Old W[h]ines, Fancy New Bottles.

 

 I hate when people try to pull the wool over my eyes, really, hate it, especially when it is some well-meaning and sincere “concerned” person who wants to piss on my back and then expects me to believe that it is raining.

Perhaps more than that, I have no time for those who rush headlong into promoting something that according to them is in essence a “step in the right direction” yet fail to do the one thing that might convince me that these steps are indeed IN the right direction. Their bloody homework!

So, it is with a certain degree of reluctance that I feel I must take Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers to task, for this article on AVfM.  Now before I do, I have to say of the few feminists I can tolerate, Hoff Sommers is on that “can count them on the fingers of one hand” group, hence the reluctance.

Moving on, I have been wondering, pondering even on what form the PR campaign for feminism 4.0 would take, how “they” would package it? So, I watched the trailer of The Mask You Live In, and two things jumped right out at me, first, Michael Kimmel popping up as the token male (feminist) representative, and the less than subtle subliminal message embedded into this little PR stunt for feminism 4.0 – the new caring sharing, we really, really do want to “help boys” feminism 4.0.

So, first off,  let’s just plant something into the minds of those watching by showing images of boys holding pieces of paper with the word “anger” written on them! Because boys = anger? Duh!

As for Kimmel, Kimmel is a patsy, he is the useful male idiot reading from the script his feminist mistresses have pre-approved, a flim flam artist, a sycophant, ass kisser, and his “Guy Code”, the one Hoff Sommers mentions a few times? There might be a male (or nice female feminist person) person mouthing the words, but there’s some rancid feminist harridan with her hand up his/her  backside making his/her  mouth work.

This is a slick and shiny plausible PR stunt, a definite improvement on a certain scarlet haired wretch warbling “Cry me a River” – but – a PR stunt all the same. The purpose of which is to “road test” the roll out of feminism 4.0.

I have some knowledge, at a remove, of how the film industry works – here’s the bottom line – he or she who pays the piper, gets to pick the tune, the music, the orchestra, and the song. Artistic integrity, or individual “vision” be damned. Ppppft.

So, in that vein, I followed the money. Obviously my first port of call was the organisation behind this little boy friendly movie, The Representation Project. Here is what they say about themselves

From About Us – Our History.

“As an organization, The Representation Project remains true to the message of Miss Representation that limiting stereotypes harm all of us and that women deserve a seat at the table. We take that commitment forward with us, as we tackle the biases that impact our larger society.”

They are also into “education

From Resources and Education – Curriculum

“Miss Representation’s Curriculum gives media literacy a much needed gender focus. The curriculum asks girls and boys alike to think about the effects of the images they see—particularly the ways media affects women and girls’ ability to see themselves as leaders and be seen as leaders by others in society.”

Just in case you missed the core mission of The Representation Project, it is reiterated further down in their little vignette about how they go about “education”

“Think critically about how stereotypes of femininity and masculinity limit girls and boys. Examine the impact media has on a woman’s ability to see herself as a leader and obtain a leadership position.”

 What I’d like you to note in this altruistic little statement is that the goal is for women to “OBTAIN a leadership position” NOT earn, NOT be qualified for, NOT work for – OBTAIN – as a right – because she is a woman.

Do the words, “horse” and “mouth” ring any bells?

Something else about this now, “concerned about boys” organisation to be noted – WHERE does their money come from? Glad you asked, they have Founders and Donors. Who they thank very graciously for their support in giving them the means to peddle – oops – sorry – present this “concerned about boys” little film.

“Founders and Donors – About Us

We are particularly grateful to the donor leaders of our Founders Circle for their generous multi-year support of our continued success.”

Ah, that’s nice, good manners are always welcome – but, let’s just take a closer look at these generous patrons, shall we. The first two on the list are “anonymous” hmmmm, and for the purposes of this article I will only take the top three to have an in depth look at. Shall we begin?

Founder’s Circle

Anonymous

Anonymous “

Next up on the list is Susie Tomkins Buell, Susie has a Foundation, and :

Their front page slogan is –

“Empowering, educating and promoting leadership among women and girls.”

Hmmm, ok do I need my eyes tested? Anyone spot the word “boys” there? Anyone?

Maybe it’s on their Mission Statement?

Foundation Mission

 “The Foundation has two aims:

 To support women in reaching their full potential in public service, especially in the political arena.

 To inspire activism about our planet’s environmental crisis, especially among youth and women.”

Well! I’m shocked, nothing about boys there either, how about what they say about why they/Susie “sponsored” this film.

“Miss Representation is the award-winning documentary film that exposes how mainstream media contributes to the underrepresentation of women in positions of power and influence in America.

The new documentary film, The Mask You Live In, asks: as a society, how are we failing our boys? The film will examine how gender stereotypes are interconnected with race, class, and circumstance, and how kids are further influenced by the education system, sports culture, and mass media- video games and pornography in particular. The film also highlights the importance of placing emphasis on the social and emotional needs of boys through healthy family communication, alternative teaching strategies, conscious media consumption, positive role modeling and innovative mentorship programs. The goal of this film is to spark a national conversation around masculinity and ultimately create a more balanced, equitable society for all.”

Well, masculinity gets a mention, but, only in the context that there is something wrong with masculinity that needs to be fixed – by feminist filmmakers and organisations dedicated to the “empowerment” of women and girls?. By having complete twats like Kimmel endorse this new fuzzy warm and cuddly feminism 4.0

Maybe the next “Founder and Donor” sees boys as inherently good, as small human beings that just happen to be male, and that it is society, and societal attitudes towards boys that needs to change?

She is called Abigail E. Disney

“Full Biography

Abigail Disney is a filmmaker, philanthropist and activist based in New York City.  Her longtime passion for women’s issues and peacebuilding culminated in her first film Pray the Devil Back to Hell.  Abigail created the groundbreaking PBS mini-series Women, War & Peace, the most comprehensive global media initiative ever mounted on the role of women in peace and conflict.  She has played a role in many film projects and is currently at work on a film highlighting the key role of women in the Arab Awakening.  She founded the Daphne Foundation, Peace is Loud and co-founded, along with 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, the Gbowee Peace Foundation USA.

There is one other thing – Regular contributor – Huffington Post.”

Say no more.

Abigail seems to have one overriding theme in her “work” doesn’t she?  Women!

What about the next Founder and Donor, that would be one Linda Gruber.

Linda is another person who has a particular focus, in her work – just like Susie and Abigail, and that focus is. Women, through the good offices of the Global Fund for Women.

Just what is this Global Fund for Women? – Well here is their Mission and History statement.

“Mission & History

Our Mission

 We advance the rights of women and girls worldwide by increasing the resources for and investing in women-led organizations and women’s collective leadership for change.

 Our Vision

 We envision a just, equitable and sustainable world in which women and girls have resources, voice, choice and opportunities to realize their human rights.”

What is Linda’s role in this Global Organisation for Women?

“Linda Gruber, Secretary United States

Linda Gruber is a long-time community volunteer and president of the Gruber Family Foundation which funds in the areas of education, progressive media, the arts and women’s issues, including reproductive rights. She also serves on the boards of the San Francisco Museum of Art and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

The ones I looked at here are not some fly by night temporary organisations, they have clout, influence and………power, political power. So, we’re talking about some heavy hitters here.

Here are the rest of the Founders and Donors of The Representation Organisation.

 Maureen Pelton and Charles Hartwell

The Eagle and The Hawk Foundation

JaMel Perkins

Lisa and John Pritzker

Amy Rao

Sarah Johnson Redlich

Regina K. Scully

Pheobe Snow Foundation

NoVo Foundation

 Getting back briefly to Hoff Sommers article, this quote illustrates the sloppy thinking that well-meaning but deluded “nice feminists” either display or exhibit when it comes to assessing whether something is or isn’t a step in the right direction.

“I admire Newsom for using her considerable talent to advocate for boys. But I worry that she is less concerned with helping boys than with re-engineering their masculinity according to specifications from some out-of-date gender-studies textbook

Sigh – it’s a shiny new “text-book” same toxic feminist shoite, but with a new super cool cover and better PR,

Maybe it’s some naive but sincere belief that feminism can rehabilitated, or that feminism was once good, was corrupted but can be good again?

I honestly don’t understand why people like Hoff Sommers pine for some mystical good feminism – that NEVER was, never will be, cannot be a good feminism. So, welcoming someone like Newsome as an “advocate for boys” is at best naive, at worst, complicit in perpetuating the toxic and corrosive ideology of ALL feminisms.

Unlike Hoff Sommers, I don’t worry about people like Newsome, not in the sense she does, I worry that people will fall for this bullshit, that this slick pseudo “concern for boys” will lull people into a false sense of “all is well, all is well, the nice feminists are on the case”

By the way, no need to thank me for doing your homework, but you can drop your lunch money on my desk every day before recess for…………..let’s say a week.

Cheers.

Anja.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

Advertisements

26 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. wtfwtf13
    Jan 16, 2014 @ 18:34:19

    What can I say dear Anja ,other than giving you a tight affectionate hug {even if it’s imaginary,the feeling is genuine! } ?
    Yes feminism showing its true colours, I have always claimed it was,has been,is and will be primarily narcissistic ,privileged ,white bitches’ pity party.
    All the rest are inconsequential marginal players in this marathon navel-gazing sport.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 16, 2014 @ 18:45:42

      Ah thank you, wtfwtf13 🙂

      Problem is, in relation to this film, it’s so slick, so plausible that the perpetually, easily duped will be nodding like those car toys and pontificating about – see – feminism DOES care about boys – all you big ole ole nonfeminist/antifeminist MHRA are just meanies who misunderstand what feminism is about!

      Have to say, was very dissapointed, very, at Hoff Sommers “take” on this little propaganda film.

      Reply

  2. Trudy Schuett
    Jan 16, 2014 @ 21:15:51

    Exactly.

    Reply

  3. George
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 07:32:24

    Ah yes, the feminist version of compassion for boys; tell them they’re inherently flawed, emasculate them, deprive them of strong male role models, demonize their sexuality, and drug or punish them unless they act like girls. What an enormous crock of shit!

    Some people deride the phrase; “be a man” because it carries traditionalist, “white knight” connotations, but it isn’t a negative message. If our biased culture would only allow the word “man” to be something positive again, then aspiring to be one would be a great thing for a boy to do. In my youth, “be a man!” was never an exhortation to violence, nor did it mean that I should suppress my feelings of love or compassion. It simply meant; “try really hard to carry on in the face of adversity.” I took that message to heart, and when life got difficult, as it inevitably does, it served me VERY well.

    Very nice job Anja (as usual) in doing the digging required to reveal who (and what) is behind this passive/aggressive film.

    By the way, what a murky, muddled mix of messages from Christina Hoff-Sommers! First, she makes the almost unfathomable statement that she admires Newsom for “advocating for boys” in the film. (Advocacy? Seriously?) Then, in the very next line, she appropriately attacks the film by pointing out the prevalence of the typical hate-filled, feminist message that “men are toxic.” How can she admire someone who makes a film that says boys and men are toxic?

    Frankly, I’ve long been bothered by the fact that Hoff-Sommers persists in calling herself a feminist, in spite of the extensive evidence she has exposed of feminism’s lies, hate-mongering, academic dishonesty, propaganda, and brainwashing. What the hell would it take for her to disassociate herself from the movement?

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 12:56:04

      Hi George,

      You read my mind – I just posted Part II, took for bloody ever – my broadband connection is shit.

      “Ah yes, the feminist version of compassion for boys; tell them they’re inherently flawed, emasculate them, deprive them of strong male role models, demonize their sexuality, and drug or punish them unless they act like girls. What an enormous crock of shit! “

      Anything – and I mean ANYTHING, suggested by, peddled by, endorsed by ANY kind of feminist – and I don’t give a rats arse how “nice” they are IS by default – “an enormous crock of shit!”

      “Some people deride the phrase; “be a man” because it carries traditionalist, “white knight” connotations, but it isn’t a negative message. If our biased culture would only allow the word “man” to be something positive again, then aspiring to be one would be a great thing for a boy to do. In my youth, “be a man!” was never an exhortation to violence, nor did it mean that I should suppress my feelings of love or compassion. It simply meant; “try really hard to carry on in the face of adversity.” I took that message to heart, and when life got difficult, as it inevitably does, it served me VERY well. “

      George I’m stealing this – just letting you know – being a man IS a good thing – I will go one step further – it is MEN who decide what “being a man” is FOR THEM – NOT FEMINISTS – not women – MEN.

      “Very nice job Anja (as usual) in doing the digging required to reveal who (and what) is behind this passive/aggressive film.”

      Thank you George – it is my naturally suspicious nature that kicks in when I see or hear the word “feminist”

      “By the way, what a murky, muddled mix of messages from Christina Hoff-Sommers! First, she makes the almost unfathomable statement that she admires Newsom for “advocating for boys” in the film. (Advocacy? Seriously?) Then, in the very next line, she appropriately attacks the film by pointing out the prevalence of the typical hate-filled, feminist message that “men are toxic.” How can she admire someone who makes a film that says boys and men are toxic?”

      Nail on the head George – NAIL. ON. THE. HEAD.

      “Frankly, I’ve long been bothered by the fact that Hoff-Sommers persists in calling herself a feminist, in spite of the extensive evidence she has exposed of feminism’s lies, hate-mongering, academic dishonesty, propaganda, and brainwashing. What the hell would it take for her to disassociate herself from the movement?”

      I believe I mentioned that Hoff Sommers was one the few feminists that I tolerate, and that I can count them on the fingers of one hand – well – I’ve got a finger free now.

      Thank you for your comment George – much appreciated.

      Anja

      Reply

      • George (RealistExtraordinare)
        Jan 18, 2014 @ 02:49:49

        I’ve got a finger free for feminists too Anja . . . and I think you know which finger it is!

  4. Lana
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 08:22:37

    In some ways though, this backtracking that we can see happening tight through the feminist movement is the sign of a movement beginning to feel like its on the back foot. Nobody with any knowledge of feminism is going to believe that feminists have any real concern for men and boys, or even for women and girls for that matter, but that’s not the point. When a toxic ideology like feminism begins to make efforts to appear to be rolling back on its traditional hard-line hate, then it is because some in the movement are beginning to feel the chilly wind of a backlash. Suddenly they are scrambling to appear “moderate.” This is a good thing in that it means that feminists are being forced to try to defend their ideology for the first time but it is going to make it harder for MRAs to distinguish between friend and foe.

    I remember a discussion with a journalist a few years ago who had done a series of pieces about Neo-Nazi groups. He maintained, quite understandably that the most dangerous ones were the “nice ones:” the ones who claimed they didn’t hate anybody, they were just concerned for the rights of white Europeans. He summed it up by saying that Nazism would be far easier to defeat, if they all wore Swastikas on their arms and were honest about what they stood for.

    The only thing more poisonous than a radical, “I hate men” feminist, is a “moderate” – “feminism cares about men too” feminist.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 13:11:06

      Hi Lana

      “In some ways though, this backtracking that we can see happening tight through the feminist movement is the sign of a movement beginning to feel like its on the back foot. Nobody with any knowledge of feminism is going to believe that feminists have any real concern for men and boys, or even for women and girls for that matter, but that’s not the point. When a toxic ideology like feminism begins to make efforts to appear to be rolling back on its traditional hard-line hate, then it is because some in the movement are beginning to feel the chilly wind of a backlash. Suddenly they are scrambling to appear “moderate.” This is a good thing in that it means that feminists are being forced to try to defend their ideology for the first time but it is going to make it harder for MRAs to distinguish between friend and foe.

      This ^^^^ – never a truer word spoken lass – it is actually my greatest fear – that people will fail to see through the bullshit – I believe that most men, and to some extent a fair number of women are basically decent human beings (always exceptions though) that they want to believe that OTHER people are basically decent human beings – so, they let their guard down – a few kind words – the application of a judicious bit of flattery and…………..boom!

      A friend will tell you the truth, no matter how painful – a foe will tell you what you want to hear.

      “I remember a discussion with a journalist a few years ago who had done a series of pieces about Neo-Nazi groups. He maintained, quite understandably that the most dangerous ones were the “nice ones:” the ones who claimed they didn’t hate anybody, they were just concerned for the rights of white Europeans. He summed it up by saying that Nazism would be far easier to defeat, if they all wore Swastikas on their arms and were honest about what they stood for. “

      Nailed it again Lana – Wolves in Sheeps Clothing – talk about wearing “Masks” women to some extent, and feminists definitely have a different mask for every situation – and a few to spare.

      “The only thing more poisonous than a radical, “I hate men” feminist, is a “moderate” – “feminism cares about men too” feminist.”

      Agree, absolutely – keywords to set your bullshit meter tingling “worried” “concerned” with “but” tagged onto them.

      Thanks for the excellent comment Lana

      Anja.

      Reply

  5. Grumpy Old Man
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 10:04:03

    Anja, very good one and much to contemplate in respects to the challenges we face as advocates for men and boys. GOM

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 13:14:45

      Hi GOM

      I believe we are just about entering the end game – (if you play chess) this is where if all your peices haven’t been strategically moved into place, then one of two things will happen – stalemate or checkmate – unless one side concedes!

      🙂

      Reply

  6. independentshock
    Jan 17, 2014 @ 17:40:59

    It just scared me, literally scared me this realization of how many organizations with lots of money that are out there that only care on women and girls. Because there are not planning to go away, they are not going to stop demanding money, resources, laws. None of them has in their mission something like “once there are at least 40% of women in congress we stop”. I think Mao, or may be some of the USSR leaders said something like “our final goal is to continue the improvement of conditions for working class “. It seems like their final goal is to continue to improve a position of women and girls. Indefinitely. Income, race, own education, parental education, political views, health, none of that matters. Only genitals matter. And that boy’s issues don’t get any money unless it’s “them-approved”.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 17, 2014 @ 18:40:37

      Hi Indy

      Don’t blame you – this thing about the rabbit hole that the MHRM talks about, and how deep it is? The reference to the film The Matrix?

      Well, it isn’t so much A rabbit hole, as a warren, a network of rabbit holes – ever heard of a thing called The Golden Straitjacket?

      “These questions are more than intrinsically important the question of national policy autonomy has triggered the most public anxiety about globalization. Polling data reveal that U.S. citizens believe that the integration of the United States with the rest of the world has greatly constrained U.S. policy autonomy, creating ambivalence about further international integration.[4] this anxiety is even greater in other countries since they are far more dependent in the global economy than the United States. [5]

      Thomas Friedman characterizes the pressure of globalization as the “Golden Straitjacket” which leaves nation-states the stark choice of “free market vanilla and North Korea.” [6] The battle in Seattle and the now ubiquitous protests at meetings of international organizations are only the most note-worthy manifestations of the anxiety about globalization.”

      http://danieldrezner.com/research/policyconvergence.pdf

      Everybody thinks that governments “govern” and that the power of the State via it’s elected representatives is the ultimate political power.

      Not so much. Take for example the WTO (World Trade Organisation)

      “If WTO members are found to be in violation of their commitments, they remain free as sovereign nations to simply ignore any adverse WTO rulings against domestic regulations that impact trade. A prominent example is the European Union’s ban on the sale of beef from cattle treated with growth hormones.

      The EU has repeatedly lost in the WTO, but it has no plans to lift its ban, even though it has produced no scientifically sound evidence that the banned beef poses any hazard to public health. The United States retaliated against the EU in May 1999 by imposing sanctions on $ 117 million worth of imports from Europe, but retaliation as a weapon of trade disputes existed long before the WTO.”

      On the surface, it would appear that the EU prevailed, but, when it comes to exercising clout in relation to trade, global trade movements – no-one beats the WTO for real clout. Especially if the WTO imposes sanctions on a less powerful, more vulnerable State in order to go the long way around a larger more powerful State, even a sui generis one like the EU.

      “Antitrade environmental activists complain that several decisions by the WTO have undercut U.S. environmental regulations. In the so-called Shrimp-Turtle case, the WTO ruled against a U.S. ban on shrimp from countries the United States judged were not adequately protecting sea turtles from being caught and killed in shrimp nets.

      In an earlier, similar case, the WTO had ruled against a U.S. ban on tuna from Mexico that the United States claims was caught through a process that endangers dolphins. Environmental critics of the WTO point to these two cases as proof of their claim.”

      Even against the US, the WTO can and does exert it’s “muscle”

      http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blessings-challenges-globalization

      “Indefinitely. Income, race, own education, parental education, political views, health, none of that matters. Only genitals matter. And that boy’s issues don’t get any money unless it’s “them-approved”.

      You are correct – but the sub text of the endorsement of feminist inspired policies, creates a demoralised, disenfranchised and compliant male labour force – to do the dirty work – the dangerous work – the shit work. Literally.

      Money makes the world go round – but – someone has to expend blood sweat and tears to keep the supply of money flowing.

      Oil doesn’t just pop up out of the ground – metals don’t just happen to be lying handily on the surface – and rather crudely, shit don’t keep flowing away from nice peoples homes without someone making sure the filters don’t get blocked.

      Anja

      Reply

  7. gynocentrism
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 10:21:59

    “I honestly don’t understand why people like Hoff Sommers pine for some mystical good feminism – that NEVER was, never will be, cannot be a good feminism.”

    As I understand it Hoff-Sommers is a traditionalist. Her division of feminism into two kinds – “equity feminist” and “gender feminist” appears to be code-speak for traditional women (equity feminists) and modern women (gender feminists).

    Hoff-Sommers wants men to be gallant and chivalrous in order to benefit women, and all women have to do is be ladylike (whatever the fuck that is) and stay home having babies.

    As far as I can tell her “helping men” is more a secondary outcome of her main game – attacking modern feminists who have meddled with her traditionalist female privileges.

    My respect for you is high for calling out some of the bullshit here.

    Reply

  8. gynocentrism
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 10:23:27

    PS. But keep in mind that the enemy of our enemy may not be our freind, but they certainly help our cause.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 18, 2014 @ 15:21:57

      Hi Gyno

      I’ll see your “enemy of our enemy…” and raise you a “keep your friends close but your enemies even closer”

      Anja 🙂

      Reply

  9. Anja Eriud
    Jan 18, 2014 @ 12:15:45

    In the midst of all the hoo ha about this poxy little film, and the less than subtle attempts by Hoff Sommers to present the schism between the MHRM and feminism as “just a bit of a misunderstanding”, maybe even a “small breakdown in communication”, or perhaps my favourite little ploy – “we are really on the same page here, just talking at cross purposes”.

    Something rather important seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, – these little lads,

    Even though this film hasn’t been released yet, and we’ve just gotten a small taste of things to come, I’m going to indulge myself in a wee bit of soothsaying, a touch of prediction, and if I’m wrong – well then – I’m wrong.

    The first thing is a bit of the thinking out loud on my part, – I’m wondering why this Newsome “feminist activist” and her “feminist philanthropist” backers and her “feminist admirer” Hoff Sommers – all don’t just think about renaming this putrid little movie.

    The Problem with Boys – and to how to fix them so that they are acceptable human beings in a feminist utopia?

    Secondly, prediction time – these wee laddies, the ones I saw portrayed in this film – what percentage of those “problem boys” are the children of single mother homes?

    How many of them either have never had any contact with their fathers, or even know who their Daddy is?

    Who wants to take bets that the reason these boys may have never seen their Dad’s is because………….their mothers are toxic, nasty, alienating wretches who forced these boys Dad’s OUT OF THEIR LIVES?

    Finally, who thinks that these “mothers” will be portrayed as heroic single mothers struggling to “do their best” after being “abandoned” by the “deadbeat Dad’s” of these wee boys?

    That there will be hints of “domestic violence” “abuse” and “never pays a penny in child support”?

    Will the theme of this film be – what we need is more FEMINIST inspired programmes to “address these issues” – like the FEMINIST inspired programmes that were the catalyst for setting this catastrophe FOR BOYS in motion in the first place.

    Because we all know that the best way to put out a fire is – throw more petrol on it!

    Then get Michael Kimmel to write a paper on it – sneering at the toxic masculinity of the fire-fighters (MRA’s) struggling to put the damn thing out – because ALL the fire-fighters are male and THAT’S just anti-women.

    Then let’s get Christina Hoff Sommers to stand on the sidelines wringing her hands in sorrow at how well –intentioned those fire-fighters are but……..we need to think about how all that black smoke and ash is affecting the oppressed women in Bangladesh!

    Answers on a postcard please 🙂

    Anja

    Reply

    • Laddition
      Jan 19, 2014 @ 10:26:46

      Thank you very much for your analysis of both the POS movie (If we just took the toxic male-mask of these boys they’d be perfect – i.e. just like the girls) and la Hoff. Not being from America I haven’t got much of an history of seeing her actual agenda in action. It was very helpful to have it explained.

      I have no more interest in being a gentleman pack-mule for her aristocratic ladies than I have being a castrati in Femobotia (land of all feminists when you get down to brass tacks).

      Good on you

      Reply

      • Anja Eriud
        Jan 19, 2014 @ 17:08:22

        Hello and welcome laddition,

        took me ages to figure out what “POS” was – lol

        Thank you for your comment, and I agree, this latest attmept to turn back the clock and get men to behave as “gentlemen” ie as you rightly said – pack mules – is a bit………..!who the hell do you think you’re kidding here!!

        Start campaigning for the the clock to go back on anti male laws, anti boy education policies, (NOT from a feminist perspective) on abuses of the Human Rights of men and boys – then we’ll talk.

        Many thanks for comment laddition.

        Anja

      • Laddition
        Jan 19, 2014 @ 17:30:11

        The pleasure is mine

  10. George (RealistExtraordinare)
    Jan 19, 2014 @ 02:39:20

    The film isn’t out yet but the plot seems pretty clear from the trailer.

    In support of their forty-year war on men, feminists created a societal environment that is highly corrosive to males (in schools, on TV, in popular culture, in women’s magazines, in fatherless households, etc.) In relatively short order, this corrosive, anti-male environment results in a generation of boys and young men beset by a wide range of social and emotional problems. (Wow! Who could POSSIBLY have seen that coming?)

    In the midst of this nightmare, well-funded feminist filmmakers pretend that feminism isn’t to blame, and even go on to make the claim that the only way to help boys is . . . wait for it . . . MORE FEMINISM. They even point to these feminist-induced problems as evidence that boys are inherently bad and must be emasculated.

    The leaders of the feminist movement should be jailed for systemized child abuse!

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 19, 2014 @ 17:04:06

      George, couldn’t agree more.

      While the “leaders” should definitely be universally vilified and condemned, I have to say that I do have a special contempt for those “nice” feminists who wave away these hapies and attempt to disassociate themselves from “that” part of the “movement” – a Victorian lady delicately holding a perfumed hankie up to her nose as she picks her way through the crowds of smelly urchins and lower classes on her way to a Charity Lunch with all the other “Ladies” ppppft

      Reply

  11. George (RealistExtraordinare)
    Jan 20, 2014 @ 04:04:56

    When a social movement reveals its willingness to destroy children in pursuit of its aims, BEWARE; you’re dealing with psychopaths.

    Of all the sordid things feminism has done (and it’s a LONG list) their callous campaign to destroy the mental health, societal respect, and future prospects of boys is the most wretched, and the most dangerous.

    Feminism has successfully employed a wide range of anti-boy strategies. Sadly, this campaign has been very successful, and the terrible toll is becoming more obvious every day. By virtually every important social and academic measure, boys are now falling behind. And feminists aren’t giving up — they are now going after the very nature of boys — masculinity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; IT’S CHILD ABUSE.

    The only bright spot in all of this is that mothers who love their sons may soon begin to connect the dots and see what feminism for what it really is.

    I strongly recommend that everyone go to the website below and sign the petition to establish a White House Council on Boys and Men.

    http://whitehouseboysmen.org/blog/petition

    Reply

  12. George (RealistExtraordinaire)
    Jan 25, 2014 @ 22:36:59

    Hey — I got the last word! :-))

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: