Links: The Sexual Revolution robbed women & Men have never had it so good

Gems like;

“Whilst poor, unskilled men have certainly lost out in the income stakes, many have received a bonus that matches that of any banker: it is a bonus paid in sex rather than money, and it’s not only women who are footing the bill, it is also hard working men paying their taxes – taxes which are being used to clear up the mess left by men who are not, like themselves, taking responsibility.”

Any ‘man’ calling for the Patriarchy needs to man up and wife up his last slut and settle down to a life of bland domesticity immediately and if he complains, he is just as entitled as the feminists. You can’t Have It All. You have to choose.

No such thing as a social liberal, economic conservative (man). There are parasites off the State (welfare for their bastard spawn, free STD clinics) who want to keep all their own money from paying into it. They have no conscience.
Or, as TRS refers to the likes of them;

PUSSYNERDPUAs (*Pick-Up Artists*), men who keenly-recognize the decay of modern human relationships, yet choose to contribute to the problem.

i hope you fucking choke love heartbreak

We never used to have a SMP in the first place. That’s the first problem in a long list. Whatever your opinions of evobio and the ‘natural’ functions of men and women, humans were never meant to be a functionally sterile species.

Enjoying the decline doesn’t screw over other people, yet these sociopaths would have you think otherwise.

You can be certain anyone bragging about how they’re gonna be poolside, isn’t.

End Mancrimination Posters

I don’t know whether to laugh that they’re accurate or cry that they’re necessary.

clapping in a snazzy suit

I know the men’s rights movement get a bad rep, but would you reject any legal favours they win for you? Exactly.

Advertising stole feminism & they’re STILL complaining + Women on Board lies

When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.

Feminists know when something smells fishy.

….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.

…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….

Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.

…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.

These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).

It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.

Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?

Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.

This girl is dumb.

Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).

We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
Blogs own your job, bitch. It’s over. MSM/Print is dead.
Bloggers do your shit for free and better.

Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.

False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View at

Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).

Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.

We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….

Actually in the FTSE250 in this report, as I said here;

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.


In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.

head desk blackadder give up
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page:

And it does link to a very recent briefing paper:
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: which reads;

It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.

It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.

It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….

Back to the dumb girl…

…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).

The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..

All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.

…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …

These people will never be happy.

…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …

They have no money.

But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.


…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …

Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.

Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.

…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..

See what I mean?

…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …

You made your bed, motherfuckers.

Why are universities blocking formation of men’s societies?

Sexism? Sue.

A male Durham University student was so moved by the suicide of a close male friend that he felt compelled to start a society for other men who may need support – only to find it blocked by the Student Union this week for being too “controversial”.

poor dear (not sarcasm for once)

When Adam Frost, 21, a third-year Italian and French student, proposed the Durham University Male Human Rights Society, he was ridiculed on campus, with remarks such as “Isn’t this a bit like starting a society for white people’s rights?”
oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
Why not do that too?
Don’t white people have rights anymore?
The Equality Act says it IS possible to discriminate against white people, I fucking read it.
The SJWs seem to think you can ONLY support your group if you play a Victim Card, whether or not you have one – untrue. You can start a group to further your interests on nothing, with no cause at all. Don’t buy into ANY of their frame.
Adam told me: “Last October, a friend who was depressed reached out to me, but I didn’t know what to say. I tried to help, but two weeks later I found out he’d killed himself. That hit me hard. I started looking into male suicide and found some shocking statistics. The reason behind that is that male depression isn’t taken seriously – we’re supposed to just ‘man up’ and deal with it. Men are ridiculed.

Which group ridicules men?

“It’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society.


“But it was rejected by [Durham’s] Societies Committee; they said it was ‘controversial’ – and that my aims were ‘too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]’. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.

No boy’s clubs allowed. Start one off campus, I found out some time back the rules usually only apply to communal campus space. Then find a no-win no-fee lawyer and go to town. On proceeds (because you WILL win) fund the group’s space.

“To show why, I went through the Fem Soc policy documents, where it specifically says, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men’…..

Men are the enemy.

Tweet Emma Watson for her opinion, with a picture of the “Feminism exists for women” document. I am 100% completely serious. The bitch can’t deny you the opportunity for your own space, since she tried that UN BS. When even she ignores you, you have certifiable proof they’re all like that.

Controversial pro-male anti-feminist book

Stand By Your Manhood by Peter Lloyd is published by Biteback at £16.99. © 2015 Peter Lloyd. To buy a copy for £13.59 visit or call 0808 272 0808. Discount until May 2, p&p free for a limited time only.

and here we go joker come on

Feminism and the free market: Does liberty entail liberation?

…However, when I started reading about liberalism and Hayek and Adam Smith I had that feeling of “where have you been all my life?”. One of the reasons that I was so pleasantly surprised was because I had come to understand liberalism through the lens of liberal feminism. Liberal feminists measure freedom in terms of equality of outcome and far from believing in minimal state intervention they rely on it to ensure equality is secured.

Perhaps this is partly because freely made individual choices would be so unlikely to fulfil feminist aims….

..Liberation has a negative impact on men. Data suggest low waged female employment has an impact on low waged male employment. Factor into this an on-going drive to increase female employment in all areas and an education system that is heavily stacked against boys. This feeds into male unemployment, particularly in the younger age groups and a dearth of educated, decently earning and motivated men….

Kinsey’s Fraudulent and Fake Data/Methodology

Many people will be surprised to discover that what has served and is 
serving as the basis for public school sex education (and is even being 
used in many Catholic schools) has its roots in scientific fraud. Most of 
this could be credited to one individual: Alfred C. Kinsey, with the help 
of his colleagues Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul Gebhard. 
Their research and studies have undoubtedly shaped current attitudes and 
perceptions concerning human sexuality. These perceptions have ultimately 
worked themselves into the current sex education programs.

And how it places women and children in danger;

Click to access kinsey-women_11_03.pdf

In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990), Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel unmasked the
Kinsey studies as a massive hoax. The medical journal The Lancet reviewed their
findings and said: “[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are
imperfections in the (Kinsey) sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on
children. … Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the
two (Kinsey) reports.”…..
Included among the claims is;
  • Defining American husbands and fathers as sex offenders
  • Sanitizing child sexual abuse
  • Going easy on rapists

Feminists are targeting schoolboys now

How cowardly.

The male of the species becomes, by definition, a sex offender before he has even grown up.  Soon there will be no hiding place for him– not even in the cradle.

So woe betide any boy who does not learn to be gender compliant and subservient – any boy who has the temerity to rebel against compulsory feminisation.

And on a related note, the problems caused by too much explicit PC “Sex Education” are still being proffered the solution of….. more explicit examples of the same, younger and …..harder?

Ignore the Voice of Reason, whoever supports this ‘education’ supports paedophilia. Then again, Lena Dunham.

The more we teach them, the more they want them to be interested. And so, other than warning children that they should not take drugs and should avoid sexual behaviour until they are very much older, we avoid stimulating interest and activity, We say less rather than more. …

That may not be its aim, but it is its inevitable consequence. We are exposing children to pornography.

This child abuse has to stop. It doesn’t matter if the person grooming the child has a teaching license.

Feminists v. Meninists

When you hold a mirror up to them, they are still ugly.
Medusa couldn’t pull that off.

It’s ‘written’ by professional ditz Radhika Sanghani, and has comedic value.

Men are feeling victimised. And it’s all because of feminism.


That seems to be the message of Mike Buchanan, leader of political party Justice for Men and Boys, which has the alliterative and depressing goal of ‘fighting feminism’.

for whom?

His main points appear to be that feminists are “hatchet-faced miserable women”; it’s not really a proper sexual offence to “pat someone’s bottom”; and he’s “not aware of a single area where women are disadvantaged relative to men.”

In other words, he’s a sexist idiot who’s too busy moaning inside his man cave to see the world for what it really is.

You’re calling him the sexist idiot? Man cave?

But somehow, Buchanan is not alone. His puerile nonsense is attracting supporters. Other men’s groups and movements are sprouting up, claiming they’re being victimised by society.


People like you?

Take the tough new rape rules, which saw Director of Public Prosectutions Alison Saunders explain that ‘no means no’ isn’t enough. Men need to ensure that their sexual partners have given affirmative consent.

Rape campaigners rejoiced. But some men complained about needing to ‘get a contract’ every time they wanted a shag.

Because the expectation is on MEN only. Women have no equal obligation, or agency, it seems.

A recent Telegraph article, headlined ‘If as many women killed themselves as men, we’d never hear the end of it’, is another example.

It explains that suicide affects almost four times as many men as women. If the tables were turned, it laments, this would be top of the agenda.

Obvs. Hashtag Meninism.

We never heard the end of female *self-harm* and that’s a less serious issue than suicide. And why are men committing it? Hmm? The results of feminist social engineering. Sure, miss that out.

Meninism is the semi-satirical name given to a movement sprung from men’s rights activists (MRA). On Twitter, its main goal is to mock feminism. But many ‘meninists’ really do want to spread the word about issues affecting men. It’s similar to a Reddit subculture, known as ‘Red Pill’ – a group of social media users who feel that men, not women, have been socially disenfranchised.

A photo of a meninist on Twitter

With so many men relating to this feeling of alienation – the same one Mike Buchanan is trying to capitalise on – perhaps it’s time to ask where there is something in these labels. By calling ourselves feminists and meninists, are we actually doing ourselves any favours?

You’re making it clear feminism is a supremacy movement.

Meninists want a language and label

Maybe it’s the terminology that is disenfranchising men – intelligent men who care about social justice and equality,


but don’t feel that their voices are being heard? The sort of men that feminism, ironically, needs.

#HeforShe #maleslaves #EqualityEmma #menoppressus #menhelpus

Dan Bell, features editor for insideMAN magazine, tells me:

“There clearly are a lot of social issues and social exclusion where men have it markedly worse than women do.”

He lists homelessness, suicide rates, prejudice in family courts, lower life expectancy, underachievement and military death rates.

Don’t you have something to say? Oh wait, it would involving criticizing feminism. Can’t have that. #narrative

“Where people get frustrated with feminism is where it’s seen as a zero sum game. Basically that women are disadvantaged and oppressed and men aren’t.


People look at the pyramid and see a lot of men at the top, but they don’t bother to look down and see most of the people at the bottom are also men.”

He thinks that movements like ‘meninism’ were created for exactly this reason: “One of the issues, on a deeper level, is men struggle to find a language to talk about collective disadvantage in the way feminism does for women – both as a label and a set of ideas.”

Forget the battle of the sexes

He’s right, of course. There are particular social issues that affect men. And, of course, they want to talk about these.

But I find it hard to believe that the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ is full of men.

Women can’t read statistics. What a shocker.

We just can’t ignore the fact that many serious issues almost exclusively affect women – such as sexism and the gender pay gap.

In your subjective opinion, and that gap doesn’t exist as I have covered.

Others affect both genders – such as domestic violence – but have a dramatic slant towards women. Currently two women a week in the UK are killed by a current or former partner.

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, however, doesn’t think it’s helpful to view these issues in a gendered light.

The MP who once said some feminists were “obnoxious bigots”, tells me:

Dominic Raab

“Fewer and fewer issues, when they’re looked at seriously, really boil down to gender. I don’t find painting it through the prism of the battle of sexes is helpful. I’m all for girl power, but how relevant is the divide between the sexes to our daily life?”

His point is that these issues overlap both genders. Childcare isn’t exclusively a women’s problem, and neither is maternity leave or flexible working. If these issues are seen as belonging to the realm of feminism, they could leave men feeling alienated.

Five years ago, he said that men should “burn their briefs” in protest at feminists. But now he tells me that “men need to stop engaging in a pity trip about feminism”.

It won’t get you respect and/or laid.

Forget the ‘feminist’ v ‘meninist’ labels

The problem doesn’t actually seem to be feminism’s views – it’s the label, and the way that certain issues are put under its umbrella. [by whom?] Many men are automatically put and incorrectly assume that the movement is all about women taking control, and becoming ‘superior’.

That is feminism’s view. That is literally it.

But of course, it’s not about one sex being better than the other, at all. It’s just about gender equality.

No it isn’t. You just insulted men for daring to disagree with you. #mansplaining

Mike Buchanan

Deep down, it looks like this is the main goal of ‘meninism’, too.

based on………?

But perhaps these separate labels are what’s really hindering progress. Underneath it all, meninists and feminists all want the same thing – it’s just hidden underneath bickering that all seems to stem from linguistic problems.

I see a Trojan Horse. Could be her face.

Meninists imagine feminists as angry, hairy ranters – the No More Page 3 campaigners were called ‘no bra wearing man haters’ – and feminists are now starting to see meninists as whining victims.

Men can’t ever be victims. Even when they’re literally victims.

None of this is helpful, and neither is seeing serious societal issues as gendered, particularly in the run up to the General Election.

helpful to whom? She is of the journalism school which states half an opinion expecting the reader won’t miss the other.

If we all want to avoid Buchanan’s sexist manifesto really taking hold, then we’re better off ditching the labels and working together in the name of gender equality.

Who keeps pushing labels?

The outrage! The posturing! Faux brain cells!