VIDEO: I ‘Walked Like a Man’ and Three Times As Many Women Ran into Me as Men | National Review - "When 25-year-old labor organizer Beth Breslaw’s friend told her that more men than women bump into people on the sidewalk, Breslaw decided to test the theory by walking around New York City without moving aside for anyone. Breslaw told New York magazine that she did this “experiment” for most of December and all of November. And what did she find? “I could probably count on my hand the number of women that bumped into me and the number of men that didn’t,” she said. And so the term “manslamming” was born: More men than women refuse to yield to women on the sidewalk because our patriarchal culture conditions them to occupy space without showing consideration for anyone else. But here’s the thing: I did a similar “experiment,” walking in and around Grand Central for an hour on Friday — and 66 women ran into me as compared to just 23 men. Sure, more than 23 guys got kind of close before they moved, but they ultimately seemed afraid of knocking me over and moved out of my way... should we call it “womanslamming?” No, that would be missing the point — which is that it’s not a gendered phenomenon. If you walk around not caring if you bump into people, you’re going to bump into people. It’s as simple as that. Maybe it was the area I was in. Maybe it was because more women were on their phones or chatting in groups of friends. And, of course: I was testing the hypothesis that more than just a handful of women would run into me — just like Breslaw was testing the hypothesis that more than a just a handful wouldn’t. After all, any outliers or biases that could be used to explain away the results of my “experiment” could also apply to hers. (By the way, I am using quotation marks around the word “experiment” for a reason. First of all, it’s kind of hard to define what counts as a “slam” and what doesn’t. Some were smaller bumps, some were full-on pushes and body-checks. And although I know that the “experiment” calls for not altering your path at all, I did move out of the way for babies and people in wheelchairs — which is not something I will apologize for.)... The street-slamming experience you have likely depends on a lot of things: The location. The time of day. Whose winter coats block their peripheral vision. And approximately 9 million other reasons that have nothing to do with gender."
This won't step feminists claiming that it's always men who refuse to get out of the way and pointing to "studies" allegedly proving that (I am unable to find any real studies)
Emily Ratajkowski Said She Attracts "The Worst Men" After Pete Davidson Split - "Emily Ratajkowski Said She Thinks She Attracts “Emasculated” Men Who “Don’t Know How To Handle” A “Strong Woman”"
Feminists mock men who boast about being alpha males, but love "strong women"
I thought wanting men to be masculine was "toxic masculinity"?
Since she seems to be throwing shade at Davidson, does that mean he really isn't an awesome guy after all, so all the female celebrities are dating him for some other reason?
Meme - "PATRIARCHY! MISOGYNIST! INCEL!
The Western Feminist Parrot (Delusionalicus lntelIigensia)
Can be recognized by its limited parroting capacity (it knows only 3 words)"
Arrest, assaults overshadow “men’s issues” lecture - "Farrell, who describes himself as a former feminist, and the only male ever to have been elected to the Board of the National Organization for Women three times, started to include men’s issues in his work about gender in the mid-1980s. About fifteen protestors stood in front of the doors before the event, forming a barricade and blocking attendees from entering through the main doors of the auditorium... There was also significant controversy over the move by protesters to barricade the doors. Many patrons argued that the methods used by the protestors suppressed free speech and stifled debate. The protestors argued that Farrell’s talk was hate speech, and did real damage to women. Demonstrators shouted the slogan “No Hate Speech on Campus” on a number of occasions throughout the night. Farrell’s lecture centred around ten major themes, including discussion of “men’s issues” such as video game or porn addiction, which disproportionately affects men, and boys’ relative disadvantages in education... The lecture was delayed by the crowd of protestors, who had organized on Facebook through a coalition group calling themselves “U of T Students United Against Sexism.” Protestors accused Farrell and the men’s issues awareness movement of misogyny, and of protecting and denying male privilege. “We recognize that they [the men’s issues awareness movement] are really messed up … men are at a point of privilege, so we need to recognize privilege and become an ally [of women’s rights],” said Guled Arale, Scarborough Campus Students’ Union vice-president... “If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says ‘no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying”... Farrell said that he does not blame date rape on its victims, and that he only made the point that there was an “evolution of misunderstandings between communication and litigation.” He also added an example that a verbal “yes” said in the tone of “no” also means no."
Comments: "Funny how those trying to deny others free speech and assembly are the first to talk about how we live in a "police state"..."
"I was there. They were not peaceful. They physically blocked us, called us "rape apologists" and generally tried to intimidate everyone with aggressive behavior and a numbers advantage. I was there with a colleague of mine - a woman who works with me helping disadvantaged youth in the community - and she was accused of selling out her own gender for my pleasure"
"they try and justify their hypocrisy by labeling it "hate speech." Which, of course, is defined as anything these people disagree with."
"How is a talk violent/oppressive?"
Is Forced Fatherhood Fair? - NYTimes.com - "Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture... If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments. Do men now have less reproductive autonomy than women? Should men have more control over when and how they become parents, as many women now do?... "if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child"... the new definition of ‘fatherhood’ is driven by the government’s goal of collecting child support from men whose biological offspring are in the welfare system, as well as lawsuits from men aiming to avoid financial responsibility for their dependents... Coercing legal paternity in such cases leads to painful “disestablishment” battles that are unlikely to be in the best interest of the child or promote stable family relationships. Murphy discusses cases in which legal fathers resort to violence or threats of violence against a mother and her children when child support orders are enforced against them... Feminists have long held that women should not be penalized for being sexually active by taking away their options when an accidental pregnancy occurs. Do our policies now aim to punish and shame men for their sexual promiscuity? Many of my male students (in Miami where I teach), who come from low-income immigrant communities, believe that our punitive paternity policies are aimed at controlling their sexual behavior. Moreover, the asymmetrical options that men and women now have when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy set up power imbalances in their sexual relationships that my male students find hugely unfair to them... just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her. In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity. Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child"
Comments: "Women can "choose" to have sexual intercourse, but then also "choose" not to be a parent. To say that men can choose to be abstinent, but women do not have to face that same choice is profoundly sexist... the readership of the New York Times appears overwhelming to believe that women should have rights while men should have responsibilities."
"Possibly the best advice a father could give his son these days is to create a sperm bank account and then have a vasectomy, thus having absolute control over his own offspring regardless of the desires of his fertile partner."
Interestingly some of the comments are anti-sex and have slut-shaming as a corollary, e.g.: "These men need to pay for their pleasure. If you don't want parental responsibilities then don't get jiggy with it with someone you are not married to and intending to have children with. All the players out there need to be held responsible. Men cannot use women for sex and then not accept the consequences. Don't do the crime If you can't do the time."
Jen Richards on Twitter - "I rarely meet men in real life as extraordinary as ones on film, and rarely see women on film as extraordinary as ones I know in real life."
So many feminists were proudly reposting this. Hating men and glorifying women is good
Bringing Home the Bacon: Marital Allocation of Income-Earning Responsibility, Job Shifts, and Men's Wages - "Studies show that married men earn more than single men, even when human capital is controlled. There has been little effort to integrate the study of the marriage effect on men's wages with the literature on the division of labor in the household or to understand behavioral processes that link marital status to men's wages. This study addresses both oversights. Three dominant perspectives on the allocation of household responsibilities suggest that married couples are likely to assign more income-earning responsibility to the husband. These perspectives can be extended to predict that married men set higher earnings goals than single men. Married men are likely to be more attentive to opportunities to increase their earnings and to risks that could reduce their earnings. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, this study focuses on men's job-shift processes. Findings indicate that married men are more likely than single men to pursue job-shift patterns that result in greater wage gains and to avoid those result in lower wage gains and that a portion of the marriage differential in men's wages is attributable to job-shift processes."
Damn gender wage gap! Men need to be punished for working harder
How do marital status, work effort, and wage rates interact? - "How marital status interacts with men’s earnings is an important analytic and policy issue, especially in the context of debates in the United States over programs that encourage healthy marriage. This paper generates new findings about the earnings-marriage relationship by estimating the linkages among flows into and out of marriage, work effort, and wage rates. The estimates are based on National Longitudinal Survey of Youth panel data, covering 23 years of marital and labor market outcomes, and control for unobserved heterogeneity. We estimate marriage effects on hours worked (our proxy for work effort) and on wage rates for all men and for black and low-skilled men separately. The estimates reveal that entering marriage raises hours worked quickly and substantially but that marriage’s effect on wage rates takes place more slowly while men continue in marriage. Together, the stimulus to hours worked and wage rates generates an 18%–19% increase in earnings, with about one-third to one-half of the marriage earnings premium attributable to higher work effort. At the same time, higher wage rates and hours worked encourage men to marry and to stay married. Thus, being married and having high earnings reinforce each other over time."
Meme - Juan D'Marco: "Also as I said on another comment, Cavill is a creep who says he doesn't flirt with girls just so he won't be called a rapist. He deserves no jobs."
Weird. I thought it was bad to sexually harass women with unwanted flirting. Yet making absolutely sure you never sexually harass a woman is being a "creep" and that means you shouldn't be able to get a job. It's almost as if feminists want there to be more allegations of sexual harassment
I’m a feminist, but I still think men should pay for the first date - they can learn a lot from it
No surprise, since feminism is hypocrisy
Meme - Jesse Case @jessecase: "I guess I wasn't aware that the full phrase was "Believe Women, unless you enjoyed the Pirates of the Carribean franchise so much that you developed an insane parasocial relationship with an actor""
Ironic, given that feminists bitch about how beautiful white women are more likely to be believed
lacheri.tumblr.com/post/686157111593484288/if-a-girl-is-reading-a-really-interesting-book-she?is_related_post=1 - "if a girl is reading a really interesting book she shouldn’t have to go to work. she’s expanding her mind and bettering herself and her employers should understand that"
"a girl shouldn't have to go to work and her employers should understand that"
Another explanation for the gender wage gap
Meme - "Gonna start calling all men "males" like misogynistic men call all women "females""
"I don't think any of us really give a fuck"
Men don't have fragile masculinity
Disney screenwriter is tired of "strong female characters" - "One of Disney’s most prolific screenwriters has had just about enough of the verbiage about “strong female characters.” Linda Woolverton is the screenwriter responsible for developing Belle into an astute bookworm in Beauty and the Beast. She also had a hand in taking the fiendish Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty and creating a villain among villains. She says she’s familiar with the phrase “strong female characters,” and she’s rather sick of it, saying she’s heard it for years and years. “It’s just an easy term,” Woolverton said. “What does it mean?” The famous Disney screenwriter says that there are so many more ways to describe women, rather than limiting that description to only the word “strong.” She goes further by giving her own take on the definition of a “strong female character,” explaining what the phrase should mean, rather than what is usually means in the mainstream. “[A strong female character] is somebody who is proactive in their world, who affects their world, isn’t a victim, even victimized by it,” Woolverton said. “O if they are victimized by it, they take action to change that for themselves.” Woolverton says that those so-called strong female characters in stories “look at the world in interesting ways,” and that it is those unique perspectives that serve to make a woman strong if she will stand up and be vocal about her perspectives. The dynamic Disney screenwriter says that there are so many ways to describe a woman, rather than only referring to her as “strong.”"
Beauty and the Beast screenwriter won’t make money off Disney Plus - "“There are so many more facets to a woman than just ‘strong,’” she explains. “I think it’s a catch-all phrase, that hopefully as we explore the dimensions of female protagonists will fade away into more specifics about that particular character.” The nuance goes further. It’s not so easy as swapping out male leads for female ones, Woolverton argues. “Women don’t do things the same, don’t make the same choices, don’t have the same struggles,” she says. “You don’t just take out a male protagonist and plug in a female and put a sword in her hand and call it good because that’s not gonna change anything.”"
I can't find the full interview anywhere
Meme - Shelby Lynn Graves @Graves_Fit: "I've never seen a man put his hand on another man's lower back/waist when trying to move past in a crowd so please stop doing it to women."
Ben Ginsburg: "When I need to push a man out of my way I put my hand on his chest so if you insist I be equal with women I will"
Luc Kisling: "I literally do it to men 5x the amount I do it to women because it's not seen as weird when u do it to a man."
UNPOPULAR OPINION: Men's Domestic Violence Shelters Are a Misuse of Nonprofit Funding - xoJane - "News came out this month that a Domestic Violence shelter for male survivors opened in Batesville, Arkansas. According to the article, it is the first shelter for male survivors in the country... money going towards this shelter means that money did not go towards other services for women, who make up about 80% of DV victims and survivors... No matter who the perpetrators or survivors are, toxic masculinity is always a part of domestic violence and I am skeptical that a shelter for men would spend time indicting the system that makes domestic violence so common (i.e. patriarchy) beyond dealing with the stigma that male survivors face."
Weird. We're told that feminists advocate for men too
I like how men make up 20% of domestic violence victims and survivors, but they shouldn't even get one shelter
Apparently lesbians have more "toxic masculinity" than men
Cásate y sé sumisa: Submissive wives book is controversial bestseller in Spain and angers feminists - "A book which advises women on how to be 'submissive' has become a surprise bestseller, enraging feminists. The book - a Spanish translation of a book by Italian mother of four Costanza Miriano, entitled Cásate y sé sumisa (Get Married and Be Submissive) - became a surprise hit... Miriano describes the book, which was published by the Catholic Archdiocese of Granada, as "an assemblage of letters to my friends, mostly female, about being a man or a woman, about engagement, marriage, family life, being open to life, having children, raising children." The book, which Miriano claims is based on the teachings of St Paul, promotes "loyal obediance, generocity and submission" on the part of new wives... In one protest, demonstrators in the northern city of Bilbao tore up dozens of copies of the cover of the book... The Archbishop of Granada, Francisco Javier Martinez said the outrage over the book was "ridiculous and hypocritical" in a society that allows abortion, which he believes to be an example of violence towards women which society finds acceptable."
Feminists are anti-choice. The left don't love all books
Shailja Patel on Twitter - "When you tell women and girls to learn self-defense, or carry weapons against rapists, you're not reducing rape. You're just saying "let him rape someone more vulnerable." Stop calling for dystopias. Start working to end patriarchy. Make a world BEYOND RAPE. #Uyinene
Patriarchy wants us to believe that rape has always existed and always will. That rape is intrinsic to masculinity. This myth serves patriarchy by transferring all consequences of rape, including shame and blame, onto victims. Patriarchy stays unaccountable. #UyineneMrwetyana"
Don't tell people to lock their cars or houses, because you're not reducing car theft or burglary - you're just saying "let him steal another car or burgle another house"
Don't tell kids not to go off with strangers, because you're not reducing child kidnapping - you're just saying "let him kidnap another child"
Clearly rape exists in animals because of patriarchy - it's just that powerful
Liberals believe people don't respond to incentives, and they want more people to be victimised so they gain more political power.
Meme - Vivian @viviannkle: "My gender studies professor told me to go to Subway & snap a picture of a male worker making me asanwhich as xtra cred #patriarchy"
Stephen Beard @SMABSO: "Its funny because a Gender Studies degree only legitimately qualifies you for a job at Subway."
Allie Beth Stuckey on Twitter - "I’m just confused by the women who confidently assert men/the patriarchy have held them back. How? All the people who have given me opportunities & pushed me forward in my career have been men. The most “repression” I’ve suffered has been at the hands of gossipy, petty women."
Can I be submissive in the bedroom and still be a feminist? - "Consensual sex requires that both partners give permission for what occurs, whether they take on a more passive or a dominant role at any given moment. If someone chooses to assume a submissive erotic position, that is an agreement that he or she could withdraw at any time. So, in fact, the submissive partner is actually the moral controller; if that person wishes to gain physical dominance, he or she must first be sure that permission for that is fully granted by the partner. But while these facts may help you to consider physical submission more ethically palatable, in general, erotic connections are heightened when taboos are broken … including what might be considered a feminist no-no."
This first half is some tortured logic. Does this mean feminists should never be dominant during sex?
AWARE Singapore - Posts | Facebook - "Our full statement in response to Minister Ng Eng Hen's comments on gender-neutral National Service: "In principle, we do not support conscription for anyone, no matter their gender. We agree with Dr. Ng that conscription should only be deployed when absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation. Dr. Ng himself emphasised the onerous nature of conscription - that it mandates that someone 'suspend individual liberties as a civilian, give up two years of his or her life, and if they do not, they go to jail'. Ideally, Singapore would not have to ask that of anyone. Yet we recognise that, speaking realistically, Singapore is not at that point in terms of its military capabilities. The primary purpose of introducing (non-military) NS for women would not be to send an abstract signal of gender equality. The suggestion to make NS gender-neutral and expand it beyond the military was borne out of the practical need for more participation in increasingly urgent areas such as eldercare, fighting climate change and so on. That gender-neutral NS might consequently help to tamper manifestations of sexism such as the gender pay gap - often justified by the reasoning that men deserve higher pay to make up for NS - is an important bonus. We agree with Dr. Ng that the incautious introduction of NS for women today would likely have negative consequences on women's careers and finances. Women already bear the brunt of unpaid, unrecognised labour in the form of domestic and caregiving responsibilities; the last thing we want to do is impose yet another responsibility for which they don't receive satisfactory compensation. Any initiatives to make NS gender-neutral must come hand in hand with, and indeed cede priority to, other efforts to remove gender-based barriers that keep women from decent work and commensurate pay.""
Feminists are great at rejecting equality when it hurts women
Meme - "When you're being chased by feminists *narrow door*"
Woke Sydney nightclub bans ‘staring’ without ‘verbal consent’ | Toronto Sun - "Club 77 in Sydney has updated its “zero-tolerance policy” on safety and harassment and shared it on its Instagram page that it is “not a place to come to if your sole purpose is to ‘pick up.’”... “RIP to social interaction,” one person wrote. “Everything is becoming social media IRL.” A second person added, “Congratulations on becoming the laughing stock of Sydney.” Someone asked, “I’ve got a lazy eye can I sue for discrimination?,” while another simply added, “Go woke, go broke.”"
It would be creepier to ask for consent to stare
Clubs are literally to pick up at
Mom-of-three, 23, reveals how she went from being a 'raging feminist' to a 'conservative tradwife' - "Madison Dastrup, from Cedar City, Utah, posts regular content on TikTok - where she has almost 70,000 follows - and in one clip she reveals that she is a completely different person to the one she was six years ago after becoming a 'conservative tradwife' and having three children."
Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting - "Informed by moral typecasting theory, we predicted a gender bias in harm evaluation, such that women are more easily categorized as victims and men as perpetrators. Study 1 participants assumed a harmed target was female (versus male), but especially when labeled ‘victim’. Study 2 participants perceived animated shapes perpetuating harm as male and victimized shapes as female. Study 3 participants assumed a female employee claiming harassment was more of a victim than a male employee making identical claims. Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments (Study 4). Managers were perceived as less moral when firing female (versus male) employees (Study 5). The possibility of gender discrimination intensified the cognitive link between women and victimhood (Study 6). Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting."
Men are evil, women are good. Women are victims, men are perpetrators. Of course, feminism reinforces these stereotypes by painting men as evil
Keywords: women seen as victims
Photographer doesn’t force little girls to smile in photoshoots, and TikTok is calling the results ‘powerful’ - "Brooke Light, a photographer from Charlotte, N.C., has people talking after sharing one of her main rules when photographing girls: If they don’t want to smile, they don’t have to — simple as that. The approach is meant to put them at ease, boost confidence and not force her subjects to convey false emotions. But after showing off some of the photoshoot results on TikTok, people on the platform have found themselves experiencing some surprisingly emotional reactions to the images... Instead of capturing “happy” little girls in some kind of a commercial store ad, Light portrays them as strong, independent and more in control of their own image than we typically see in young models... It’s no secret that women have been fed up with being told to smile their entire lives — often by men and society at large. Like it or not, this can start pretty young, with girls being made to feel as though they should always appear happy and eager to please and never, ever complain. When they get older, being told to “smile” may come from men catcalling them on the street or even colleagues and bosses in the workplace."
Feminists are very simplistic. They are against 'stereotypes' so they go do the opposite. In a way they're like Americans. Tell them not to do something and they purposely do it because freedom. So we should tell feminists to go against stereotypes by sleeping with as many low value men as possible