#ListeningToMenFace the latest feminazi anti-male hashag on Twitter

http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/89610869820/listeningtomenface

 

 

the cunt who started it

 

https://twitter.com/mallelis/status/480412156177838080

 

like the  #killallmen hashtag which is currently trending with no outrage from the feminazis  a new anti-male hastag on the twitter which was designed and invented by men is just started  and like the #killallmen hashtag, it doesn’t take long to see tweets calling for killing and maiming men

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lana Del Rey: ‘Feminism Is Just Not An Interesting Concept

Lana Del Rey has dismissed gender equality as ‘boring’.

The singer, who has hundreds of thousands of female fans worldwide, told Fader that she is ‘not really that interested’ in feminism.

Instead, the 27-year-old Video Games hitmaker would much rather discuss important things like ‘intergalactic possibilities’.

 

In an interview with the June/July issue of the magazine, Lana went into great detail on an array of personal issues, but not before she made clear what she does and does not have time for.

‘For me, the issue of feminism is just not an interesting concept,’ she told the publication, before going on to explain what did in fact tickle her fancy as worthwhile conversation.

‘I’m more interested in, you know, SpaceX and Tesla, what’s going to happen with our intergalactic possibilities,’ the singer gushed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2651234/Feminism-not-interesting-concept-Lana-Del-Rey-slams-gender-equality-debate-boring-new-magazine-interview.html

Girls are more mature than boys, but men are more mature than women?

 

Why are men on top? Why are they the vast majority of CEOs, politicians, education administrators – essentially all of our most important leaders? It’s really quite simple: although girls tend to be more mature than boys (as we are so often told), men are naturally more mature than women. As Satoshi Kanazawa, Reader at the London School of Economics, states in this article in Psychology Today:

The male advantage in intelligence does not appear until after puberty, when boys and girls finish maturing and growing.  Until then, girls are on average always more mature than boys at any given chronological age.

You can peruse the studies he cites for evidence of this claim. Alternatively, you can simply take a look around you.

In academia the hard sciences (i.e. the real sciences) are all dominated by men – STEM (science,technology, engineering, math). But even if you get a degree in the humanities (as I did) you see this phenomenon playing out in your field of study through the historic examples of “The Greats.”

Beethoven, for example, went deaf not after he composed his masterpieces, but before. Milton went blind before he wrote his infamous Paradise Lost and relied on an amanuensis to transcribe his verses. Ovid, author of the great Roman epic The Metamorphoses, wrote it in political exile. And the greatest musicals and operas – which are now characterized as “feminine” – have overwhelmingly been composed by men.

The notions of “work/life balance” and “fulfilling careers” are distinctively feminine constructs. Discussion of such things was never mainstream before the 1960s, when the conversation on women’s workplace equality began to reach critical mass. If you asked a young man in the 1800s how much “work/life balance” he wanted in his “fulfilling career,” he would laugh – right before he told you that he would be working in a coal mine twelve hours a day, breaking big rocks into little rocks, until he was dead at 35 from black lung disease.

Like his father before him, and so on.

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/girls-are-more-mature-than-boys-but-men-are-more-mature-than-women/

Heather Mallick’s misandry

Heather Mallick wrote a column last week criticizing the government’s prostitution bill, specifically the part outlawing solicitation where children may be present. If you’ve not done so already, you might give it a read: “Why did prostitution bill go off the rails?”,Toronto Star, June 10.

Prostitution laws are one rare issue where I’ve essentially no opinion. I have never even thought of visiting a prostitute, let alone amassed the knowledge or committed the time to adequately consider this complex issue. In general, though, I think that such activities debase sexual relations—the proper preserve of committed, emotionally-invested couples—whatever this might imply for its legality. So I’m not here to discuss the bill, but rather to point out Mallick’s heartless characterization of men, which undergirds her belief in punishing johns but not prostitutes: “[It] promotes gender equality,” she writes, “and shifts a legal burden from exploited women directly onto the pathetic men who buy sex.”

She goes on:

[The bill’s] online reactions were almost entirely from men . . . one letter writer saying the law should cater to men without access to “mainstream sexual outlets” like spouses or friends.

Here’s a tip. “Hi, can I buy ya a drink? I don’t have access to mainstream sexual outlets” is not a great line. It is known in the mainstream women’s crowd as a “red flag” and will result in loneliness and possible late-night weeping into a little corral of crème de menthe glasses at the bar. . .

The “need” to buy women is not a “law of nature,” as he wrote, presumably with a straight face. Me? Arrested? The overall level of male entitlement was striking.

Call me sensitive, but I detect a seething hostility here, which reflects Mallick’s modus operandi of blaming men first, for everything. It is ridiculous to say that prostitution simply amounts to “buying women”, as if prostitutes had no agency and could place no limits on what occurs in the transaction. But the conclusion drawn from her prejudice is actually less concerning than the prejudice itself.

Heather Mallick is a sexist. Her habitual derogations would almost certainly land her in a human rights court if they were directed at women instead of men. And you can forget the lame excuse that sexism by women, and this woman in particular, cannot exist because of men’s “institutional power”, code for the belief that men control everything and cannot therefore be subjects of stereotyping. Mrs Mallick has had numerous bylines—at the Globe and Mailthe Star, Chatelaine, Britain’s The Guardian, and the CBC—and is afforded an astounding level of deference. Oppression, indeed.

According to her world view, men cannot have opinions worth addressing because they are unable to empathize with women. But clearly Mallick is impervious to the way that her condemnations of others actually apply to her own prejudices.

Doubtless owing to her unchecked privilege, Mallick is incapable of empathizing with anxious and depressed men who’ve had misfortunes with the fair sex. So she dismisses the real angst of thousands, perhaps millions of men in this
country, almost all of whom don’t go to prostitutes. None of them should, of course, though perhaps we might forgive them the temptation.

For Mallick to cherry-pick some guy’s tactless comment about “mainstream sexual outlets”, and then mock all of these people on its account, is callous. In fact, the tone of her words suggests that she rather enjoys, like a schoolyard bully, making fun of men’s misfortunes. This is a truly hateful person, in other words.

A handful of male friends have confided in me their experiences with prostitution. (I guess I’m a good listener.) These guys were motivated not by a plain desire for “action”, but by perpetual female rejection in romantic, as well as sexual, relations. This rejection did not produce a mere lack of sexual fulfillment, but also an emptying of their male self-worth, which is naturally attuned to the role of protector and provider. So their johning served a desire for attention and a simulacrum of intimacy. One even paid the woman to just sit for a couple of hours and talk with him, as a caring wife would for her husband.

Some of these men didn’t possess the confidence to walk up to a woman and ask her out for a drink, a diffidence which Mallick would view as pathetic. Others had been laughed away by all women who interested them. Either way, they evidently weren’t moral monsters who derived pleasure from “owning women”. Clearly, then, the issue isn’t as black and white as Mallick believes.

Finally, it is unsurprising but noteworthy that feminism’s innate man-hating, of which Mallick is representative, has reached this irrational apex. It started out raging against the jocks, the classic chauvinists, the macho men—chaps who could survive the breakdown of chivalrous courtship into today’s vulgar “sexual marketplace”. But now feminism has turned on the very nerds who invariably helped to midwife it. For the most part, these guys genuinely care about the status of women and wish, often desperately, that even one of them would care back. It’s a shame that misandrics like Mallick unfeelingly insult them.

 

http://princearthurherald.com/en/politics-2/heather-mallicks-misandry-886