter on 01603 772326 or email kate.scotter@archant.co.uk

Frigid Women = Victims

So here's another "boo-hoo, women" article. This one focuses on how, when a man doesn't want to have sex with his girlfriend, he's denying her something. He's the one to blame, he's the stupid one, he's the closet homosexual, he's the creepy pervert. All because he would rather choke the chicken than do his girlfriend. She is of course, morally pure as the driven snow (sound familiar?) and has no blame in this whatsoever. Oh poor victim. I can hear the sound of a thousand keyboards firing up to denigrate the guy, how he must be such a loser, how they will show her a better time, whatever.

Read on...

The Web: Just another way to avoid sex, friends

By Helen A.S. Popkin

So here’s a story you’ve heard before, or at least some version of it. If it didn’t happen to a friend, you may very well be the protagonist of such a tale. This one I’m fixin’ to share comes straight from the mouth of a formerly-Internet naïve friend who, just a few years ago while closing in on the ripe age of 30, lost her boyfriend-since-high school to the wicked world of Internet Sex.

FYI: I’m not talking about me. Fortunately I’m not so unfortunate to have the same loser boyfriend from high school. Also, my mind’s been in the gutter way too long to not have heard this train coming down the track.

So, there's this couple from high school and they go to college and then on to grownup working life together and monogamously. As is easily predicted, things got super dull in the bedroom. And the living room. And the kitchen. And anywhere else they tried to zest up their premarital bliss.

Instead of doing the safe and sane thing by breaking up and moving on, The Boyfriend moved to the burgeoning world of Online Porn, dragging his Good, Giving and Game Girlfriend (as insightful, hilarious sex advice columnist Dan Savage would describe her) with him. After awhile, however, the GGG Girlfriend wasn’t enough. On his own, the Boyfriend discovered chat rooms, which then progressed to video chat rooms.

Video chat rooms then progressed to the GGG Girlfriends 28^th birthday which she spent alone in their bedroom while the Boyfriend (per usual by now) sat up all night in the living room in front of the monitor with his pants around his ankles, if you catch my meaning.

Did I mention that the GGG Girlfriend was still pretty much as cute and pleasant as she was in high school when they first hooked up? Not that it matters, as is totally explained in the recently-released poll results from advertising agency JWT which states that Americans are giving up friends and sex for Web life.

While anecdotal evidence like my poor GGG Girlfriend and The Boyfriend abound, you kind of have to wonder at the reliability of such a poll. According to the results, “More than a quarter of respondents — or 28 percent — admitted spending less time socializing face-to-face with peers because of the amount of time they spend online.” However, that doesn’t take into account hanging out with friends online through such exceedingly popular social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

More importantly, however, it doesn’t seem to define Sex, and as Bill Clinton taught us, Sex means different things to different people. Internet Sex, via downloadable porn, chat rooms, or Second Life, may be the closest the phobic and shy ever get to the so-called “real thing.” Meanwhile others, like the aforementioned Boyfriend, find the virtual version of “It” more fulfilling that the real thing waiting in the bedroom.

Other seemingly-important information imparted by this survey states that out of the 1,011 adults polled regarding the amount of time they would feel OK without going on the Web, 15 percent said they could do it for just a day or less. Twenty-one percent said a couple of days and another 19 percent said a few days. Only a fifth of those who took part in an online survey said they could go for a week. (Probably the same people still on AOL dialup, LOL).

That’s all very well and interesting, I suppose. But despite the suspect sciencey-goodness of such a poll, didn’t you pretty much know in your heart that the above was true? We love the Internet. Just like we used to love TV … long, long ago, before the Internet started making TV obsolete.

Meanwhile, if you’ve got the patience to search through microfiche, no doubt you’ll dig up an old alarmist news report from some other sort of suspect poll that states something along the lines of people giving up real friends and sex for “I Love Lucy.” You’ll probably also find such overarching statements about giving up same for marijuana. Or jazz. Or fire.

Whatever version of society-destroying evil you happened to scan on the microfiche viewer, there’d be an element of truth. Because, hey, all the above, like the Internet, are distractions. And as humans, we actively seek out distractions. Because when life isn’t painful, it’s often painfully dull.

So viva la distraction, or whatever. Just like the Boyfriend of GGG Girlfriend would’ve have been a perverted jerk even if Al Gore never invented binary code or whatever. If it wasn’t the Internet, we’d find some other reason to avoid our friends and sex.

So when do these bitches get off acting as though they're God's gift to mankind? "Real thing waiting in the bedroom" my ass. Its all about her, and sometimes even I would rather take care of business myself than to get her all aroused and lubed up, then make sure she comes first, and finally cuddle afterwards.

The Privilege Checklist

The last thing feminism is about is equality. If it was then I would support it. No feminism is all about privilege for women at the expense of men. Remember, these are the same women who fight to get into men's-only clubs but support banning men from women-only health clubs as discriminatory. Here are some more of their double standards.

The female/feminist privilege checklist:
1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?
2. Do you occasionally experience subservient gestures by the opposite sex(opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?
3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on "breadwinning" - although you could also take that route if it interests you?
4.a. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?
4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at ("No one should be drafted" - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if China & Russia combined and attacked full force - and "If men start wars ..." when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely "Men are SENT in wars ..." - exactly what you're trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others)
5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?
6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?
7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?
8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?
11. Are you much more capable of "marrying up" - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?
12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn't work for the money?
13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone's tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma's Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?
14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to breadwinning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as "expendable" or viewing your problems as not being important?
15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same death rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?
16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?
17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofus? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?
18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (women's studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?
19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don't CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don't choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don't "come out right"?
20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don't even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?
21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?
22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?
23. Can you get sympathy if you don't work and don't have children by listing all the household work (hmm ... Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister's husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?
24. Can you "mix and match" traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a "traditional wife" - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist when THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?
25. Can you constantly say "that's just typical" and "it doesn't surprise me a bit" and make a lemon face if you are a parent-in-law? Is near-universal contempt by both genders for your behavior hidden to a much greater extent?
26. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve "speaking your mind" and "some people just don't want to hear the truth"?
27. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you're only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?
28. Can you propagate myths and outright lies ("Superbowl/domestic violence hoax", "rule of thumb", 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstrual of pay figures, and many more) and be given a "pass" - without more rigor being demanded?
29. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the "patriarchy", and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just ... failures?
30. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? Do you "look the other way" when someone doesn't require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?
31. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people's choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death...). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don't take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).
32. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?
33. And if you are irritated about generalizations and stereotypes - and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped ...
... you may have female/feminist privilege! Congratulations!

But don't let on - because you can gain much more with a continual and manipulative victim status.

I found this today, it was originally on the Forbes forum. Good times, great writing. This guy is a budding MRA with fire in his belly.