Skip to content

Canadian Moron Becomes Feminist Hero

Canadian Moron Becomes Feminist Hero published on

The internet is celebrating today after having found its latest feminist role model, some knuckleheaded, moose-humping lesbian who decided to turn her high school yearbook into a lame piece of propaganda with this ludicrous claim…

“I need feminism because I intend on marrying rich and I can’t do that if my wife and I are making .75 cent for every dollar a man makes.”

… blithered microcephalic sapphist Caitlyn Cannon to the delight of other pinheads on Twitter, a site which is now seen as some sort of legitimate news source. Sooner or later the NYTimes will do an article on the lizard people claiming as its source the pea-brained denizens of Twitter, it’s just a matter of time now.

But back to the matter at hand. Take a close look at that quote. Not only does the young fool parrot the long-discredited idea that the wiminz get paid less than the men but she does it in a way suggesting she went to a US school rather than a Canadian one. Now, I am no mathematician but I am pretty sure that the dot just before the 75 means something along the lines of “three quarters of a cent”! I mean, unlike Caitlyn I haven’t just left high school, but that’s how I remember it. Maybe math has been changed to suit feminist tastes since the eighties — god knows everything else has.

And check out the fawning at the CBC article. “Powerful”? Since when does the word denote a prosaic idea, unimaginatively expressed? Since feminism, of course. Any feminist statement, no matter how hackneyed or untrue, is “powerful” because it gets out the “right” message and makes the troglodytes who dominate the movement feel good about themselves.

As for the statement’s primary claim, assuming the semi-literate woman-child really meant 75 cents per dollar, it all boils down to women not doing equal work. Want equal pay? Work the same hours as the men, in the same dirty, physically hard, physically dangerous jobs as the men do. Problem solved.

Feminist math here.

Ashley Judd Digs Deep

Ashley Judd Digs Deep published on

Unfortunately, what she is digging is a grave for her tiny brain. Recently, the lukewarm actress complained of being sworn at after expressing some opinion or other about one of those things where a bunch of men throw their balls at one another.

Now, she’s gone all the way to writing an article for some site or other in which she expands on one set of unproven claims with a second set of unproven claims and throws in a lot of feminist tripe just for the hell of it.

While a reasonable person knows that the internet is full of these things called trolls, who like to make people unhappy just for the lolls, Judd claims it’s all because she’s a wiminz. Her being an actress and all, I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s dumb rather than dishonest when she claims it’s all some sort of patriarchal thing rather than a bunch of jerks going after a soft target. But what really gets me about this whole thing is her insistence that what she experienced is “gender-based violence.”

This latter is a fine example of both Hollywood idiocy and of the dangerous and stealthy way in which feminism redefines terms to suit its own aims. If the idea takes hold that calling someone a nasty name is a type of violence, why would it not eventually become something that can land you in jail? After all, it’s violence and we all know violent people belong in jail. This is dangerous and contemptible even if one does not look further – if one does, then it gets even scarier. If calling Judd a whore is violence, why shouldn’t it be violence to call Obama or Cheney scumbags? Assuming she’s a Democrat (as safe an assumption as one can make, I would wager) she has probably referred to many Republican politicians by all sorts of colorful names. This means, by her own standards, that she has committed acts of violence and should therefore be the subject of police reports the same way her trolls are. She is also claiming that she was threatened with rape, but as she gives no evidence of that I am not taking it seriously. Funny, huh? The most serious charge she has to make and no evidence provided. She has caps of people being mean to her, but does not bother to give us caps of the so-called rape threats. And even if such threats were made, they are not violence, either – just the kind of meaningless threat one sees on the internet all the time. Being a rabid feminist weasel, Judd uses the article to go on about all sorts of claptrap, such as the “what was the rape victim wearing” thing, something which I have only ever seen happen in the minds of deranged feminist weasels. I’m sure it does occasionally happen, but it is so uncommon that I have never actually been witness to that particular bit of stupidity – and god knows i’ve seen plenty of stupidity. Which brings us back to the knuckle-dragging halfwit who wrote the piece, a piece in which she, ironically, complains of being called dumb while also doling out howlers such as these…

“in which my genitals, vaginal and anal, should…”
“an attempted oral rape by yet another adult man.”

That’s right, folks, Ashley Judd, a woman who objects to being called stupid and who thinks her opinions matter, thinks her asshole is part of her genitals! Good thing she never had children. As for “adult man,” what other kind is there? Is the definition of “man” not “an adult, male human”? It is in my world. Let’s face it, anyone this hilariously stupid should not be allowed to write on anything of substance. Indeed, it pretty much makes me wish that sport was the only thing she blabbed about.

Idiocy here.

Ana Kasparian from The Young Turds Justifies Violence Against Boys

Ana Kasparian from The Young Turds Justifies Violence Against Boys published on

Already infamous in MRA circles for her charming tale of how she kicked some boy off his bike then kicked the shit out of him for having slapped her ass, this lame-brained twat of a woman has just put out a video specifically intended to tell us how thoroughly justified her actions were!

Not surprisingly, the thing is loaded with feminist bullshit such as claiming that the boy “violated her” by slapping her ass, something that is meant to conjure up an emotional response that rightly belongs with rape, not with a very mild sexual assault. She also claims the slap left her with “tears in her eyes,” which can be taken to mean that the little fucker has a slap like a Mike Tyson haymaker or, more likely, that he did her some very severe emotional damage, possibly even resulting in a case of PTSD which to this day causes her to have flashbacks every time she sees a tricycle!

She also keeps going on about a power imbalance, while failing to mention that the “guy” in question was 14 years old! Seems to me that, unless he was an especially large 14 year old, that power balance was very small and possibly even in her favor! That, of course, is why the dishonest little dirtbag does not mention the male’s age – she wants us to picture the average American man at around 5’10 and 190 lbs! How do I know the little hoon’s age? Because she has, in the past, admitted it. But I guess since then she has realized it was a mistake to do so…

She also spends a lot of time going on about “defending herself,” something which is clearly a misrepresentation meant to make the boy look like a would-be rapist, despite there being no indications that he was going to do anything that went past the disrespectful. As I see it, the most she could have justifiably done is knock him off the bike and tell him off, kicking him once he was down was clearly excessive by most legal standards. And let’s not forget — we don’t know that he did any of this shit! Maybe she was in a bad mood and he looked at her the wrong way! But even by her own account, he committed a mild sexual assault, she committed assault and battery, so it’s pretty obvious who the thug in this scenario is. As for comparisons to Ray Rice, she is right in that they are unwarranted — Ray Rice didn’t kick his fiancĂ©e once she was down!

Brave Principal Saves School From Male Menace

Brave Principal Saves School From Male Menace published on

Nine year old thug-in-the-making Aiden Steward has been suspended from his school by its female head after she found out the little bastard had brought a home-made pipe bomb to class and threatened to “Blow all your bitch asses sky high!” Heroically, Principal Roxanne Greer knocked the kid unconscious with her handbag and then threw herself on the bomb, hoping to absorb the imminent blast. Kids being a bit inept at bomb-making, it turns out the bomb contained no actual explosives and consisted primarily of empty juice boxes and Barbie doll heads. Nonetheless, I commend this brave woman for her heroic intentions and promise to never again call women “a bunch of whiny wankers.”

Aiden Steward, seen here preparing to blow up his little sister.

Of course, that’s not how things really went down. In another fine display of PC-fueled misandry gone apeshit, the fool running the Kermit Elementary School in Frog’s Ass, Texas, suspended the boy after he playfully told a classmate that he could make him vanish using a magic ring like the one in The Hobbit. And by “vanish” he probably meant “make invisible,” but the person in charge – almost certainly Greer, as it is, to the best of my knowledge, the principal who has the final word on these things – chose to see it instead as, wait for it, a terroristic threat! That’s right, folks, Al Qaeda is now sending kiddie terrorists into Amerikan schools armed with magic rings and copies of the Necronomicon – it’s no coincidence that the latter was written by a mad Arab, you know!

When the little boy’s dad asked the school what was going on he was told by the principal, the aforementioned pinhead Roxanne Greer, that magical threats would not be tolerated and that she would say no more because “All student stuff is confidential.” Stuff? I’m surprised she didn’t add, “Like, you know.”

This isn’t some one-off either. The kid has previously been suspended for referring to another student as “black” – this being Texas, the politically correct term is presumably “nigger” – and for, shock! horror!, bringing something called the Big Book of Knowledge to school, because the last thing you want kids in a learning environment to be exposed to is knowledge!

This is clearly a case of PC thuggery, and of a small-minded person being allowed way too much power, but it also smells of anti-male bias. Would a girl be suspended for such peccadilloes? Unlikely. Let’s face it, a girl this age could probably go around school threatening to turn people into frogs, and if anyone suggested suspending her they would have the ACLU complaining that they were oppressing Wiccans!

Sources
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-boy-suspended-bringing-ring-power-school-article-1.2099103

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/texas-boy-9-suspended-for-threatening-to-use-hobbi/

http://www.oaoa.com/news/education/article_6b47c224-a8d2-11e4-8989-1f5b0d13dadd.html

A Tale of Two Dogs

A Tale of Two Dogs published on

Once upon a time there was a man called Algernon Shufflebottom, who, to prevent unwanted humorous beats, we will henceforth refer to as Mr. S. Mr. S was a married man, and the father of three young children. “It’s a dangerous world,” Mr. S thought to himself, “So I’d better go out and buy myself a big, intimidating dog to guard the wife and kiddies when I’m not at home!”

So Mr. S went down to the animal shelter and was lucky enough to find a strong looking puppy – a male Rottweiler. As it turns out, the male puppy had been turned in along with his sister, and not wanting to separate the two creatures the soft hearted Mr. S decided to take both puppies. “I’ll train the male to be a guard dog, and the female can be a pet and playmate for the kids,” he told no one in particular.

So Mr. S took the puppies home, and named the male “Badass” and the female “Sweety Pie,” and he treated both dogs well. The only difference was that when it came to Badass, he trained him how to be a guard dog – how to growl whenever a stranger came into the yard, how to attack when commanded, how to tear off people’s arms and legs, how to use an M16, that kind of thing. Sweety Pie, being meant for the home, was trained to be gentle and kind, to help out with the children, and to stay away from things like M16s. In time, as is the wont of such things, the cute little puppies grew into big strong doggies. Late one night, a very suspect character carrying a big bag marked “Stuff what I stole” came into the yard while Mr. S was taking a wiz and the rest of the family were sound asleep. As Mr. S stood at the toilet, he looked out the window and saw Badass dash out of his kennel, sprint across the yard and launch himself against a mysterious figure. “Holy crap,” thought Mr. S, “Badass has caught a burglar!” He pulled up his tighty whities, ran outside, and just as he was calling off Badass, Sweety Pie, who was up late watching re-runs of her favorite soaps and eating cheesecake, rushed out of the house and with a loud snarl latched onto the burglar’s throat. Startled by his sibling’s unexpected actions Badass leapt back from the burglar with one of those “What the fuck!?!?!” looks on his face. For his part, Mr. S was thoroughly freaked out by Sweety Pie’s actions and told her to immediately stop mauling the hapless burglar. “Bad girl, Sweety Pie! Stop eating the man’s neck or dadda will be very angry!” But Sweety Pie would not listen and as Mr. S and Badass tried to drag her off the burglar she tore the man’s head right off, sending it flying through the air like a pretty red balloon. Then Sweety Pie calmly marched back into the house to finish watching her stories and eating her cheesecake. Mr. S and Badass stood there in the yard, bathed in moonlight and spattered in crimson and looking at one another in disbelief. After a few minutes of silence, Mr. S and Badass, not wanting to see Sweety Pie end up in the electric chair, buried the burglar and his head in the backyard, said a little prayer for the man’s soul and went back to sleep.

Moral of the story : Some dogs have to be taught to be violent, other dogs are just that way by nature.

And by “other dogs,” I mean women. Now, I realize this is a controversial claim uncommon even amongst MRAs and others rebelling against the plutocratic-feminist alliance, so I will explain further. What makes humans violent? Nature, nurture, maybe free will (if it exists). We know why men commit so much violence, and other than the fact that they are bigger and stronger than the shorties, it all comes down to nurture. From cradle to grave, from the first time mummy hands you a toy gun and says, “Here, honey, go out in the yard and pretend to kill your little mates!” to when you’re an old man sitting in a movie theater watching Harry Brown or Gran Torino, the message is clear – men are supposed to be violent, and without being so they aren’t really men at all. People being simple creatures, all that’s needed is a few years of role models of the same sex, and approval from family and peers for having an interest in violence, and the outcome is pretty much assured. This explains, if not all, then certainly the majority of male violence.

But what explains female violence? The cultural factors don’t seem to be there – how many women spent their childhoods getting toy cowboys and “Indians” to kill one another? How many spent their teens idolizing action stars? How many got the thumbs up from their mates for decking someone? Very fucking few, that’s how many. And yet female violence, in the context of a near-total lack of societal encouragement, is shockingly common. Most of the serious child abuse ( the milder forms can be explained through women’s greater access to the kiddies ) is committed by women. Around a third of Amerika’s serial killers are female. At least a quarter of one-sided domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is committed by women. And a lesbian is as likely to be abusive towards her partner as a straight man, despite not having the size and strength advantage.

Where the fuck does all this come from?!?!?! It’s obviously not nurture – for every Buffy and Xena there are a hundred Stallones, Schwarzeneggers, Bronsons, Eastwoods, Van Dammes, Lees, Lis and Lundgrens – so that leaves either nature or free will as the culprit. There seems to be no other way to explain it. Women in our society are not taught to be violent – hell, they are actually taught to be the opposite of violent ! – yet when they find themselves in a position that allows them to belt the crap out of people they can actually be worse than men. So either it is in their nature to be violent or they are making some deliberate choice to be violent. Either way, it doesn’t look too good for the gals. If the first, they are born to be bad and just can’t help it, if the second, they can help it but choose not to do so. Bonobos with good haircuts, or assholes by choice, that’s what it all comes down to. What the fuck is a Bonobo, i hear you say? It’s a sort of chimpanzee, woman’s closest animal relative, and one of the few primates amongst which most of the violence is committed by the women, er, I mean the female chimps. You want a good idea of what women would be like if society didn’t invest so much energy in the old Sugar and Spice conditioning, take a look at Bonobos. Needless to say, if we ever start raising girls the same way we do boys, there will be a huge rise in female violence. Indeed, it could be argued that that is already happening – a couple of decades ago the most common reason for women in England to be arrested was shoplifting, now it’s assault. And that’s just with a few Buffies and Xenas, imagine what would happen if the media was flooded with violent female role models! Girls Gone Wild? Girls Gone Psycho, would be more like it.

So that’s the moral of the story – male violence is mostly the doing of nurture, female violence is mostly the doing of nature. Or to put it another way, keep an eye on your bitch before she bites your balls off.