Alexandra Burke's Inferiority Complex

Chico, of "Chico Time" fame, said that anything Frank Sinatra could do, he could do better, well he didn't really, but just imagine he did say that, what would you think of him? Yes, and you'd be right to think that, now take that same thought and carry it with you to Alexandra Burke, whose latest offering to the music industry is a song entitled "Broken Heels". In this "song" she sings;

Ladies tell the fellas that we can do what they can do,

and we can do it better in broken heels.

Well I can only speak for myself, but I have have had it up to the back fuckin' teeth with women in the music industry, usually black women I might add, telling me that because they have a vagina, they're better than I am, in fact, they're better than my entire gender, and their only argument is, erm, well they don't really have one, as women live in a world where if something is said often enough, it becomes true, so these women who have this urge to constantly tell us how much better they are than men, show no proof whatsoever of them being better, they just say it.

It's inferiority complex, plain and simple. Women like Burke feel inferior to men, women are certainly not inferior to men, but most feel that way, and Burke most definitely feels that way, otherwise why would she ever say that women are better, or can do anything better, than men?

Take me for example, I'm a big-headed, arrogant fucker, so I'll always say I'm better than everyone, and I'm not alone, I would argue most men hold that mentality, but if I was to say, over and over until blue in the face, that I could do anything that anyone with brown hair and green eyes could do, and I could do it better, it then goes from arrogance to inferiority, it's the specificness that makes it inferiority, it gives the impression I somehow feel inferior to people with brown hair and green eyes, otherwise why would I feel the need to single them out?

Why should men take women seriously when it comes to capableness when it's women themselves who so often spread the message that they feel they can't compete with men when it comes to being capable?

The song also insinuates that the "fellas" need to be educated on the fact that women like Burke are as capable as they are, but I don't know where she gets this from. I never hear men publicly scold women in the same way women publicly scold men, yet it's men who are told that women are as capable? We never said they weren't, stop fuckin' insinuating that all men view women as incapable, they don't, it's women themselves with their inferiority complex that gives that overall impression of women feeling less capable.

Imagine Sting got on stage with his ye olde guitar (his lute) and starting singing about how much better men were than women, and while strumming away he was singing about men's creations, their inventions, the buildings they construct, how they put their lives on the line to save the very people who continually show utter disdain for them (women), how they created civilisation etc.

I wonder how many women would like to hear that. Yet us men have to hear this bullshit constantly, obviously not from people as talented as Sting of course, but from two-bit man-haters who can only sing about men in a negative way and women in either a superior light or as a victim (of men no doubt), it's really tiresome.

So I can pretty much predict what Burke's future holds, she'll follow in the footsteps of Beyonce and Fergie, but not Whitney, Ross, or Rowland, who actually have class, and she'll continue to sing about how men mistreat her (even though she goes for bad boys), or how women are great, and she'll sell CD's by the bucketload to 8 year old girls, then whither and die as soon as the next young man-hater comes along to replace her, only to re-emerge in an attempted triumphant return on some shitty dancing/skating show, where people will scratch their heads and go "Who the fuck is she?", to which people will reply "One of those ten-a-penny man-hating R&B stars that they were churning out for too fuckin' long at the start of the century, I can't remember her name".

Rant over.

British Accent?

So the other day, Hugh Grant phones me, and it goes like this;

HG: Alreet mate, I was thinkin' aboot gan doon the toon, like, how aboot yoo?
Me: Who's this?
HG: Whit dae ye mean "who's this?"? It's me, Hugh, are ye deef or sumthin'?
Me: Sorry, it's just that you sound different, as if you're putting on a funny voice.
HG: Don't take the mickey, right, what do yer mean, eh, funny voice, eh, are yooz takin' the piss?
Me: No, it's just one minute you sound like a Geordie, the next a Glaswegian, now you sound like a Liverpudlian, are you practising for a role?
HG: Well, that's just rude, right, don't take the piss, right.
Me: Now you sound Welsh, what the fuck is going on?
HG: Nothing going on, I'm just talking as I usually do.
Me: Phone me back when you're sober.

Then on the same day, I went down to the shop, and Kate Winslet is standing in the queue in front of me, I couldn't believe it (probably because I just made it up), and she's doing the same thing as Hugh, one minute she sounds like she's from Norfolk, the next she sounds like a Mancunian, then she's talking like she's from Belfast, I made an excuse that I was in a hurry and got out of there, I couldn't take any more of her gibberish.

I just put the whole thing down to some plague that had infected those that were posh, higher class Londoners, and somehow made them speak in a deranged manner, either that or a plague that only struck successful British actors. Then it struck me, Hugh and Kate weren't about to be carted off to a mental asylum, it was just that they were using their British accent, of course, I should have realised.

This is one of those things that winds me right up, when people, usually Americans but not always, refer to the polite, well-spoken, upper class London accent as a "British accent". Now I don't know Hugh or Kate (so why he phoned me, I'll never know), but if they had British accents, then they would sound very strange, because there is no such thing as a British accent.

It's basically a Hollywood, stereotyped English accent that gets called British, but in reality, when considering all the many different accents and dialects in Britain, the one that gets called "British" is by far the least heard and used, sure, people "polite it up" when on TV, but in general, the "British" accent is rarely in use, except by Hollywood.

Rant over.

The Annoyance Of Sex Scenes

Now before I even get started, I want make it clear that I, much like every other heterosexual man on the planet, like to ogle naked women, preferably pretty ones. You won't hear any complaints from me if a woman wants to take her clothes off, unless of course she's as ugly as sin, so don't get it twisted, my problem does not lie with naked ladies, but with sex scenes in TV shows and movies.

I think back to when I was younger when my parents would watch TV, almost all the shows they watched, I too could watch as a child, shows like T.J. Hooker, Magnum, Hill Street Blues, Miami Vice, Columbo, The A Team, Cagney & Lacey, etc. Although these shows had stories involving drugs, guns, and crime, they were free from bad language and sex scenes, meaning my parents could watch them without a panic that a child might be in the room. Sadly, those days are gone.

Now what we have on TV is shows littered with bad language, product placement, and sex scenes, and now and again they throw in a story for good measure, I'm just so tired of it.

I'm fortunate enough to have a TV show tester, or as I call her, my girlfriend. She sits with her laptop and watches all the latest shows she can get her hands on, then lets me know if I would like the show, but sadly, I'm able to know if I'd like a show just by hearing it, which is the way it is, I hear the shows she's watching, and every two minutes I hear "Uhh, Uhh, Uhh", "Yes, Yes, Yes", and every thirty seconds I hear "Fuckin' this", "Fuckin' that", "Motherfuckin' cocksucking motherfuckin' bitch" etc.
I don't have anything against swearing, I just believe it's used far too much to appeal to society's dumb fucks, and that's very disappointing.

But the sex scenes, oh God, they really get on my nerves, you see, I strongly believe that if you do something embarrassing, then you should be embarrassed, but I don't think it's fair to have embarrassment thrust upon you when watching TV, which is exactly what sex scenes do for me.

The way I see it, if you want to watch people have sex, watch porn, it's so much better, and if you have an overwhelming urge to hear bad language, listen to Rap music, there's plenty of it there.

What's that noise? Can you hear it in the distance? It sounds like a smart-arse, and they're saying something, "If you don't like it, don't watch it", ahh, that old chestnut, which does sound fair enough, I mean why watch something if you don't like it, right? But that's the problem right there, sex scenes are not a genre, they're a genre-invader, what I mean is, if I didn't like comedy, I would be a fool to sit and watch comedy, but this cannot be said about sex scenes, because apart from children's TV and game shows, they can show up anywhere, action, drama, comedy, even documentaries, so to avoid sex scenes I would have to avoid all my favourite genres.

I can't be alone in this, I can't be the only person sitting thinking "Hurry up for fuck's sake and get on with the story, I don't want to see some shitty sex scene that isn't even important to the storyline".

My son is one year old as I write this, and I just think it's sad that I won't be able to sit and watch TV in front of my son when he's older, the way my parents did with me.

Rant over.

Why There Are Not Many Women In Politics

One of the many pathetic attempts by feminists to claim victim status in a patriarchal society, is to claim that the fact that governments in democratic countries are mostly male, is a sign of male dominance and is evidence that women are held back in politics.
They of course say this because it immediately paints women as victims, which is why they very rarely put any more thought into it, because as soon as they've found a way to claim victim status from a situation, they cease thought on that subject, since they've now got what they want.
Also add to the fact that feminists fear the truth, it has a similar effect as Kryptonite does with Superman, so tend to avoid it at all costs, particularly because the truth very rarely paints women as poor little victims.

Well unlike feminists, I have thought about it, and I think I know why women are a minority in politics in democratic countries. It's absurd to even suggest that it's because of discrimination, not when we all have a vote, not when women make up 52% of the population, not when women are more likely to vote than men, and not when there are no barriers in place that prevent a woman from making it in politics that are not also in a man's path. So no, it's definitely not discrimination, so what are we left with?
Well there's the fact that men are more likely to get involved in politics than women are, that fact alone is entirely down to personal choice, no-one is prevented from a life in politics due to the way they were born, so women are choosing to enter politics less often than men, this cannot possibly be due to mistreatment or discrimination, it's down to personal choice (something you'd think feminists would be for rather than against).

It's not just that though, because of all the women that run in elections, few of them get elected, why?
Simple, they continually, time and time again, make themselves completely unelectable to more than half the population. Not just the male part of the population, but the female part who have men in their lives that they love and care for, like sons, nephews, fathers etc.
They do this by focusing all their attention on women, all the while only mentioning men negatively, and they do this for three reasons;

1. Women make up 52% of the population.
2. Women are viewed as the most gullible and easily led voters.
3. Women have a streak of hatred for men that's been ingrained into them since birth by the media and society at large.

They just assume that if they focus on women, then women will flock to the polls like zombie-sheep, hypnotised into ticking the women-friendly box, it's absolutely ridiculous, but to be fair to them, it does work on a lot of women, just not enough to get them elected.

Take Hillary Clinton (please take her) for example, she tried to play women for chumps when she was running against Obama, it was pitiful, but more pitiful was the fact that so many women bought it.
At first she told an audience of mostly women about the feminist's favourite, the glass ceiling, banging on about how things had to change, she done this so that women would view themselves as victims, with a chance to "make things right" by voting for a woman.
She done this with absolutely no sense of irony at all, even though it stank to the high heavens of irony, think about it, a woman who is competing to be in with a chance of becoming President of America, who some would argue is the most powerful nation on Earth, is talking about the existence of a glass ceiling in politics, hmm?
Well I don't mean to offend Americans, but your abilities are laughable if that's the best glass ceiling you can come up with, one that just allows women to possibly hold the highest position in the land, that's got to be the most ineffective glass ceiling ever.

At a later point in her campaign, she caught up to Obama in the race, or she got quite close to him, and after that happened, she spoke to a gathering of women, well I say women, most were foaming at the mouth, so I assume they were feminists, and again she attempted to play women for gullible chumps, which that particular audience of women clearly were.
She said it was thanks to women going out and voting that she caught up to Obama, not people, but women. So she just assumes the only people who would vote for her are women, yet she doesn't see that as a problem, she sees it as a positive thing.

Well I don't want to give away the ending, but let's just say America did get it's "first", but it wasn't the first female President, and why was that?
Well some would say it was because Obama was popular, not politically, but celebrity-wise, and I'm sure that's true, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Hillary treated more than half the population (the male part and the female part who have men in their lives that they love) as irrelevant, leading to Obama competing against McCain instead of Hillary, or to put it another way, she shot herself in the foot.

What annoys me is the fact that if a male politician behaved the same way, he'd be called on it immediately, like thanking male voters while ignoring the women who voted for him, the media wouldn't let it slide, they'd ask why he ignores women, they'd ask why he always focuses on men.
Not many women would vote for a man who was going around with "men this" and "men that", yet female politicians seem to think this won't be the same the other way round, but it's exactly the same, no man wants to vote for a woman going "women this" and "women that" all the livelong day.

I'll tell you the name of a woman who never played the gender card, never played the victim card, never needed female-only shortlists to get elected, was elected as fairly as any man, and was taken seriously and treated with respect by all the world leaders, her name is Margaret Thatcher, I'm sure you've heard of her.
She was elected fairly as leader of the Conservative party in February 1975, in May 1979 she became the first female Prime Minister, a fact she didn't milk and endlessly bang on about, and she remained as PM until November 1990.
Now love her or hate her, she's cast iron evidence that women can make it in politics in democratic countries. She didn't need to be treated like a child and patronised with female-only shortlists or affirmative action, she didn't need to treat women as gullible chumps by constantly banging on about women all the time, she didn't play herself off as a victim, and she made it to the highest seat in the land, not bad for a woman in a so-called patriarchal society.

I'm sure you could say many positive and negative things about any leader, but I believe that women seeking a career in politics should maybe take a look at Margaret Thatcher's career, and take a few notes.

Then we have the pathetic argument for more women being either forced into positions in politics, or only giving the electorate women to vote for, and it's that more women in politics would mean women's needs are "looked out for", like they aren't looked out for already.
This is an absurd argument because politicians are to serve the people, not just those that were born similar to them, that would make them discriminatory, not only that, it would make them completely incompetent as politicians.
So those that think more women in politics would mean women are looked out for more, must then think that most female politicians are incompetent and sexist, to assume they'll only serve women if elected is to assume they're incompetent, since their job is to serve the people, no matter how they were born.

I put it simply, if women really want to make it in politics, then make yourself electable, it's the only way. You know you wouldn't vote for a man who focused on men while ignoring women, so don't think men are any different, don't make everything a gender issue, if you do, you almost immediately become unelectable to more than half the population.

Rant over.

It's Not Because They Care, It's Because They Don't Care

I'm talking about women who create groups or campaigns for women only, or with women held up as the most important priority, sometimes over children, these women are the reason for this blog title.
We see it all over the place, One Live Mums, Mumsnet, Mumslogic, these 3 websites are in existence to provide information on child-rearing, they're the go-to places if you have any queries about children, and who has children? Parents of course, so how come all the focus is on one of the parents and not both? Simple, the women who created these sites are narcissistic, even though they claim it's about child-rearing, they've still managed to make it all about the woman in the name of the site.
If you mention this however, you're met with the most nonsensical BS you can think of, like the classic women's minority/majority argument, it goes like this;

If women are in the majority, as in most likely to be at home with the children, then they should receive favourable treatment for that reason, since they make up most of the numbers.
BUT
If women make up the minority, as in politics, then they should receive favourable treatment for that reason, since they are in the minority and should be looked out for by the majority.

Or to sum up, women should always get preferential treatment and all attention on them at all times, since they're likely to either be in the majority or the minority, it's ridiculous at best.


The other pile of BS you're met with, is this;

Well if you don't like it, you should go out and start a men's version.

You see, what the buffoons who utter this nonsense fail to understand, is that I'm against the very idea of separation, so why would I want to go and start a similar group that is just as discriminatory, just as self-centred, just as focused on one gender? It makes no sense.
Another thing, when men try to get something done, they do not exclude women, or have everything labeled with "FATHER" or "MEN" in a sad attempt to make it appear that they care, men do good things for everyone, not just for men.

My latest gripe is with Cancer Research UK, just over a week ago, I got a letter from them, the usual stuff from charities asking for donations, the letter came in a bright pink envelope, at the top of the letter was a big pink ribbon, and underneath that it said "JOIN THE FIGHT FOR WOMEN'S SURVIVAL", that's right, women's survival, not people's, not children's, no, women's.
There was me thinking that cancer doesn't discriminate, so why do CRUK?

On CRUK's website, they try to justify their sexist "we only care about women" campaign by laying down guilt trips about women who die from cancer, but also on their website is this startling fact;

Men are 60% more likely to catch cancer, and they are 70% more likely to die from cancer.

And yet all their focus is on women.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all their focus should be on men, I think it should be on people, but it's not, so how did it come to this?
How did it get to the point where the people most likely to catch and die of cancer, are the ones pushed onto the back burner?
How did it get to the point where CRUK decided that women's survival was far more important than men's?

I can only hazard a guess, but I'd wager my guess is pretty damn close to the truth.
Picture the scene, an office within the CRUK, an office where they put together ideas about how to raise cash for CRUK, an office staffed almost entirely with women. The day comes when they have a meeting to discuss a new campaign to raise money, so all the women band together, sitting in a circle, all pitching inane idea after inane idea, then one of the women raises their hand, "I know, why don't we have a campaign focusing on women?" she says, to which immediately the rest of the women applaud her idea with ridiculous American slang like "You go girlfriend", "Doing it for our sisters", and "Right on girl".
Someone else raises their hand, it's either a man or a woman who has men she loves in her life, they say "Shouldn't we be focusing on people as opposed to just women, so that we will raise more cash to help our cause, since cancer doesn't just affect women?", to which the reaction would be a deafening silence, a tumbleweed would drift by, a few women will scoff at the idea of helping anyone but women, a few will be disgusted at the very thought of any donations helping men in any way, so the idea is immediately rejected, and instead, they go back to high-fiving the woman who came up with the sexist, misandry-ridden idea to leave out men altogether, the ones more likely to catch and die of cancer, and focus entirely on women.

This is my guess as to why it happens, which is why I say it's not because they care, it's because they don't care, because if they cared, I mean genuinely cared, the letter I received last week would have had the heading "JOIN THE FIGHT FOR PEOPLE'S SURVIVAL".

Another thing that makes me angry about this garbage, is women try to use these organisations and campaigns as evidence that women care, but that is so far from the truth, these are not the campaigns of a group of women who decided to do the right thing, no, these are the campaigns of women doing a job, and that job is to come up with a campaign. These women-only campaigns don't exist because women care more, that's absurd, they exist because women, by and large, are sexist.

I would never want women to automatically respect men, I believe men are capable of earning that respect, but the fact that women can't even acknowledge our existence in such important matters is just insulting, we constructed every building that stands, we invented everything useful around you that you use everyday, we built civilisation, and we would even give our lives in order to save yours, and you don't even have the decency to acknowledge us when it comes to important matters like CRUK?
No, sorry, I don't buy into this crap that women care, or are more caring and understanding than men, their actions always show that they care, yes they care alright, care for themselves, care about looking as if they care, care about appearance, but do they actually care? No.

Rant over

Women: The Old Dirty Faded Grey Shirt

Picture an old dirty faded grey shirt, it's not up to much is it? It's a bit drab, and no doubt at the bottom of the list of wearable clothes. So if we wanted to make the shirt more appealing, how would we do it? Simple, surround it with black shirts, because once the shirt is surrounded by black shirts, it'll appear more clean, brighter, newer, and whiter.

I know, I know, what the bloody hell am I doing talking about shirts? Well, the reason I speak of shirts is because that's the recent thought going through my head when I view today's adverts, you know the ones, the man is always the incompetent buffoon and the woman is always competent and intelligent, we've all seen them, chances are there's one on your TV screen at the moment, such is their popularity.

Now I don't need to speak of the misandry in these adverts, it's glaringly obvious to anyone, and it's been covered by many people. I want to talk about the women in these adverts, and in particular, why women aren't offended at their portrayal.

It's very easy for men to get pissed off, after all, it's them who are the butt of the joke, it's them who are portrayed as idiots on a regular basis, but I see a reason in almost all of these adverts for women to get pissed off as well, and the reason is simple, the only way advertisers can portray a woman as capable, competent, intelligent and confident, is if she's in the presence of a man who is incapable, incompetent, unintelligent and with no confidence, you see now why I think of shirts?

It astonishes me that women don't get pissed off at this, although it's likely because they only see a bright white clean new shirt every time, but they're being told by advertisers that they're intelligent, sure they are, but only in the presence of a man who is not intelligent, to me, this is insulting, it certainly would be if the only time an intelligent man was on screen was in the presence of a dumb female.

Think of a misandric advert, oh hang on, there's too many, think of an advert where a woman is portrayed as intelligent, now think, is she in the presence of an intelligent man? No, she's not, and why is that? Because women very rarely look intelligent in the presence of intelligent men, and that's not a sexist remark, it's true, so true, I bet you have trouble thinking of a woman being portrayed as intelligent/capable, without the presence of a man who is neither of these things.

Years ago, Dawson's Creek was on, at the time the main character (Dawson I assume) was a "heartthrob" according to the media, something I found rather odd as I always thought he resembled a Halloween cake, anyway, the part I saw showed him in school, and he was surrounded by the most ugly extras ever, spotty, fat, greasy, squinty-eyed, you name it, he was surrounded by it, and of course this had the effect that he was pretty, he wasn't pretty for Chist's sake, it's just that he was surrounded by ugly people, the same trick used with women in advertising, just a different result.

I get pissed at adverts, men are always incapable, except of course when it comes to mistreating children or animals, then strangely we become incredibly capable, and women become incapable, but I do smile now and then when I realise that the only reason the woman looks intelligent, is because a man has been told to act like a buffoon in her presence, because without the man's presence, we wouldn't see the bright clean new white shirt, we would only see the old dirty faded grey one.

Rant over.

The Myth Of Multi-Tasking

We hear it all the time, from men and from women, and it's something that seems to be taken for granted by most of society, I speak of course about women and their magical, mystical ability to multi-task.
It's often mentioned when the subject revolves around what women offer, what advantages they have over men, or general differences between the genders, but I don't buy it for a second, the gullible masses might, and do, but I don't.

First let me be clear on what I, and any sensible person, consider to be multi-tasking, it's simply doing two, or more, tasks at the same time, not at different times, not on the same day, at the same time as one another. An example of multi-tasking would be playing the piano/guitar while singing, or as has been pointed out to me, flying a passenger plane, which involves a lot of multi-tasking.

I'm not saying women can't multi-task, that would just be absurd, of course they can, but so can men, this is my gripe, being good at multi-tasking is associated with women, and I don't see how that makes an ounce of sense, humans can multi-task, some better than others, it's not that big a deal really, so why does it always get turned into a gender ability, always favouring women?

I believe it stems from women continually being told, and telling themselves, that they have it hard, as in "A woman's work is never done", so they assume they're always on the ball, always on their feet cleaning up and juggling all the household chores, it's a load of shit, they always seem to forget the endless hours they sit with their thumbs up their arses watching trashy soap operas, and the hours online flirting with men on the other side of the world, funny how those hours don't get mentioned, maybe it should be changed to "A woman's work is never done, because her eyes are glued to a screen somewhere".

Rant over.