6ame's Rants

Hugh & Mary Discuss Feminist Related Issues

2010-03-30T08:05:00.000-07:00

These are videos I made using Xtranormal's State: http://xtranormal.com

I made these videos to make a point, if I happen to make people laugh and think along the way, that's a bonus.

01 - How To Argue Like A Feminist

02 - How To Lie Like A Feminist

03 - The Difference Between A Feminist And An Intelligent Woman

04 - How To Spout Drivel Like A Feminist

05 - Why Women Don't Get Taken Seriously

06 - Race For Life, How Feminists Do Charity

07 - Women's Week, Celebrating The Fact You Have A Vagina

08 - Why There Are Not Many Women In Politics

09 - Lessons On Domestic Violence For 5 Year Olds - How Feminists Do Education

10 - Kathy Lette Is A Genius

11 - Women In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones

12 - Why Women Go For Bad Boys

13 - The Future As Feminists Would Have It

14 - Why Feminists Hate Children

15 - British Airways, The Airline For Feminists

16 - The Gender Wage Gap - The Terminator Lie

Alexandra Burke's Inferiority Complex

2010-01-31T11:39:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-01-08T00:26:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-04T23:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-09T00:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-30T23:43:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-19T22:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-21T06:01:00.000-07:00

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.

Fringe, X-Files For The Braindead

2009-08-09T20:48:00.000-07:00

Having recently been looking for some new stuff to watch, what with Heroes, Lost, and Desperate Housewives finished until their next season, I stumbled upon Fringe, I read the description, it sounded promising, X-Files sprung to mind when I read about it, so I gave the first episode a watch, and was surprised to notice that the descriptions I read all failed to mention that the show is utter bullshit, from start to finish, I mean absolute drivel, it's funny how no-one reviewing the show noticed that, oh well.

Let's not mess about, when it comes to drama, Americans do it best, no-one can hold a candle to the Americans when it comes to TV and movies, so I'm not trying to say all American TV is crap, just this particular show.
I can only judge it on it's first episode, and for those that say I'm not giving it a chance, then I would say that I doubt you'd hang around for dessert if your starter and main course was a steaming bowl of diarrhoea.

It starts off with the main bit of crumpet in bed with her boyfriend, who she works with as FBI agents, they go in search of a scientist who works from a shoddy, underground lab, they find his lab, he runs away, during his escape, he sets off a bomb, destroying the lab, and knocking both of them out.
The bit of crumpet wakes up to find her boyfriend is in a coma, but there's a slight problem, the explosion caused him to have, wait for it, see-through skin, that's right folks, just another day in the life of an FBI agent, one minute your couped up in a van listening in on someone's phone calls, the next you get blown up and left with see-through skin.

Anyway, the only person who can cure his, ahem, see-through skin problem, is a crazy, nut-job scientist who has been in a mental home for about 14 years, but another problem arises, there's not a love interest yet, so they make up the pathetic excuse that she needs a close family member to get access to the mental patient, remember she works for the FBI, and she can't even get round that one, so she has to find a close love interest, er sorry, I mean close relative to get her access. She tracks down his son, who just so happens to be the delicious Pacey from Dawson's Creek (my girlfriend assures me), and with a bit of blackmail, she gets him to get her into the mental home, although thinking about it, she could have used that same blackmail tactic on one of the nurses to get access to the home, instead of travelling to Iraq, which is where Pacey was.

So now we're in the mental home, which coincidentally, is where the person who wrote this trash now resides, and we get to meet Pacey's father, a crazed scientist, but we know he's the good guy really, he is on all the posters after all, he agrees to help.
He has a very strange way of helping though, instead of just working on some cure, he needs to know the exact ingrediants in the explosion, so they must find the scientist who caused the explosion, but there's a problem, she doesn't know what he looks like, only her boyfriend in the coma knows, uh-oh, spagetti-o's, what can we do? Do we get more agents on the case, and being the FBI, will track this nutcase down within minutes, or do we use a more elaborate method to draw the episode out to a full 45 minutes?
Yes, you guessed it, they used the elaborate method, which goes beyond ridiculous and into completely new realms of patheticness. They get her hooked up with suction pads, in a pool of liquid, half-naked, and stick an electric probe into the back of her head, which results in her being able to read her unconscious boyfriend's mind, so he can tell her what the scientist looks like, seriously, I'm not even making this up.

So now she knows what he looks like, which means the whole thing worked, can you believe that? How fortunate. The hunt starts, and so does the "will they, won't they?" storyline between crumpet and Pacey, which has been done to death since Moonlighting, but still keeps the women watching. "But hang on, why would that storyline be there if she has a boyfriend in a coma?" I hear you cry. Well, silly, it's there because her boyfriend is actually a bad guy, which we find out after he's cured, that's right, he gets cured of his special effect, er sorry, I mean see-through skin problem, then she finds out he's the bad guy, a run of the mill, ten-a-penny car chase sees him die, meaning crumpet and Pacey can get it on, but not yet, there's still a bad guy to be catching.

They find the bad guy's place, another homemade lab, and they storm the place with about 10 FBI agents, so let's get that straight, the FBI have found the place of a man who, when last approached by the FBI, set off a bomb in his lab, and what do they do? They storm the building with 10 agents, sorry, I don't buy it, I seriously doubt the FBI are that stupid, but in this show, they're as thick as pigshit, because while those 10 agents are searching the lab, Pacey has a "moment" outside in the car with his dad, awww, and then he spots the man fleeing from a side entrance, so the FBI missed that too, which is fortunate, because it gives Pacey the chance to show he can get involved in the action (action = jumping over a fence), which impresses crumpet, whoop-de-do, now we get to sit at the edge of our seats as we wonder whether or not they'll ever get together, which I won't find out, since I would never watch another episode of that nonsense, even for payment.

Rant over.

Knowing

2009-08-09T20:44:00.000-07:00

This movie is so bad, so utterly pathetic in every way, that I would actually recommend it, I know that sounds insane, but it's so bad, you should watch it just so you can witness how bad it gets for humans when they actually try to be clever, no, I'm not talking about the story, I'm talking about the people who made this God-awful movie, the people responsible for it must, MUST, be strung up on a tree somewhere, it's what they deserve for producing this piece of utter bullsh1t.

Now I like Nicolas Cage, so I'm not hating on him, I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he agreed to make the movie before the story was altered, but this cannot go on his resume, it's too awful compared to the likes of The Rock. If he agreed to do this movie knowing full well what the story was, then that's just unforgivable, absolutely unforgivable, even Jesus wouldn't forgive him for that.

The story goes like this, in the 50's, a classroom put together a time capsule that's to be opened in 50 years time (today), they all make drawings, but one girl in the class, who looks like a bit of a weirdo, scribbles furiously a load of numbers on a sheet of paper, as if she's in a daze.
Anyway, 50 years later, Cage's son gets the paper with numbers on it, it's lying around the house, and Cage notices that some of the numbers have the exact date of 9/11, and it has how many people perished on 9/11. As he studies the paper further, he notices that all the numbers have disaster dates and the amount of people who died during these disasters. By the way, it was this idea that made me want to see the movie, I thought that sounded interesting, WRONG.

So now Cage knows that the paper is able to predict the date, location and the amount of people who die, during disasters, and in true American style, the next few dates are all, surprise, surprise, within his lifetime, AND, within bloody walking distance from Cage, who just happens to stay in NY.
The last prediction has two letters instead of numbers indicating who dies, so he has to figure out what these letters mean, they are EE.
This is the exact moment the movie was altered, you see, the perfect ending would have been him finding out that EE meant Everyone Else, and then the world ends, but of course, we're talking about sugar-coating, afraid to upset anyone, Hollywood, so obviously they can't end the movie with the world ending, even though it would have been the perfect ending, no, no, instead, Hollywood does what Hollywood does best, gets some coked-up writers to add a "happy" ending, and that's exactly what they done, but the utter insanity doesn't stop there, oh no, wait until I tell you the ending, ironically, after watching the end, I did want the world to end, just to remove the memory of this trash from my mind.

The ending goes like this, seriously, I'm not making this up, aliens appear, I've no idea where from, probably the writer's arse, and they take 2 children away with them to start life over on another planet identical to Earth, again, I have to remind you that I'm not making this up. So the happy ending is, our world ends, and aliens take away 2 NY children, white, to start over again on another planet that surprisingly, can accept humans with no problem, that's white humans, because these particular aliens seem to think that only white New Yorkers are worth saving.

It's not often you want to put your hand through your head and remove memories, but I'm pretty certain you'll want to if you're ever unfortunate enough to watch this trash. And don't ask why I didn't put it off before the end, because the aliens didn't make an appearance until the last 5 minutes.
What really p1ssed me off about the tacked-on ending, was that it's slightly insulting to be told that if anyone is worth saving, it's New Yorkers, I mean, come on.

These arsehole aliens made no attempt to save everyone, just a couple of white Americans, ridiculous.

I would score this movie -3,000,000,000 out of 10, and it only gets such a high score because the idea was good, but the end result was the biggest piece of trash ever, as Comic Book Guy would say, Worst, Movie, Ever.

Rant over.

Should A Man Hit A Woman Who Has Hit Him First?

2009-07-08T21:40:00.000-07:00

A question that's raised quite often, by both men and women, should a man hit a woman back if she attacks him?
This question gets many different replies, and they are;

Yes.
No.
A real man should walk away.
The man should restrain her.
The woman should not hit a man in the first place.
A man has the right to defend himself.

My opinion on this is very clear, if you put them on their arse once, they'll think twice next time.
Now the thing with my opinion, is that I get flak for it from people, people who conveniently ignore the fact that in that situation, I would be the one who was struck first. They often insinuate that I'm the kind of man who goes around randomly beating up women for fun, or that I only beat up women because I'm a coward, but this is not my viewpoint, it's their own.

The way I see it, no human has the right to physically attack another human, regardless of gender, and if one human does attack another, then that other human has every right to defend themselves or hit back.

The one that gets trotted out all the time, is the size and strength difference, you see, some people actually have this utterly retarded mindset where they think all women are small and weak, and all men are big and strong, and that because women are weaker, they have the right to physically attack a man, and he should just take it "like a man", and that she should go unpunished for it.
I do not have this mindset, I think that if a human is attacked, they have the right to defend themselves, it's that simple.
Cherry-pickers usually jump in to make their case, it usually goes like this;

Women should get equal pay, equal voting rights, allowed to drive, and own their own business, because we are just as good as men, if not better, but when it comes to physical abuse, women should be treated like unaccountable children, and the notion of equality should be thrown out the window.

Now I say I treat women equally, but I suppose that's not entirely true, because if a woman punched me, I'd slap her instead of punching her, sorry to patronise women in such a way, but I just believe that my punch would outweigh that of most women, hence the slap.
What I would not do however, is allow anyone to use me as a punchbag, as a tool to rid themselves of their frustration, that would be unthinkable.

If you sit under an elephant's arse, you're likely to get shat on, and if you do, you have no right to complain about your shit-covered head, because you're the one who chose to sit there.
This applies to women hitting men, if they hit you back, you have no bloody right playing yourself off as the victim, you started something and didn't like the outcome, you're responsible, it's your fault.

This video shows the reaction of people when they see a man being beaten by a woman in a public place, in this video, many people walk past a couple where the woman is beating on the man, most people do nothing about it, including an off-duty police officer who is clearly as dumb as soup, because he says if it was the other way around he would have intervened, in other words, he's a shit police officer.
The people that do intervene approach the woman and ask if SHE needs any help and if SHE wants them to call the police, they do not ask the man.
One woman proudly laughs and imitates a fight, something I just could never imagine a man doing if he saw a woman getting a beating, but maybe men are just more decent.
Some of the people are asked about it, and the response from the women was all the same, they assumed he'd cheated on her, that he said something to her, or that he deserved it, which I seriously doubt they'd have said if the genders were reversed.

Let's make a little checklist, see how many of them we can check off as positive.

Are women competent, capable, intelligent adults? √
Are they capable of weighing up the pros and cons of a situation? √
Should they be treated like adults who are accountable for their actions? √
Should women be treated as equals? √
Do women know the difference between right and wrong? √

Because of these facts, I believe that it's perfectly acceptable to strike a woman who attacks me, because I must assume that they knew the situation in which they put themselves in, what with them being intelligent, they must have known that if they strike someone, then that someone is likely to strike them back, they must know this is a possibility.

What annoys me about this situation, is the fact that the onus , at least most of the time, seems to be on the man, the onus to behave properly. It's always whether or not the man is right or wrong, while it's blatantly obvious who's wrong, the first one to strike.
Very rarely do you hear that the woman is not a real woman, or that she's out of line, mostly it's "He should" or "He shouldn't".
I just don't think it's fair for a man to be labelled as a coward because he hit someone back who hit him first, it's not fair that it's him who gets the bad name, the woman would never be in any danger of getting a bad name if she struck a man who had hit her first, I could not imagine such a woman being labelled a coward, it's unthinkable.

To men who say "When my woman hits me, I just restrain her", I want to tell you something, you are a victim of domestic violence, I know you don't want to hear that, I know you don't view yourself as a victim, but believe me, you are a victim, and your woman is a perpetrator of domestic violence, the reason I say this, is because that's what a man would be if he was acting like your woman.

Women need to respect the man they're with, yes, I know some shit, and there is no woman on this earth who would respect a man who just stood there while she beats into him. She will view that man as a bitch, as weak, as unable to defend her or their children if they are attacked by a woman.
Which raises the question, what if a woman attacked your child?
Would you just allow it to happen like a bitch?
Would you put yourself between her and your child and allow her to attack you with impunity, like a bitch?
Or would you lay that scrubber on her arse for daring to attack your family?
I know what I would do, but I'm not a bitch who allows women to walk all over me.

In a perfect world, no-one would hit anyone, but it's not a perfect world, so we have to adapt, and one of the things we have to adapt to, is the fact that many women think it's perfectly acceptable to hit a man, yet completely unacceptable for a man to hit a woman, in fact, it's often viewed as humourous when men are attacked by women.

Then there's the "suck it up" crowd, the ones who make out that you should, because you're a man, just suck it up, it's only a woman pummelling into you after all. I wonder, well I have to because it would never happen, what the reaction would be if women were told to "suck it up" when they have been beaten by a man, or "take it like a woman" when talking of being raped, it is absolutely unthinkable for such a thing to happen, yet that's what male victims of DV are told, I find this to be insulting.

Now of course, some people will assume that I am a victim of DV, or have been in the past, but no, I am not and have not been, you see, I wouldn't go near the type of woman who would hit a man, I would avoid them like the plague, which is something I've always said, people hold some responsibility for who they attract and go out with, if more people knew this, there would be a lot less cases of DV.

If I hit a woman who has deliberately struck me, this would not make me tough, a man, or some kind of hero, it just makes me a guy who doesn't allow others to walk all over him.

Rant over.

Rest In Peace Michael Jackson

2009-07-08T20:33:00.000-07:00

Sadly, on June 25th, 2009, we lost one our best entertainers, the one and only Michael Jackson.
The man was quite simply a legend. I know that people say that kind of thing all the time when famous people die, but in this instance, it's not an exaggeration.

I was born in '74, so Michael sang quite a lot of the songs from the soundtrack of my life, like a lot of people I imagine. His style was unique, ground-breaking, and trend-setting, he never failed, even in his slowest songs, to make people tap their feet. Without Michael, none of us would have experienced watching our drunk uncles attempt the Moonwalk at a wedding. He is one of the very few artists whose songs make me want to dance.

Michael also showed the world that all it takes to ruin a man, is allegations, no matter if those allegations are completely unfounded. It's sad really, but it begs the question, what's the point of court? I mean, people are going to believe the worst anyway, so what's the point of being cleared?

I'm aware that most women will view him as guilty, but they have a streak of hatred for men that runs through them, so believe anything negative about them, but I get more annoyed at the men who just assume Michael's guilt, because they too can just as easily have an accusation thrown at them, and if we go on their logic, they must be guilty if that happens, right?

I have tried to defend Michael on numerous occasions on the Internet, but it seems the people that believe the worst, are themselves guilty of behaving in an horrendous manner, what I mean is, if I, or anyone else, says that he was cleared of all charges, the response is along the lines of;
"You must just be like him"
"That says a lot about what kind of person you are"
"You must be into kids as well"
"etc, etc, etc"
The shaming language comes out, and in absolute fear of anyone else defending Michael, they let it be known that if you do, you too will be accused of being a paedophile, it's very sad.

Chapin's Inferno, a guy on YouTube whose videos I like to watch, recently done a video about Michael's death, in the video he makes it clear that he doesn't want to piss on a man's grave, then goes on to piss on the man's grave by saying he's a paedophile because he had an amusement park in his garden (because that's what paedophiles do, they're brazen about it). He also had as tags, words like "paedophile" "Child abuse" etc.
The video was made when Michael wasn't even yet in the ground, pitiful, just shameful and pitiful.

I'm not against pissing on people's graves, but only if they're bad people who have done bad things, Michael was not a bad person, and he does not deserve to be treated like this in death just because of unproven allegations.

I am a Michael Jackson fan who cannot be silenced with shaming tactics, I will defend him if I see people have a go at him, especially men, because they should bloody well know better.

I have put together a tribute video of Michael, I made this a couple of days after he passed away, it has a mix of his songs, some photos, and some classic video clips, do enjoy.

Rest In Peace Michael Jackson, The Undisputed King Of Pop.

Rant over.

Why Men Don't "Open Up"

2009-07-04T20:24:00.000-07:00

Yes, we hear this all the time from women, "How come men don't open up?" they ask. The reason they question this is simple, it's one of the differences between the genders, and in typical female fashion, they view it as something wrong on the man's part, instead of just accepting that we're different. This of course is backed up to the hilt by "experts" on TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and the Internet, all of whom are female. They'll tell women that men don't open up because they are;
A) Not mature enough to talk things through like adults.
B) Too scared to open up.
C) Too stupid to open up.

This is the classic response from a female "expert", they either attack the man's maturity, masculinity, or intelligence, the reason they do this, is so that when women hear this, and realise it absolves them of all responsibility, they lap it up, and because they like what they hear, they assume it's good advice, and that it's true, and so assume the person uttering this nonsense knows what they are talking about.

Sorry, it's not true.

I'm going to explain why men don't open up, and I'm a man, so what I say holds far more water than any of these women who make up titles for themselves like "relationship expert" or some other nonsense like that.
The reason men don't open up is, women cannot be trusted to open up to, I know the women who have bothered to read this probably don't want to hear that, I can partly understand, it's not as easy to digest as the tremendous advice you'll get off of the likes of Oprah, you know, the advice that goes "It's the man's fault"?

Men learn, that's what we do, we learn and we grow, and we learn very early on, whether through our own experiences or our fathers and uncles and friends, that women cannot be trusted. [sarcasm]I know, I know, that's probably men's fault as well[/sarcasm], but it's the truth.
Women gossip, and they see it as a good thing, I personally don't, but I can find out more from a female stranger at a bus stop in five minutes than I can off a man I've known for years under intense interrogation. That's why women can't be trusted.
I think most women know this too, I don't take them all for fools, I know they can see what's going on.

I don't speak on behalf of all men, I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't open up to a woman, ever, and I'm not immature, frightened or stupid, it's actually because I've got a lot of common sense (something a female expert would never think of telling you).
If I opened up to my girlfriend, or any other woman, and for example, said that I was scared of clowns, or I thought I was maybe adopted, or that I think my mother's having an affair, there is no chance she won't throw that in my face the first chance she gets, the first time I piss her off, it's all out in the open, as soon as she gets the whim to do so.
Her friends would probably find out that night, what with text messages and E-mails flying through the air at lightning speed, all ending with the gossip's favourite phrase, "Don't say anything".
Add that to a woman's justification gauge, and you've got bloody mayhem, they would justify ruining your life because you forgot to do the dishes.

So ladies who are reading this, the next time you hear "Men don't open up because.........", you may think to yourself, even for a second, "I don't blame men for not opening up, if I was a man, I wouldn't open up to women either".

Rant over.

Wimbledon's Unfair Prize Money Policy

2009-07-02T20:32:00.000-07:00

It's that time of the year again, the sun is out, there's a smell of freshly cut grass in the air, people are eating strawberries and cream, and women are being paid the same as men for doing less work, yes, It's Wimbledon time.

Anyone with at least half a brain knows that women getting the same prize money as men is completely unfair, and the reason is simple, they don't put in the same amount of work. If women played best of 5 just like the men, I'd have no complaints, but they don't, they only play best of 3, yet are given the same prize money as the men who win, this is nothing short of disgraceful, a pathetic, unfair rule to please foaming-at-the-mouth feminists, it's absolutely despicable that this injustice is allowed to stand.

Dare question it though, and you'll come under a barrage of abuse from idiots who'll insinuate everything about you from you hating women to wanting women to have no rights, and if they don't take that path, they make ridiculous reasons up as to why women should get paid the same.
One of these made-up reasons is that women's tennis is more entertaining, therefore their best of 3 equals men's best of 5 on entertainment value, but this is utter poppycock, allow me to explain why.
First of all, if the genders were reversed, there is no amount of entertainment value in the world that women would accept as justification for women having to work harder and longer than men, if the genders were reversed, entertainment value wouldn't even come into it.
Secondly, if it was true that women's tennis is more entertaining than men's, then surely this fact would affect the price of tickets? I mean I'm no businessman, but surely the most entertaining would cost the most, since there would be a higher demand for tickets? Of course it would cost more, it makes perfect economic sense to charge more for something that's in high demand, so this is where the "entertainment value" argument holds no water, because if you check the prices of tickets, you may be surprised.
As I write this, these are the ticket prices for the final;

Ladies Singles Final 4/7/09 - £728
Mens Singles Final 5/7/09 - £2868

That's a pretty big difference. I searched lots of different ticket websites, those prices are from the official Wimbledon site, but they all tell the same story, it costs far less to watch the women's final than it does the men's, so this proves that women's tennis is in no way more entertaining than men's, if anything, men's is far superior, going on the ticket prices.

So why the same money for less work?
What's to stop this from becoming law in the workplace, women only having to do 3/5ths of the work that men do, yet getting paid the same?
Why no feminist uproar? I thought they were against unfair pay.
The simple fact is, it's unfair, I'm all for equality, but this is just pandering to women who are angry at nothing, to women who lie to make themselves victims, it's out of order.

Rant over.

Why Should We Pay For A TV License?

2009-06-25T07:22:00.000-07:00

For the uninformed, the TV license pays for all things BBC, it is enforced by law, but it's not a tax, and each British household with a television must pay a license fee every year.
As I write this, a colour TV Licence costs £142.50 A black and white TV Licence costs £48.00, that's every year.

You may think that this is just the normal kind of subscription that any cable company charges, like Sky for example, but it's not the same, because I don't have Sky, you know why? Because I haven't bloody well paid for it, so the only Sky I get is Sky 3, their freeview channel. The BBC force their channels on you and then demand payment for them, it's nothing short of robbery, there is no opt-out option, the rule is, if you own a TV, whether you want BBC on it or not, you have to pay a license fee, leaving a lot of people, me included, criminals because we don't want to pay for something we don't want.

Imagine, just for the sake of making a point, that there's a nearby jewellery company, and every week they post jewellery through your door, jewellery that you haven't ordered, don't want, and have no use for, and then you get a letter saying that if you don't pay for that jewellery, you'll be prosecuted, this would not be allowed to happen in any Western country, with any company, except the BBC, because that's exactly what they do, they demand payment for a product without having the decency to ask whether you want it or not, or offering an opt-out option, they just assume if you have a radio or TV, then you must have the BBC, it's ridiculous at best.

They have a radio station for blacks called 1xtra, I'm not saying it's for blacks, they are, they even go as far as to say the music itself is black, and even though I would cringe at the very idea, there is no white radio station, for white people, which would no doubt be deemed racist if it did exist.
Then there is the pathetic Women's Hour, I think that's on Radio 2, but take note, there is no men's hour, so presumably all women not only listen to the radio at the exact same precise moment, but also have the exact same specific tastes in music and topics of discussion, how odd.
Their bias towards minority groups and women is astounding, but not just in these examples, there are many more.

Take this story that was on the news and their website, 7 children died by either neglect or abuse, so an inquiry was launched into the state of the social services in that area, and remember men and women pay the TV license, but let me quote a part from the article;

Of the seven deaths being examined in serious case reviews, two of the children were murdered by their fathers and four were less than one year old at the time of their deaths.

You see their bias? They're very quick to mention that fathers were guilty in 2 of the cases, but what about the others? There were 7, minus 2 by fathers, so that leaves 5, but no facts. This is the standard of reporting that we're forced to pay for, it's nothing more than feminist agenda-driven drivel, which leaves us filling in the blanks for ourselves, that's extremely poor reporting.

On a few occasions they talk about domestic violence on the BBC, and even though data collected from around the globe from the 1970's until now clearly states than women initiate DV just as much as men do, the BBC ignore this fact, and discuss it with a huge screen behind them showing an obvious man beating on what's obviously a woman, but slightly out of focus, and only female guests, experts or victims to talk about it, without ever a mention that men suffer too, again, agenda-driven reporting, it's very poor.

When discussing rape recently on BBC news, they actually said, on the news remember, that 85% of rapes go unreported, how the hell can anyone possibly know what goes unreported? This is probably based on some feminist made-up statistic somewhere, but it's not a fact, it's impossible, no matter the technology available to us, it's absolutely impossible to know what goes unreported, therefore it shouldn't be on the main news that we all pay for, it can't be substantiated in any way whatsoever, yet it's made it on to the main BBC news at least on 2 separate occasions that I've witnessed.

They also have a London bias, let me be clear, it's not an English bias as lots of people think, it's specifically a London bias, the BBC do not favour those from the north of England very much.
Not only is the news 90% focused on London and America, showing their utter bias for London, but most of their programs are set in London, the most ridiculous of which is Dr. Who, this is a man who can travel through space, time, even to other dimensions, and yet every bloody week where is he? Bloody London.
There's Eastenders, Casualty, Holby, and if it's not that made-for-women drivel, it's just more made-for-women costume dramas or sexist man-hating shows like "How To Train Your Husband".

Obviously they have a few shining moments, like QI, Mock The Week and Extras and stuff, but they're few and far between, most of it is drivel aimed at old women who live with their cats, they've still got Songs Of Praise on for Christ's sake.

I am just dead against the idea of being forced to pay for something that I don't want, remember, it's not a tax.

Rant over.

Anton De Beke Is A Knob-End

2009-06-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

Look at the tosser, doesn't he just have a face you wouldn't get tired of punching?
Of course he does, but that's not what makes him a knob-end, no, what makes this man a knob-end, is what he said on The Wright Stuff on Monday 22nd concerning tennis player Andrew Murray.
He stated that he doesn't want him to win Wimbledon because he's Scottish, in fact, he'd sooner see a Swiss guy win than a Scot. But even though that's racist, that's still not the full story of what makes him such a knob-end, the rest of the story is, he then said that if he does win Wimbledon, then he'll be "as British as me", the twat. But hang on, if he's British, then why wouldn't he want a Scot to win?

He's so braindead, he doesn't understand that it just makes him look like a complete loser, only supporting someone who wins, that's not very sportsmanlike is it?

I don't really care for tennis one way or the other, but after hearing this wannabe snob, fake-arse wanker say what he said, (cue my King Kenny impression) I would love it, bloody love it if Andy wins Wimbledon, just to stick it to that glory-hunting, bandwagon-jumping piece of dogshit, fake-arse Anton.

Rant over.

The Shaming Language Of Women

2009-06-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

Let's get one thing out the way, this does not apply to all women, there are many women who can debate with a man intelligently, in a well mannered, calm way, in which they can make their points very clear, but sadly, those women seem to be in the minority.
The rest of them it seems, do not possess this same ability, they use a different tactic when it comes to debating with men over something they don't agree with, they use shaming language.

Shaming language is not out of place in the playground, if you're a 6 year old boy arguing with a 6 year old girl, and she calls you stupid or says that you're ugly, you're not going to be very surprised, she's 6 for Christ's sake, give her a break :)
But when this very same tactic is used by an adult, mature minded woman (at least in their own eyes), then it's very disappointing, and incredibly difficult to respect or take seriously.

It's nothing more than an attempt at changing the subject that they're uncomfortable with, a way to divert your, and other's, attention from the original issue, and as much as it eats away at me to say it, it works on most men, not ones like me who are wise to it, but certainly a fair amount of men fall for this, and this too, is very disappointing.

It happens when a topic of discussion is raised that they're uncomfortable dealing with, and with women in general, that topic usually revolves around the questioning of the victim status that they take for granted. So if you simply raise the issue of the gender pay gap, and point out that it's not because of discrimination, or mention that women abuse children more than men do, both facts, you're then met with a pick 'n' mix of insults, putdowns, and accusations, all to quickly change the subject, we can't go having them losing their victim status now can we?
These include the following, or at least some variation of them;

You hate women.
You have mother issues.
You need therapy.
A woman must have hurt you in the past.
You probably live in your mother's basement.
You can't get laid.
You're ugly.
You're immature.
You're stupid.
You're not a real man.
You're probably in the closet.
You are jealous of women.
You're probably some kind of pervert.
I don't think you could possibly have a girlfriend.

And so on, and so on.........

I know why they do it, as I said, to divert attention, but they also do it because it works most of the time. I've lost count of the amount of times I've witnessed a man raise an issue like the 1 in 4 rape lie that feminists invented for example, and that's his original point, but after he's been told of his issues over and over, he ends up forgetting about the original issue, and spends the rest of his time defending against allegations of hating women and such, so the original issue is lost in the dust.
They also have an added bonus effect to them as well, the scaring off of others who may agree with the man, so most people will avoid defending, or siding with, the man in fear that they too will become a target for the women's shaming tactics.

I think we should teach our sons about these tactics, prepare them so they don't go giving them exactly what they want, the losing of their cool.

Rant over.