Michael Kimmel: Welcome to The Real World.

 

I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for Michael Kimmel, really, I do – he is doomed. Do I think he is a complete arsehole and full of shit? Yep. Absolutely. But – he is a human being, and from my perspective he is deserving of all the rights of due process that any other human being is entitled to – he won’t get it, but he is still entitled to it. His problem is that he has along with his feminist overlords worked to strip ALL men – all other men – of that entitlement.

Kimmels’ biggest mistake is in believing that as a self-declared male feminist he would be immune from the kinds of witch-hunting that his movement is not only famous for, but has become a parody of itself.

“Revolutions eat their children.” This observation, by a journalist during the French Revolution, was only partly true. In reality, revolutions eat their parents. In particular, history’s left-wing revolutions eat the left-wing intellectuals who made them happen. By “left-wing” here I mean revolutions that explicitly aim to use government power to reshuffle society. To remake society so it matches whatever version of “justice” strikes its promoters as attractive.”

Revolutions Eat Their Parents

https://mises.org/library/revolutions-eat-their-parents

Kimmels’ ticking time bomb of self-destruction and inevitable targeting by feminists is so self-evident, that the fact he has never considered it is a searing example of his innate stupidity.  He has a penis.

Unfortunately, his belief that he had the right kind of penis, a benign, worshipping at the feet of womynhood, let me pierce a hole in it so you can lead me around by a chain, my penis is at your service and command, was and is an exercise in monumental stupidity.

He could have chopped it off, encased it in one of those things that you encase stuff in, presented it to Hilary Clinton, along with his testes dipped in gold and made into earrings, and he was still living on borrowed time.

Kimmel in his stupidity and arrogance and hubris believed he could cook up some, how to build a better man acceptable to feminists, manual/programme/guidebook, whatever, and they would love and worship him forever.

Nah.

Apart from the fact that every single word he has ever written is complete and utter garbage, his problem was and is this.

He wrote about MEN, he took up space, time and oxygen pontificating about MEN.

HE BECAME THE GO TO GUY FOR OPINIONS ABOUT MEN

– and he did it AS A MAN.

He gave them what he believed they wanted, a turgid treatise on men and masculinity, he polished it, honed it, tied it up in a big bow and on his knees, presented them with it and waited for the accolades. He forgot. He is a MAN.

Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was in believing the oft trumpeted, tediously quoted “dictionary definition” of feminism so beloved by feminists who have run out of rational arguments (usually takes about 13 seconds) “feminism is about equality” duh.

He forgot – he is not entitled to define men, to define masculinity, to express an opinion. He forgot, while they would tolerate his views and opinions – for a while – that was never going to last – because those views and opinions were being expressed – BY A MAN. About men.

I read his monumentally stupid statement – his expectation that he would be afforded the due process he has singularly failed to endorse for other men. I rolled my eyes and while I don’t normally talk to myself, the words “you stupid stupid idiot” just popped out.

Whatever belief he has/had that they will treat him fairly, reasonably, or with even a modicum of restraint because of his “feminist” credentials, perhaps this will illustrate for him the absolute futility of believing that.

There are groups, covens, sects of so-called reasonable feminists, the type of feminist who abhors the rabid feral feminists that we all know and despise.

One of them is Laura Kipnis – this is what they did to her. And Michael – she had a vagina.

The feminist revolution is eating its own

https://nypost.com/2015/06/01/the-feminist-revolution-is-eating-its-own/

“The revolution always eats its own. That’s the lesson from a recent essay by Northwestern University’s Laura Kipnis.

Two students were so offended by her article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on why banning romantic relationships between faculty and students was silly that they filed a Title IX complaint against her.

Yes, that’s right, legislation that was originally supposed to combat sexual discrimination in public education and athletics is now being used to silence professors who write essays that contradict progressive wisdom.

The charges against Kipnis were dropped over the weekend, but not before she submitted to what she referred to as her “Title IX Inquisition.”

A law firm hired by Northwestern to investigate at first even refused to reveal the nature of the accusations against her. Lawyers told her they wanted to ask her questions but she wasn’t entitled to have her own lawyer present.”

So, who the hell is Laura Kipnis?

Well, she is a feminist, with a vagina, therefore one would assume she is immune from the worst rabble rousing, chop off her head a la Revolution Francais, style of feminist baying mob tactics!

In 2004 she wrote an article for Slate called “The Anxiety of (Sexual) Influence: Are onetime “unwanted advances” really a feminist issue?”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/03/the_anxiety_of_sexual_influence.html?via=gdpr-consent

In this article she appears to be proposing that the over-reaction by feminists to “unwanted sexual advances” needs to be dialed back – fair enough – she takes a few pot shots at professional victims such as Naomi Wolf who apparently was so traumatized by an “unwanted advance” that:

“Wolf also says this one-time advance by Bloom caused her grades to drop, caused her faith in herself and her work to plummet; it devastated her sense of being valuable to Yale as anything but a sex object, and it corrupted her entire educational experience.”

Hmmmm, while ostensibly Kipnis appears to be advocating for a reasonable and rational response to someone putting the moves on you (you, being a delicate special flower of vulnerable femininity) this comment is much more illustrative of her impeccable feminist credentials.

“Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about cases of ongoing unwanted sexual advances—or threats, or quid pro quo demands—otherwise known as “sexual harassment,” which should be subject to the most severe punishment, including loss of livelihood, property seizure, and potential incarceration. Here we’re speaking strictly of the one-time unwanted advance, as in the Wolf-Bloom contretemps.”

(emphasis added)

THIS is what awaits you Michael, you have been accused of “sexual harassment” and as such you are now………………doomed.

Did you do it? Irrelevant.

Frankly, I have no opinion on that, NONE – because I have not seen any evidence, not been privy to any detail whatsoever with regard to the substance of this accusation ergo, you are innocent of the charge.

Do I still think you’re a smarmy, up your own arse idiot? Yep?

The only “safe space” for Kimmel now is the one “space” he has consistently derided, dismissed and castigated – the Men’s Human Rights Movement.

Take a look Michael.

Michael Kimmel. Just another Harvey Weinstein #MeToo

https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/michael-kimmel-just-another-harvey-weinstein-metoo/

Every last one of them, including your “nemesis” Paul Elam, will defend to the end your right to due process, your right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty – as for the piss-taking, and general glee at the situation you find yourself in – you deserve it – you are an arsehole – but – you are a human being – a male human being – and you have rights – now – lets see you try and exercise those rights.

Methinks, that would be a step too far for Michael Kimmel – he will be bleating, whimpering and sobbing out his continued allegiance to the “feminist movement” as they lead him to the guillotine.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 


 

The Irish Times, Feminist Eejits, Pubic Hair and The Patriarchy!

 

When I logged onto my blog – this blog – this morning I noticed that I had four (4) referrers come from The Irish Times – I just checked and it is now up to eight (8).

Anyhoo, while I do read the Irish Times – online – from time to time, I cannot in all honesty say it is my favourite paper – and am being diplomatic. So, I clicked to see what on earth precipitated this attention from Irish Times readers.

It was a couple of comments on an article called “Growing up down there: me and my pubic hair – Why should young women feel ashamed of their perfectly natural ‘lady gardens’?”

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/growing-up-down-there-me-and-my-pubic-hair-1.1785558

Now, I didn’t actually read this article – though apparently from reading the comments it is about the social pressure on women to shave their pubic hair – also – and again – I didn’t actually read this article – nor will I be – it also appears that this might have something to do with – “the patriarchy

Can you see why I might prefer not to give myself a headache reading about this burning issue and just read the comments – growing more and more bemused as I scrolled down – wondering how in the name of God did I end up somehow being linked to an article about the patriarchal pressure exerted on women to shave their pubic hair!

NOT a subject I have EVER written about, commented on, or to blunt given any thought to in my entire life.

Finally I hit the mother lode. Phew! Because the discussion was getting rather strange – granted there are some intelligent and interesting comments on this article – but – having said that – women shaving their pubic hair!!! NOT on my personal top ten list of “burning issues of the day

I digress – back to the hunt for whatever the hell precipitated this blog being connected or linked to this “issue”

It was a comment exchange started by a poster called Linda Kelly – here it is below. The reason I’m addressing this in an article rather than responding to the actual comments themselves on this Irish Times article comment stream is because I have attempted to respond and this is the message I am getting up till now – which is 15.53 pm GMT

“There was a problem processing your request. Please try again in a moment”

That’s been the message for the last two to two and half hours!

The other reason is this, not because I give a flying rats arse what either the self-righteous Linda Kelly says or posts but to illustrate the mindset among Irish feminists and up to a point those who, while expressing their disagreement with feminism are rather under-informed about the true extent of how feminist “theory” has infected public policy thinking in this country – under the radar.

First the sanctimonious Linda Kelly.

Linda Kelly

The Irish Times is attracting a very unsavoury ‘group’ or one person from a Mens Rights group in Ireland who is aggressively attacking anyone who dares to hold a different opinion and regularly trolls articles to leave aggressive and poisonous comments particulary aimed at ‘dangerous’ feminists/people who believe in an equal society. Just saying.

5 hours ago

2 Likes”

Yep – I know, every MRA/MHRA has immediately spotted the contradictions and downright stupidity displayed in this comment – but for the benefit of Ms. Kelly I will point them out – one by one.

I can almost imagine the pursed lips, and sneer on her face as she types the words “Men’s rights Groups” bearing in mind the juxtaposition of that lovely word “unsavoury

Men? RIGHTS?!!!! Cue snotty comment knee jerk reaction.

Almost immediately followed by her contention that these people leave “aggressive and poisonous” comments” at those who “dares to hold a different opinion

Let me translate – anyone who criticises feminism or feminists is “unsavoury” any criticism of feminism or feminists is “aggressive and poisonous” and anyone who is in any way shape or form advocating for Men’s Rights is also by implication “unsavoury

Her little jibes at me personally – “regularly trolls articles to leave aggressive and poisonous comments” now that made me laugh.

First, I have never actually commented on any online article on the Irish TimesNEVER – not once – I comment on articles on my own blog – this blog. I have commented on a few other sites – AVFM ( A Voice for Men) for example, in fact have had a few articles published there.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

You should check it out Linda – you will positively overdose on “unsavoury” characters – in fact you might even swooooooooooooooooooooon – I would recommend though that you check out the articles of Diana Davison and a lady called Judgybitch – aka Janet Bloomfield – maybe you could advise them as well about “what feminism is really about”?

I know they would be just dying to hear what you have to say – hanging onto your every word I bet!  🙂

Second – do you have me under surveillance Ms. Kelly? Otherwise how on earth could you possibly know what articles I “troll” or for that matter read? Are you privy to my reading habits?

Now, onto Michael Edwards, who replies to Linda Kelly thus.

Michael Edwards

@Linda Kelly

I got jostled by that bull in a china shop myelf Linda. But how do we know that the poster/s is from a Mens Rights Group?”

First, I have no idea who Michael Edwards is – whether he has or hasn’t posted comments on this blog or not – so his contention that he “ got jostled by that bull in a china shop myelf Linda” is bizarre to say the least – perhaps you could elaborate as to the nature of this “jostling” Michael – because I have never heard of you.

The next bit is hilarious – “But how do we know that the poster/s is from a Mens Rights Group?” –well duh! You can either read it on this blog or on Men’s Rights Ireland or you could have just bloody asked.

Of course there’s always the article the Irish Daily Star published about Men’s Rights Ireland WITH a photo of me – or failing that – the radio interview I did on the Marc Coleman Show on Newstalk – and no – not posting links – go do your own bloody research.

Not very good at verifying information are the pair of you? Bit – well – dumb actually.

Linda Kelly

@Michael Edwards

Hi Michael he spouts all of the same ‘information’ as can be found here with the same ‘style’ of language so no matter how many ‘different’ identities he creates, it is a quite obviously a many clown headed circus of a beast.

https://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/launch-of-mens-rights-ireland/

This group ‘loathes feminism’ and is on a valiant mission to destroy such fictional threats as ‘The propagandising of a non-existent “rape culture” in Ireland, and across much of the developed world.’”

I love this comment for its absolute sheer inanity and stupidity – I cannot count the number of times I have said on this blog – I AM FEMALE – not to mention the article in the Irish Daily Star, the interview on the Marc Colman Show and another interview on Highland Radio – all relatively easily available sources to indicate my sex (gender is in my opinion a stupid word) FEMALE.

I suppose in order to test whether I have multiple identities – rather than just listening to the two radio interviews and maybe running some forensic tests – you could just have asked. Or done your bloody homework!

Am only guessing here – but whoever “he” is – this numbnut obviously believes “he” and I are the same person – sigh.

 

So, let me answer your unasked questions – I started this blog under a pseudonym Anja Eriud – a name suggested by Dean Esmay, managing editor of AVFM (A Voice for Men) when they published my first article on that site, up until then I was registered (if that’s the correct way of saying it) as Eriu – now am I going too fast for you pair of geniuses?

My first actual name is Anne, and Dean bless him suggested the Irish version of Anne which is Aine – but is pronounced Anya – he spelt it Anja – and I didn’t have the heart to tell him it was not quite right – sorry Dean – so the first part of my pseudonym became Anja (Anne)

The surname Eriu – d is my username on AVfM with the first letter of my actual surname added to the end “D” for Dempsey.

And all this information regarding my “secret identity” is not only ON this blog – but appears in the article on the Irish Daily Star.

Some sleuths you two eejits are.

Am not even going to address your stupid inane comment on “rape culture” everything I said in the article says it all.

Linda’s next comment is typical feminist hamster think (look it up – maybe S.E Honan will lend you his/her dictionary) ) – she makes a point of mentioning two articles out of the 103 articles I have posted on this blog so far – on the two subjects that feminists hold dear, in order to peddle their toxic agenda – lauding the mantra of “single motherhood” and “rape culture” two topics that allow feminists to get their knickers in a knot and work themselves up into a hysterical rage.

Linda Kellyl

There’s also a lovely section about single mothers or C.U.N.T.S as they are referred to, but wait, don’t anyone get offended. The author goes on to explain that ‘before anyone gets up a head of steam, the title is an ACRONYM it stands for Crazy. Uneducated. Nasty. Tramps. That’s much better, isn’t it?’

1 hour ago

2 Likes”

Michael pops into the “discussion” again with this gem.

“Michael Edwards

@Linda Kelly

Interesting link Linda. I am all for a forum to discuss mens rights but that site is definitely not it.

But that would suggest that our Hydra is a 52 year old woman? Further proof if it be needed that we simply cannot trust online presences.

1 hour ago

1 Like”

I think I’ve already commented on the genius level detective powers of both these numbskulls – though again – thanks for the laugh regarding this “Further proof if it be needed that we simply cannot trust online presences.”

Ok – in light of the topic under discussion in the article these moronic comments appeared on – a very bad thought popped into head – regarding “further proof” a photo of………………………..but then – could I stop laughing long enough to actually do it – would I want to? Don’t be daft.

The irony of the part where this super sleuth says “we simply cannot trust online presences.” Oh you mean like YOURS and the up her own arse Linda’s? THOSE kinds of “online presences” tell me something ye pair of gobshoites – are there any photos of YOU in a national paper?

“S.E Honan

@Linda Kelly

Well done for looking behind that.

1 hour ago

2 Likes”

 

Yeah S.E Honan – I agree – I’m recommending these two eejits are called in to help find Shergar! Then the Loch Ness Monster, then……………………………….

“John Tangney

@Linda Kelly

I take it you’re referring in part to me. I have nothing to do with ‘Thomas Delaney’ or with any men’s rights group, and I reject both of them as mirror images of the feminism they’re reacting against. Mine is clearly a minority opinion here, but I’ve expressed it under my own name, I don’t have any alter egos, and I’m speaking from extensive experience of actual feminist behaviour within institutions where I’ve worked, rather than employing a dictionary definition of what feminism means as you seem to be doing, Linda. My comments to you didn’t pull any punches but they stopped well short of the personal insults that another poster has been leaving on this thread, so please don’t conflate me with him.« less

44 minutes ago

0 Likes”

Methinks this poster’s issue is with the idiot Linda – and seems to have his own perspective on feminism – which he is entitled to, and which I personally respect – so have no further comment to make on this one. But genius number three has.

“S.E Honan

@John Tangney I appreciate that clearly you have had a negative experience with certain ‘feminists’ but just like you ask not to be placed in the same box as Thomas Delaney or whatever his real name is, you should not heap all feminists into the same box. Personally, as a self-proclaimed feminist I aim to live by the dictionary definition and not harbor any prejudice against one group of individuals. Many feminists, including myself, are simply aiming to return to the dictionary definition and therefore dispel the negative connotations associated with the word.« less

36 minutes ago

2 Likes”

S.E Honan is playing the N.A.F.A.L.T (look it up ye trio of idiots) card – sigh – and in light of the stupidity of this “Many feminists, including myself, are simply aiming to return to the dictionary definition and therefore dispel the negative connotations associated with the word.”

Hard to know where to begin with this inanity isn’t it?

Is it the statement that a person lives by the terms of how something is defined in a dictionary? Though that does takes stupidity to levels I have only seen once or twice before, or is it the sheer unadulterated breathtakingly obtuse statement that people have issues with a “word

Because no MRA/MHRA’s anywhere could possibly now post reams and reams and reams of EVIDENCE as to the toxic behaviour, actions, policies, laws, programmes and motives of FEMINISTS.

 

Agent Orange files anyone?

S.C.U.M Manifesto?

Andrea Dworkin?

Amanda Marcotte?

 

How many more could I list here? 10,000, 20,000, 100,0000 examples of what feminism REALLY IS?

 

I swear to God – if this stupidity starts a global movement of “pube walks” then I’m calling for a global movement of “Willie Walks

Am thinking these idiots deserve an award – 🙂

 

And here it is – The D.A.D.A – the Dumb And Dumber Award – presented to “Linda Kelly” and “Michael Edwards” with an honourabl mention going to S.E. Honan.

 

The DADA

Karrie Andlerson Nominates herself for a S.W.O.T.M.A – and wins by 50 lengths!

 

I get all kinds of comments, some are intriguing, some are insightful, and some are downright nasty, some are so bizarre that they go into the “you couldn’t make this shit up” category – which until now has just been a fancy way of saying “delete”

But, now I am impelled to actually create a new category – called – of course “you couldn’t make this shit up” fortuitously this new category aligns very nicely with the recipient of this month’s S.W.O.T.M.AStupid Woman Of The Month Award.

A recipient so deserving and so head and shoulders above many other worthy recipients that she stands out – if only she would – stand out – in the freezing cold of the most Northern part of Canada.

Because indeed, this month’s recipient hails from the land of the maple leaf – the land that produces the most toxic and malign acolytes of feminism, and possibly the stupidest – it really is a toss up.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and anything in between – I give you “Karrie

 

She posted this comment on the Personal Statement blog piece – right now it is sitting in moderation – and just so you know Karrie, I won’t be approving your deliciously stupid comment, but, so that you may have the benefit of being “in the spotlight” so to speak – and of course so that all those nasty misogynistic MHRA’s can…………what is the word I’m looking for……………………………educate you, I am posting it in full here.  🙂

Here is Karrie’s comment – will let you all take in its full panoramic glory before I critique it. Am having a bit of a problem controlling my own urge to burst out laughing

 

“I hate to tell you the truth but Men’s Rights is a hate speech blog. I am a Toronto feminist and I am not afraid of misogynist hate preachers.

Men have been oppressing civilization for centuries and fortunately for us, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Betty Azbug and other brave women have endlessly fought against the patriarchy and allowed us to have equal rights.

Your posts are sexist, but I dont lose sleep over it, because most Mens Rights activists are afraid of independent women.

For a 29 year old female, I have more accomplishments, earnings and I am more beautiful and sexier than any oppressed housewife. Men’s Rights activists loathe beautiful and independent women who have a bank account which shows I DON’T NEED A MAN IN MY life.”

 

Well now, is THAT a classic or is THAT a classic? Boys and girls, just as soon as you all can stop laughing enough to post a reply to Karrie, be……………………actually, just be yourselves.

Shall we begin?

 

“I hate to tell you the truth but Men’s Rights is a hate speech blog. I am a Toronto feminist and I am not afraid of misogynist hate preachers.”

 

There was a bit of discussion about whether or not the delightfully moronic Karrie was referring to this blog, Men’s Rights Ireland, any other blog or possibly AVfM with regard to Men’s Rights, after all, there are literally thousands of “Men’s Rights” blogs – so I’m just going to assume that Karrie is a bit confused, and more than a tad uniformed as to the full extent and global nature of the Men’s Human Rights Movement. I have searched and searched – oh alright – I didn’t – but Karrie appears to believe that simply announcing something is “hate speech” makes it so – now as you can see she doesn’t actually specify, what aspect of, well anything is hateful – other than it is a “blog”

Judging from her proud claim to be, not just “a feminist” but a “Toronto feminist” one can only surmise that a “Toronto feminist” is an extra special kind of feminist (as if we didn’t already know that) I’m wondering though – would all those feminists NOT from Toronto be a bit miffed, perhaps a bit peeved at Karrie, what with her putting Toronto feminists in a class above all other feminists?

Shall we just let them fight it out amongst themselves? I think that’s best.

As for her claim that she’s “not afraid of misogynistic hate preachers” well now Karrie – that’s just marvellous, and well done you! Did you know that what you just said would read as “woman hating hate preachers” – makes the second “hate” kind of redundant, and throwing in the “preachers” bit – inspired – almost evangelical – if somewhat – bizarre.

Next up:

 

“Men have been oppressing civilization for centuries and fortunately for us, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Betty Azbug and other brave women have endlessly fought against the patriarchy and allowed us to have equal rights.”

 

Men apparently have now moved up a notch in the oppression stakes, now it isn’t just women, its entire civilisations – for centuries no less.

Crikey Karrie – whole civilisations – tell you what – will throw out a few and you pick one – Byzantine, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Mongol, Babylonian – am sure my colleagues in the MHRM can come up with a few more.

We will have to ask you to be a bit more specific regarding which centuries you are referring to – or do you mean just any old century?

Of all the most easily and effortlessly discredited feminists “pioneers” to pick – you chose two of the easiest – so easy in fact am not going to even bother – as for “Betty Azbug” its Bella Abzug ya nincompoop – sheesh – how absolutely embarrassing for you – having a NON feminist school you on feminism! I feel your pain.

Here – start educating yourself about your own toxic ideology, just click on the link – sigh – the things I do for feminists. Yeah – its Wikipedia, couldn’t be arsed doing your homework for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Abzug

By the way – I noted your little slip-up – “and allowed us to have equal rights” hmmm, so on behalf of all feminists and “Toronto feminists” in particular, you’ve just stated that you have “equal rights” begs the question then doesn’t it?

What exactly is the point of……………people like you?

 

“Your posts are sexist, but I dont lose sleep over it, because most Mens Rights activists are afraid of independent women.”

 

Sexist? Hmmm, again – a bit more specific and I might consider addressing what are obviously just random thoughts that tumble out of your mouth, or in this case keyboard without actually making any connection with what little grey matter you seem to possess. Delighted you enjoy a good night’s sleep – me too! We could be twins  🙂

I’m going to take a wild guess, and say you think I’m male? Ergo – afraid of “independent women” along with all the usual twattish pointless shaming tactics used against men by…well….twats like you.

Alas, dear Karrie, am female, and…………independent……..and NOT A FEMINIST!

 

“For a 29 year old female, I have more accomplishments, earnings and I am more beautiful and sexier than any oppressed housewife. Men’s Rights activists loathe beautiful and independent women who have a bank account which shows I DON’T NEED A MAN IN MY life.”

 

THAT is my absolute favourite bit – seriously – it is delusion and narcissism and stupidity tied up with a big bow and decorated with sprinkles.

Well now, Karrie, in order for me and the wider MHRM to test the validity of your claims, we are going to require more than just your word that you are “more beautiful and sexier” first and foremost – and with regard to being more so than “any oppressed housewife” you will have to produce an actual “oppressed housewife” – so that we can compare. A photo would be just the ticket.

I gather then, that “oppressed housewives” are lower down the totem pole for Toronto feminists than “Men’s rights activists – so you and your fellow “Toronto feminists” won’t be “liberating” them any time soon – what with them being as ugly as sin, and as sexy as as roadkill, compared to you that is.

Note to any “oppressed housewives” feel free to join the MHRM – we welcome all and sundry, there are no qualifications other than one – all you have to be is a human being who believes in Human Rights.

I am absolutely in awe at the insanely moronic combination of factors that Karrie believes she has, which raise the ire of “Men’s Rights “Activists – not just being “beautiful” not even just being “beautiful and independent” but – being “beautiful and independent” and “having a bank account”

I think we need to pause here for a moment and reflect on that – the idea that “having a bank account” in the 21st century – is an achievement”

Perhaps a little interlude might help us all to truly appreciate the sheer depth, breadth and density of Karrie’s stupidity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO696YGqh3M

So, we all chilled out now?

Karrie is indeed “A Whole Lotta Woman” in fact she is so much woman that she declares – seemingly as a result of having a bank account in the 21st Century that this shows “I DONT NEED A MAN”

 Karrie, right now I am almost being knocked over by the collective energy of millions of men all over the world heaving in concert the biggest sigh of relief – EVER!

 

All the while thinking –thank fuck for that!

 

Edit: Public Service Announcement

 

It occurs to me to issue a bit of a warning to any of my male MHRA colleagues in the Toronto area – Karrie states she is 29 years old – which means her eggs are to put it bluntly starting to go off – and it is when certain types of females start waking up to a very loud tick tocking noise – now while Karrie is the proud possessor of a “bank account” she is also at “that age” where being the only “depositor” into said marvel of modern society – a bank account – might be becoming just a tad – tedious – a mite – irritating – for her – so – might I suggest to all my male colleagues in and around the Toronto area to:

RUN! EMIGRATE! FLEE! – well that or keep an extra beady eye out for a “more beautiful and sexier than an oppressed housewife” female waving a bank statement