From Fred X and Eternal Bachelor:
Angry Harry has been nominated for the Political Blogger Award and an invasion is just what the Doctor ordered. Feministing.com is in the top position right now, but we just have to get Angry Harry into the top ten, if not the top three. He's a damn good blogger and our chance to get MRA issues into the mainstream. While you're at it, be sure to vote for Glenn Sacks too!
Sign up and vote for the MRA issues guys!
The "Khakis" commercial by Cadillac/GM made the rounds recently - this is the commercial with the woman walking through the office, making all the men cower and piss their pants. To see this gem, go here and select "CTS" in the "SORT BY" drop-down box. Then click the third one in the first row (entitled "KHAKIS"), with the picture of the man and woman looking out from the elevator.
I was reading MANN and saw this great comment on why misandry is so rampant in the media, whether they be ads or the programs that come between the ads.
Submitted by Male Rights Network on Sat, 2007-05-05 01:54.
The reality is - and the entire retail and consumer industry knows it - today's crop of women are the ones with the money, they are the big earners and the high-flyers. This is through pro-female education especially at third-level, "affirmative action" and through Systematic Wealth Transfer, also know as Marriage-and-Divorce. (Marriage is a feminist institution.)
Furthermore, when women have this money, they spend it much more liberally than men would, and they spend it on goods and services which allow businesses to make a high profit.
We should all know by now that hatred of the male gender is something indelibly inscribed in the female psyche, and it's just a matter of encouraging it. Advertisers work on the basis of what sort of images and messages match our common psychology. We like to be told something is "new", we like to associate with "success", and often we like to be shocked. Whatever makes that all-important psycho-emotional link in our brain; that's what makes the impact.
So it is entirely natural that advertisers and businesses which use advertising will want to tap into any exploitable female psychological sensitive-spot. I have no doubt that, at least to a certain extent, presenting women with "superiority" images over men gives them an ego boost, thus making an emotional connection, and thus help sell the product.
Men are nothing to the consumer/retail industry. I cannot say what decade exactly they gave up on us, but today, we are 0 to them. We represent people who do not need a massive quantity variety of cheaply-produced goods such as clothes, shoes, perfumes, necklaces, facial creams etc. Our spending habits are conservative, and, I would say less predictable and less spontaneous than women's. The male psyche, being less emotional and more objective and logic in nature (by and large), is not influenced so easily by targeted marketing.
So not only do we not need their wares in many cases, what we do need, we just don't buy them, or do so in an unpredictable manner. We are unpredictable consumers. Advertisers could pump billions into an ad that will be effective on 95% of men, but it just won't happen. Conceiving an advertisement that will work on 95% of women, however, is probably easily achieveable, and in advanced marketing and psychological circles, it is probably proven.
If misandry is one of those primordial triggers of the female psyche, you can be sure it will be used.
That is not to say that we should not complain, both online and in wider society, about these anti-male, denigratory advertisements. That is not to say that there is not an element of social engineering and propaganda behind these ads. That is not to say that there are at least some women and feminists in the industry that are using the mass media to alter the collective conscience to the disadvantage of men.
However, we should consider that the economic case for (i) ensuring women have the bulk of wealth in society and (ii) ensuring they spend and much as possible, which is easily achievable, makes huge commercial sense. Indeed, female dominance in education and the workplace is music to Corporation's ears: they know it means more profit and a bigger consumer economy.
Economics are not on our side, men. Any Men's Rights Activist is inclined to believe that "Feminism = Marxism, Full Stop" should consider just how closely Feminism and Capitalism are intertwined.
Would these highly offensive, targeted attacks being accepted if they had a huge commercial benefits if Jews were the scapegoat, or women were the scapegoat? That is an interesting one, especially in the case of women being portrayed in almost entirely negative lights; their very integrity as people attacked. Would the laws of economics make a concession in that case?
Lacking a powerful, perceivable "men's lobby" - consisting of Government officials and bodies, corporate interests as well as individuals - the misandric advertising will continue, as it is effective on the female psyche and thus, helps to sell products.
I saw this article yesterday. Its about a new J.W. Marriott hotel opening up in Grand Rapids, MI which will have a special floor for women only. The entire 19th floor of the hotel will be reserved for members of the royal sex, in addition to an entire lounge also reserved for women only. (Be sure to visit the article and do the poll)
You know, I don't have a problem per se with women-only buses, seats, whatever. But it really jangles my nerves that we alternately hear that women are strong and can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with men, and that they are weak and need protection. Its very irritating. I wish they'd make up their damn mind. Being the sex that possesses the womb shouldn't get them so many damn unfair privileges.
Anti-discrimination legislation is de riguer in most western countries - you can't discriminate against anyone for a variety of reasons, including sex. But I guess all that goes out the window when its special privileges we're talking about, eh? We only hear about sex discrimination lawsuits when its a woman being discriminated against, not when its a woman being discriminated for. Just imagine the furore if they had made a floor for whites only.
Fairness - that's the root of all of this. I think most men know or have figured out that life is not fair. But it seems feminists haven't. They whined and whined until they got what they wanted - special privileges that are not equal to their responsibilities. And you know what they say about the squeaky wheel - it gets the most grease. They could throw Molotov cocktails, bomb buildings and get away with light sentences or no punishment by playing the innocent woman card. Not much has changed in the last 100 years has it.
Men are aware that life is not fair, but when the government has enacted laws to force fairness, well we jolly well want some of that fairness for ourselves! And this is why I'm opposing this hotel that will have a floor and a lounge for women only, while not having one for men only. Heck, I wouldn't even mind if this particular hotel didn't have a men-only section if feminists had not made men-only spaces illegal.
They claimed that men were making deals and excluding women in their exclusive clubs, so men-only clubs and colleges were made illegal. As soon as the first female CEO hit the Time magazine cover page, they should have made female-only spaces illegal too. But they didn't. All the privileges, none of the responsibilities. Now women can hobnob all they want, make all the business deals they wish, all without men. Of course, now its about sexual harassment - these undoubtedly fine career women don't want to get hit on. Where the hell do these people come up with these theories?
Spokeswoman Andrea Groom said more than half of all business travelers are women. She told The Grand Rapids Press that they want be able to relax over a drink without getting hit on by guys.
Ahhh... its a female. Deluded as usual.
If you're as angry about this sexist, discriminatory policy, let Marriott know. I have.
Wake up to modern living, men of Britain do your duty and look after your kids & stop being lazy! Women should not have to choose between career & a family. We are all born of woman, right?
Posted by John Clachan
Choice may be a good thing, but I can envisage situations where mothers who would prefer to stay with their baby are persuaded to go back to work so the father can take some leave. I agree that a father's input is of far more benefit when the child is older, and surely we should be encouraging mothers to breast feed.
Posted by Mary Jackson
I say this Richard, the day women provide sex to average looking men who are financial losers, then all men will stop work, and stop trying to support them.
Posted by Charles
Men are not nurturers. They are hunters and protectors. They bring home the booty. "Baby, baby bunting, Daddy's gone a-hunting; he gone to catch a rabbit skin to wrap his baby bunting in."
This move is all part of the one-worlder, anti-capitalist Stalinesque agenda of levelling out the world: Weaken the workforce.
It's abnormal. That's why the socialists love it.
Posted by Verity
I think this is going a bit too far! Whatever people say in these politically correct times, the mother is usually the primary caretaker of a child in its first year of life. After all, fathers cannot breast feed!
However, having said that, I do think that fathers should be allowed between between two and four weeks off after the birth of a baby. In the first month after having a baby, most mothers really need that extra support with recovering from the birth and the disturbed nights. Because mothers tend to be the primary caretakers in a child's early life, fathers need to fulfil their provider/protector/supporter role during this important stage of family life (yes, even in these 'enlightened' times!). There is nothing worse for a mother with young children than having a partner/husband with a dodgy career at this time!
Posted by Alicia Fox
Women bear children because they are best at rearing very young children. The time the father should take off is immediatly after the birth to assist the new mother to adapt to looking after the new child, and then he should return to work leaving the mother to do what only she can do.
Posted by Ian K Pestell
I wrote about Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza a while ago. Essentially, Paul allegedly pulled some strings to get his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a good high-paying position at the State Department. When it was found out that Paul may have used his influence, an investigation started.
Obviously, Paul took the fall. No mention of whether Shaha Riza will suffer any consequences, but oh she was just a girl!! Just a poor wikkle innocent girl who got caught up in big bad Wolfowitz's plot to get her a high position and a big salary! We know she shouldn't suffer any more, the proof of her innocence is right there between her legs!
Parenting is very much taken as a woman's job. This is why Mother's Day is such a day of appreciation - husbands appreciate, sons appreciate, fathers appreciate, everyone appreciates women every chance they get. Why, I think Mother's Day is set to approach Valentine's Day in the number of flowers and other gifts given to women. After all, who wants to be shamed or put in the doghouse? Remember who holds the reins in the house and who wears the skirt, while reserving the right to wear the pants at any time.
And of course Father's Day is when the most collect calls are made. What is the father's role again? Ah yes, to be a walking wallet.
Parenting is a woman's privilege. Women get the right to choose to kill, they get the right to choose to abort, they get the right to choose to abandon, and they are praised for acting selfishly no matter what they do. Its as if women are celestial beings that have done so much good for the world that its A-OK if they do a little bit for themselves.
But anyway, where does the father or the husband fit into all this? His job is naturally to provide the financial womb for the woman's choice - whether she wants to work at a career, work part-time, or not work at all and claim that she should be earning $138,000 a year for doing work that does not have to conform to anybody's schedule, has no set standards or quality control and if she is fired, she walks away with half the assets.
His job is to be the family ATM... just like we don't worry about where the ATM gets its money from, so we don't care that the husband has to work to get the money that enables the wife to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed to. No, we only think about the ATM when it is not working. So we encourage nagging and moaning about housework, we encourage laws outlining men's responsibility to "share" 50-50 in the housework, while not making simultaneous laws for women's responsibility to earn half the household income (Spain). And of course, we take men's work and consequent absence as evidence that they don't really care about the children. Naturally, if a man doesn't work, he is roundly criticized and the fact that he doesn't have a job will be used against him, to deny him custody since he is obviously an irresponsible lazy bum. Men, with childcare have to continue to work full-time and be a father in their spare time. Women have the option to be a mother full-time and go to Mom-tini parties in their spare time.
Feminists would have you believe that taking care of a baby/child is such a drag, and that most women only have babies because they are pressured to. For that, just remember - whatever a feminist says has to be the complete opposite of the truth. A little closer look and a little personal experience goes a long way towards disproving the "women only have babies because the patriarchy forces them to" myth.
And taking care of children may be a drag, but so is going to work. So is driving. But they have their good sides too. Heck, I have heard some women claim that shopping is a drag! Speaking of taking care of children - the other day, I was at a cousin's house - they recently had a baby, and I saw a very fancy contraption they bought for the new arrival - it was a cradle... that rocks itself! So you just place the baby in there, turn the soft music on and turn the motor on, and the cradle rocks itself!
Respect Men's Rights
STOP FEMINISM
There has been a semi-famous case in South Africa recently, about a man accused of being raped by a woman. The man in question is a top official, reputed to be the next Presidential hopeful. And while I hate politicians, especially African politicians after having lived there, that is not the subject of my post.
Apparently, after a long fight which attracted a lot of international media attention, Jacob Zuma was acquitted of rape charges. And the media is not happy about it. Now blather on all you want about kangaroo courts and justice not being served, I will point you right back to the US Courts and the amount of "justice" they dispense. And that's the shining beacon of freedom in the west. Don't even think about the courts of Europe, which have still not shaken off their socialist, fascist and nazi roots.
The man has been acquitted after a sketchy rape allegation, and naturally, his life is ruined. He has had the legs of his campaign for President cut off, and it remains to be seen whether he will be welcome back in his party or whether he will be quietly disposed of.
Here are some quotes from the linked article:
THE PRETORIA NEWS
Zuma is not fit to lead a country where women's rights are high on the agenda, where the fight against Aids is, or should be, an urgent national priority and where the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the duty of the powerful. South Africa deserves a president who can lead by example. Jacob Zuma has shown that he cannot do that.
And how exactly is being accused of a crime showing that he cannot lead a country? That's like throwing mud at someone and claiming they are too dirty for your company. The media led the charge, with most companies vilifying the man before his trial even began, and now instead of issuing apologies, they have the gall to say that he is guilty even when proven innocent.
THE CITIZEN
How was his acquittal Predictable? Oh, maybe you knew he was innocent all along, eh? The female who accused him of rape has brought him into disrepute and so has the media which put spice on the story to sell it.
Oh, and naturally, the feminazis are going to be using this high-profile case to further their own agenda, probably passing legislation that cements the guilty-when-accused mindset that everyone seems to have, in the media at least.
Powered by ScribeFire.
