Thursday, 30 October 2014

Top 20 Feminist Halloween Traditions #FeministHalloweenTraditions

Top 20 Feminist Halloween Traditions #FeministHalloweenTraditions

Meet Jackie-O-Lantern
Meet Jackie-O-Lantern




Share on Twitter!


Feel free to share any of the 20 traditions listed below on Twitter. 
Please use the hashtag  #FeministHalloweenTraditions

Alternatively, follow me on twitter, and Re-Tweet mine to save a few keystrokes!  https://twitter.com/CMGTOW

Transcript



Hello, this is Canadian MGTOW.  Having fun! and not giving a shit!



Today I present to you, 20 Feminist Halloween Traditions. Each one is suitable for tweeting





1. Boycotting labels that say "girls Halloween costume" and "boys Halloween costume" because that's "oppressive".



2. Lecturing little girls in princess costumes for succumbing to the cis-gender, heteronormative  Patriarchal role.



3. Not calling treats candy because it might offend women named Candy.



4. Supporting Jack-O-Lanterns' right to become Jackie-O-Lanterns.



5. Only giving candy to fat girls, to promote body positivity.



6. Instead of saying trick or treat, little girls should drop the f-bomb for feminism.



7. Not handing out candy to boys because of ... Patriarchy.



8. Giving out handfuls of contraceptives to toddlers.



9. Shooting young black kids, because they missed killing them in the womb.



10. Handing out abortions like they was candy.



11. No redskin or Indian costume but feel free to wear a giant vagina or better yet, wear nothing at all.



12. Asking for affirmative consent before you give someone candy.



13. Dressing as Gloria Steinem.



14. Giving out feminism pamphlets instead of candy.



15. Promote equality by giving out unequal amounts of candy.



16.  Opening the door and saying "Check your privilege" instead of "Trick or Treat."



17. Not giving candy to any boys because they are all potential rapists.



18. Refusing to give candy to anyone dressed like a soldier, because women are the true victims of war.



19. Throwing rocks at boys because boys are stupid.



20. Giving candy to boys only if they sign the He for She campaign pledge.



This concludes 20 Feminist Halloween Traditions.



If you enjoyed this video, please comment, rate and subscribe.  Thank you.



This is Canadian MGTOW! signing off!



Save yourself! 



Go MGTOW.


Monday, 27 October 2014

Take the Plastic Bag Challenge!

Take the Plastic Bag Challenge!


Take the Plastic Bag Challenge!  (Unless you are a MGTOW)
Take the Plastic Bag Challenge!  (Unless you are a MGTOW)

A little humor to lighten the mood.  Inspired by a similar challenge that instructed people to put their iPhones in a microwave to fix bent cases.

Yes, people are stupid enough to do this.
Yes, people are stupid enough to do this.











Thursday, 23 October 2014

Custody Laws: How does feminism explain this one

Custody Laws: How does feminism explain this one


Since starting my official journey of MGTOW, I find myself exposed to issues that never impacted my life.  Being curious by nature, one YouTube video can lead to another, that leads to another, which leads to a website, and another website, and so on.  In the end you realize things are worse than you imagine, which in turn further solidifies my resolve as a MGTOW, with strong MRA sympathies.

Today, I watched a 'Mayor of MGTOW' video in which he covered the harm done to children by women who deny them access to their dads and siblings. The video at the end of his video featured a 9 year old girl who wasn't allowed to see her brother for the past 2 years, and only a few times before that.  She doesn't say a word, but gets her point across clearly with flashcards. She mentions in the video description that she didn't say anything "because I would have cried talking and no one would understand me."   It's a very touching video.



PLEASE share this video far and wide, and give it a thumbs up. Videos like this need to become viral to bring about real change to the family court system. 

Feminism is against shared custody


And feminists detest shared parenting because they believe the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And they do not want to lose that power. They make claims that fathers only want shared parenting to avoid paying child support which is also a moot point since the father would be financially responsible for the child while he has the child. But on the other hand if shared parenting is allowed then women lose access to child support from the father. 

So really which parent is thinking about the kids and which is thinking about the money? 

 The fathers financial responsibility does not change with shared parenting it merely changes to whom the money goes to. 

On a BBC documentary shown in May 2009, Rosie Boycott (founder of the feminist magazine Spare Rib) admitted that she and other feminists had failed to think through the effect that feminism would have on children.  So what have they done to fix it?  That's right.... NOTHING.

And why is it that I never see government statistics like these in mainstream news?



Fact: Mothers more than twice as likely to abuse children as Fathers.
Fact: Mothers more than twice as likely to abuse children as Fathers.

  • 40.5% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological mothers
  • 17.7% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological fathers
  • 19.3% of child abuse is committed by both the mother and the father
  • 6.4% of child abuse is committed by the mother and some other individual
  • 1.0% of child abuse is committed by the father and some other individual
  • 11.9% is committed by someone other than the parents
  • 3.1% is committed by an unknown or missing perpetrator.
 Source: US Department of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment Report 2001
 
  Just another case of the mainstream media doing a poor job, and another case of feminism hiding some unpleasant truths.

 I'm a feminist... Trust me!

Here's a gem from a group called NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism). They describe themselves as pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men's lives.  Pro-feminist AND enhancing men's lives??  That's hillarious. A quick scan of their site reveals  typical feminist ideology, and numerous article titles about men and violence (never women and violence... oh, no!).

The first link I clicked on had an article called "Want To Be A Good Dad? Support Mom And Avoid Father’s Rights Groups"  This biased and repugnant article ends with this classic quote: "So dads, the message is clear. If you want your children to grow up to be happy and healthy adults, the best thing you can do for them is to make sure that their mother is comfortable, healthy, and happy. When primary caregiving moms thrive, children thrive. And happy children enjoy their fathers more."

 I think they left off the line "... if the mother allows you to see your kids."  And here you thought taking care of your spouse ended with divorce... silly guy! You are her indentured servant!  Hmm... come to think of it, it sounds pretty similar to that HeForShe campaign...





Wednesday, 22 October 2014

The Horrendous Odds in Online Dating

The Horrendous Odds in Online Dating

Save enough time and money to buy a Rolex
Save enough time and money to buy a Rolex


Back in May I wrote about a survey of 5,000 British women that showed some rather unflattering statistics.  I did a quick calculation that showed of the 5,000 women, only 2.44%  would meet all 3 criteria that I picked from a list of 25.  One of my readers recently came across my article and took the math several steps further, and the odds are even worse than I first calculated.  The reader's letter (uneditted) is as follows (in bold italics):

A few months back, +Canadian MGTOW put up a post where statistics from a UK magazine were gathered and used to illustrate the rarity of qualities one would expect from a decent human being. I recently enjoyed reading the post quite a bit. However, I feel a bit more could have been done to drive the point home. The article can be found here:    http://mgtow1.blogspot.ca/2014/05/27-statistics-about-fairer-sex.html

In the post, +Canadian MGTOW selected three qualities based on his personal criteria and arrived at a 2.44% (0.32 x 0.17 x 0.45) chance of finding a woman with said qualities. However, this percentage is mistakenly presented as the likelihood of finding such a woman. It is in fact the likelihood of finding such a woman PER finding attempt. In order to actually calculate the likelihood of finding such a woman, +Canadian MGTOW would have to take into account the number of attempts he's willing to make.

Let's suppose +Canadian MGTOW wants his odds of finding such a woman to be scientifically significant (i.e. a confidence interval of 95% or more). In order to achieve this he would need to repeatedly make attempts until at least one or more of the attempts proved successful. We can calculate this by using a geometric probability distribution.

Let p = 2.44%.


Let n be the number of attempts.


Let the probability of finding such a woman be represented by x.
We want to know n when x=95% (i.e. scientifically significant).


Let q = 1 - p
(i.e. the likelihood of a failed attempt)


Then q^n is the likelihood of failing n times consecutively in a row.
The opposite of failing n times consecutively is to succeed at least once in n attempts. We want to know n when 1-q^n = x.


Starting with 1-q^n = x,
we deduce q^n = 1-x,
which implies q^n = 5%,
which implies n = log(5%)/log(q)
which implies n = log(0.05)/log(1 - 0.0244),
which implies n = 121.271879909,
which implies n ~ 122.


Thus, in order for +Canadian MGTOW to find a woman fitting his selected criteria in a scientifically significant manner, he needs to go on about 122 dates/finding-attempts.

Assuming our good friend only has time available on the weekends and goes on 4-6 hour dates costing at least $50 CAN each, he will have confidently spent roughly $6100 (122*50) CAN and 448 (122*4) to 732 (122*6) hours. ( +Canadian MGTOW needs about 700 hours to qualify for Canadian unemployment insurance).

All of this would happen over the time span of 61 (122/2) weeks or just over a year and two months.

What happens if we want psychological significance (i.e. x=99%)?
Going through all of the steps again, we get 186 dates/finding-attempts.

Some of you might look at this and think, "that ain't so bad". At this time I'd like to point out just how little +Canadian MGTOW was asking from these women.

i.e.
- trusts their partner
- don't carry around a life changing lie
- don't lie to get out of lovemaking


Also, we made one major assumption, it only takes one date to tell if a woman has all said qualities. If we assumed 3 dates, then n would be multiplied by 3.

In my own personal calculations, I took in more criteria and also factored in whether I met the woman's criteria (I assume they want to marry the top 1%), and whether we were likely to be 'compatible' (assumed 50% chance). Each and every single time my calculations for n jumped to the tens of thousands and my money estimates jumped to about $200K CAN (i.e. sounds like a divorce settlement amount, eh?).

In short, I would like to see a rewritten version of this article, because I believe this approach will likely kill the desire of young men and boys to pursue relationships. This approach clearly illustrates why PUA is a waste of time and money. More importantly, it encourages an analytic approach to how their time is spent.

Keep up the good work : )


My own key take-aways


The main thing for those blue-pill guys out there looking for their 'soulmate' is that my calculations were based on only 3 general criteria.  There were several other criteria that I left out so that it didn't look like the odds were bad because of a perceived laundry list of requirements (as seen in a lot of women's profiles).  Some of the criteria I didn't include were avoiding the following:
  • 49% women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man.
  • 50% would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner.
  • 38% say they would marry purely for money
  • 31% say they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease.
Getting back to the reader's calculations; he calculated I would have to go on 122 dates minimum, and assuming I could get 2 dates each weekend, then it would take 61 weeks.  Realistically there is no way you could tell in one date, or even EVER if the date had the 3 criteria I was after.  How could one tell that someone was carrying around a life-changing lie?  How could you tell if your partner trusts you?  If your partner says, "Not tonight, I got a headache", how can you tell she's telling a lie? It's a crap-shoot.

Realistically it would take much, much more than 61 weeks to find the 1 woman that met the 3 basic criteria, and even then you won't necessary hit it off.   I recall that when it comes to online dating, a response rate to your messages of 5% is considered GOOD.  If you are average looking, like me, it was around 2%.  From my experience it was easy to be sending out 50 messages before getting a favorable response!  Following 'expert' advice, each message had to at least give the impression that you read the woman's profile. That takes time!   Let's for now say 5 minutes to read a profile and craft a short but customize message referencing something in her profile.  Take 5 minutes x 50 profiles = 250 minutes.  Now just because you get a response, doesn't mean you get a 2nd response. I'd estimate out of every 10 responses, I might get ONE coffee date.  Some women will message you for weeks and disappear as soon as you suggest meeting in person.  I'd say at least half never respond back to a 2nd message.  Regardless, it translates to 2500 minutes of INITIAL messaging to get that ONE coffee date. If you wasted 8 hours during the work week messaging, that would equal one coffee date every FIVE WEEKS.  So 122 dates x 5 Weeks = 610 weeks (or 11.73 YEARS).   What an utter waste of time!! That's an awfully long time for your potential 'match' to be riding the cock carousel, before she even meets you.

Save your money, but more importantly save your TIME.













Friday, 17 October 2014

What happens when a boy is raised by a feminist

What happens when a boy is raised by a feminist






For those that don't speak dutch, the signs say 'Take a Pill and do what you Want', 'With the Pill More Human'.

How a pill makes one more human I will never know...

The Video




Transcript


Have you ever sat back and speculated what it might of been like to be a boy raised by a feminist? Presented here today is a letter from the son of a feminist, writing to a mainstream Dutch feminist monthly magazine...

My name is Edgar van de Giessen. I am 45 years old and I am the son of one of the former leading feminists in Holland in the seventies of the last century. My mother was the first woman to receive the Harriet Freezer Award, given out by your organization Opzij for outstanding feminist activism. I do not write this to seek any personal sympathy. I write this to share my heart, so that maybe one day men and women may live in love and respect, and not just in mutual legal equality.

Before I describe the personal consequences of the feminist upbringing I received as a boy between the age of 7 and 17, I want to express my respect for all women and men who rightfully protest against repression and discrimination on the basis of gender, skin color, or ethnic background. Therefore I would like you to imagine how it is for an growing boy in the age of ten to hear every day from his mother that men are the cause of all trouble in the world, that men are guilty of all crime and war and repression in the world, that all men should be castrated after their semen has been deep-frozen to ensure the existence of the next generation, that men should live in different cities than women, so that they could all kill each other and so solve the problem of their own existence.

This is the kind of feminist teaching that I received every day, and created in me a deep mistrust in myself, in male authority, and a feeling of never being able to be good or lovable as a human being because of my maleness. This caused in me a reaction of proving my mother that at least I as her son was different than other men. This quickly turned into arrogance against other men that made me lonely and bare of friends for most of my life. It also caused in me a hate toward women and an anger that I could only repress, because expressing it would prove my mother to be right. This repression thus turned me into a "nice" man as a compensation for the repression who then inevitably held a hidden hate and aggression against women with fantasies of rape and violence.

As a result of all of these effects of a rabid feminist's effect on her son, I needed 25 years of therapeutic and spiritual search and deep emotional healing to begin to find my own self-value and to start to experience fulfilling relationships with myself, men, and women.

The war between the sexes is still unsolved. Divorce rates speak their own sad truth. Violence between men and women still fills the newspapers and feminism has not been able to solve this problem. In my personal case, feminism itself, as it is expressed in ways your organization specifically espouses, in large part created the problems and not prevented them. And if feminism causes men to hate women by cursing the darkness and not lighting an effective candle, feminism needs to ask itself if it is aware enough of the human heart and its complexity to be able to solve the problems it describes.

When my mother was giving her feministic lectures and tirades to me as a boy, she never felt once, in all those years, how her words and energies were landing in her own son. Personal love transacts through the ability to feel what the other person is feeling while (s)he is feeling it. The emotional wounding that my mother gave me did not come only from her words, but also in her not-feeling how her words impacted me as a little boy. In these ways, my mother had her own emotional wounding that turned her into a proudly man-hating, feministic unfeeling woman whose antipathy against men in ways supported by your organization turned in me as a hate against myself and against women.

What I want to say, is that however some aspects of feminism have an important role in creating equal rights for women, feminism does not have a positive contribution to how men and women can live in respect and love for each other. My intensive feminist upbringing created exactly the opposite. An emotionally healthy man will never have any wish to oppress a woman. An emotionally healthy woman will never have any wish to beat the man with his own weapons.

The feminism of the seventies and eighties whose legacy you inherit is a reactive movement that used the same oppressive energy as it was trying to fight against, instead of working with, the real issues, and therefore can never be successful in creating an atmosphere where loving and powerful femininity could blossom in a trusting and respectful atmosphere towards male strength. I do feel and understand that women can only respect male strength if that is rooted in openhearted vulnerability, but feminism and the emancipation movement failed to bring forth a generation of such men and in itself does not have the means to do so.

In that way, the feministic movement does not and cannot acknowledge the seminal repercussions of the fact that every man is raised in large part by a woman, and that his adult relationship to women consciously and unconsciously is determined in this large part by his relationship to his mother. Why hasn't feminism created a vision on how to raise boys into loving and strong men, upon whom women can trust and love? How can it happen that boys turn into men that repress, hate, despise or do not respect women? I am convinced, that if a boy receives healthy emotional love from his mother, this cannot happen!

In that sense, feminism has always lacked a vision of what emotional health is, how emotionally healthy love can be transacted from one human heart to the other, from mother to son, from father to daughter, from man to woman and from woman to man.

Without this vision, whose lack can never be addressed within the myopia feminism has about the human heart, regardless of gender, feminism remains a mere reactive movement that thus incorporates the very themes in men it teaches are wrong, and sadly will never allow it to ever achieve its own purpose.

Sincerely,
Edgar van de Giessen

Friday, 10 October 2014

MGTOW Recruitment Posters!

MGTOW  Recruitment Posters!




Posters suitable for the home and office!  Originally recruitment posters from World War 1, and World War 2, these posters easily lend themselves to the MGTOW movement... all without that nasty death, and sacrificing yourself to the state.


Best part is there is no state recruitment office
Best part is there is no state recruitment office



Screw the Opera, I'm going where I want to go, and paying only one tab.
Screw the Opera, I'm going where I want to go, and paying only one tab.


Who can argue with that?
Who can argue with that?


Free to pursue your interests, when you feel like it.
Free to pursue your interests, when you feel like it.



Reach new heights with MGTOW!
Reach new heights with MGTOW!




Tuesday, 7 October 2014

84 Issues I have with Emma Watson's UN Speech. Video 3 of 3

84 Issues I have with Emma Watson's UN Speech. Video 3 of 3

You won't join HeForShe?!
You won't join HeForShe?!



The Video






 The Transcript       


#76.     One sentence infuriates me in its condescending arrogance:

"18 year old boy not expressing his feelings,"  What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Blurting out all the thoughts non-stop: "I feel like this.. I feel like that..."? By whose standards? Is it enough for them to cry, or are they supposed to "connect to their inner spiritual selves and embrace their feminine side" or what? What the fuck is expressing his feelings? Feminists want to define it for men? This is just the same complaint of "where have all the good men gone" in different designer clothes. "Be the man feminists tell you to conform to!"  Yeah.  Whatever.

#77.     The old tired claim that many people misunderstand what feminism really is, so we're given the dictionary definition. I have found it a generally wise to judge groups by their actions, rather than according to their mission statements, or whatever the dictionary happens to say. Feminists worked very hard to promote the interests of women in the field of education - now that women are outstripping men, are feminists promoting policies that help men and boys achieve equality?  -Stefan Molyneux.

#78.     "I want men to take up this mantle so their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free." She is basically saying that women cannot free themselves, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the cycle of oppression. Smuggled into this general statement of men taking up this mantle is also an incredible condemnation of men and excusing of women. Men must get involved because only men are bad - women cannot free themselves without men saving them because women are only victims, never perpetrators. Men bad. Women good…    -Stefan Molyneux.

#79.     Women are supposed to be great listeners, so if Watson truly wanted to speak to men about gender issues, why didn't she do, what feminists seem resolutely opposed to doing, which is googling the term "top men's rights issues."?  -Stefan Molyneux.

#80.     If you are a feminist, and you want to enrol and motivate men, lecturing us about our supposed failings - while failing to ask us any questions whatsoever - is mere finger-wagging narcissism.  -Stefan Molyneux.

#81.     Anti-male prejudice is so ingrained in our hive minds that not one mainstream or female commentator - to my knowledge at least - has pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that Miss Watson wants to talk about gender equality and the needs of women, and cannot even conceive of asking men what our needs are.  -Stefan Molyneux.

#82.     Her speech contains no curiosity, no questions, no men's voices or concerns - it was just yet another example of a woman lecturing at men without listening to us - and demanding that we provide resources for the safety, security and comfort of women to boot!

#83.     It repeats the endlessly debunked myth that women make less than men for the same work - in fact, women with the same education have been in the workforce for the same amount of time as men actually make a little bit more than men.

Lastly, #84.       This one is courtesy of Lazlo Underhill.  It's a bit long, but it makes some very clear and troubling points.

Emma Watson was chosen for one reason and one reason alone.  Her handlers know  that there is an entire generation of young people, young men in particular, who admire her, who grew up having little fan boy crushes on her, and this is precisely who the feminist ideologues want to target.  She is the "ideal" set forth for an entire generation of young men and what drives me absolutely insane about this speech is that she is pointing to some nebulous "media" entity that "sexualized" her, but fails to recognize or acknowledge that it is this same nebulous "media" entity that placed her in front of that podium to give that speech.

Feminists realize that the movement has made a terrible error, and He-for-She is a campaign to correct that error.  The "error" essentially boils down to this:  Feminism has in large part destroyed the "protective" instinct of a generation of men prior to the Harry Potter generation.  Chivalry - dead.  This was intentional, but what the feminist movement didn't realize is that by killing chivalry, they set up an entire generation of women (who grew up watching Disney Princess movies) for misery and disappointment in their late 20s and 30s.   So we have a generation of pissed off, disappointed and BATSHIT crazy, histrionic 20-30ish women asking "where are all the good men?" and some of them are beginning to take a critical look, for the first time, at all the bullshit their feminist teachers and professors were telling them (i.e. wait to get married) and so we see a feminist backlash.  A generation of crazy, barren, angry and bitter cat ladies second guessing themselves and feminism.

So the feminists are in a panic, society becomes increasingly critical and doubtful of feminism, young men withdraw in huge numbers to gaming as a social and solitary pursuit.  Feminism has made a whole lotta women miserable as fuck - the answer?  Send Anita Sarkeesian with her lasso of shame to undermine the last refuge for a generation of men, and then NEO-FEMINISM!.  Tah  Dah!

Here's Emma Watson with her olive branch - "We don't hate men, we NEED men (to do and feel exactly what we tell them to do and feel).  We need our BIG STRONG MEN to defend us (because every passing month it seems we're heading closer to World War 3 - and "Gloria Steinem" knows it won't be women out their spilling their guts and coming home by the cargo load in body bags).  No. no. All those feminists who hissed at you in college for opening the door - they were "extremists" - we like chivalry - oh yes we really do - if it means your grim death on some foreign battleground and not mine.

End Quote.

Did I miss any?  Feel free to bring up any omissions in the comments below!

Sunday, 5 October 2014

84 Issues I have with Emma Watson's UN Speech. Video 2 of 3.

84 Issues I have with Emma Watson's UN Speech. Video 2 of 3.

Emma Watson. The Poor Little Rich Girl
Emma Watson. The Poor Little Rich Girl




 The Video





The Transcript


          

#29.     Shouldn't a feminist leader be a woman who has lived the lives of the most oppressed; and not someone with a net worth of $60,000,000?  Hollywood is notorious for being liberal and leftist; how much true sexism exists in that setting?

          

#30.     Notice how equality means men becoming more like women instead of women having to do the things that men have been doing for years.

          

#31.     When Emma said, "women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop."  What does she even mean?  Does she want the man-hating feminists to cut it out, or (more likely) does she want us to stop associating feminist with man hating?

                      

#32.     The very name of her organization "He for she" implies that a man is just a utility, worker drone, for the women. Was there even a single man involved when they decided what to name their campaign?

          

#33.     Emma, dear...  If someone who wants power can't handle being called bossy, then they are clearly not leadership material!

          

#34.     Could you imagine a guy doing a speech something like this to women as a call to get rid of lifetime alimony slavery... he would be slaughtered.

          

#35.     She is a princess class western female, with incredible stretches of reason to find ways to bash even her own country, the one which gave her every advantage possible in the world. This exemplifies the problem with feminist thought, which has to find sexism even when there is none.

          

#36.     I already know where I can turn for women's rights. Where should I turn for Men's?

          

#37.     When can I expect to see a program called She for him?  Seems like the speech is implying that women's hardships are so big that there just is no need what so ever for a program called She for Him.  I guess that would break with the feminist narrative of men being the oppressor.

                      

#38.     She says "Men have some problems too."  She throws us men a bone here, but it's not much - it almost feels like it was added as an afterthought.  I wonder if the first draft said, "Oh yeah, and men have some problems too...  smiley face. L O L.  Hash-tag. Mens-Tears."

          

#39.     She mentioned that No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality.   I guess she hasn't heard of Sweden.

            Feminists will never claim victory in any country because then there's no reason for them to exist. Look at Sweden, "The Saudi Arabia of Feminism", according to   Julian Assange. Feminists have taken over there.

                      

#40.     Is she going to tell women to stop dumping sensitive and vulnerable men, and if so, who is she to dictate what they find attractive?

          

#41.     Why is there no call-to-action for women?  Where is feminism's accountability?

          

#42.     She has the audacity to say that men should feel free to be sensitive and vulnerable. Feel free to be vulnerable... and celibate. Then she goes and dates the big man on campus, a rugby star player, who is most likely anything but sensitive and vulnerable. This is the same lie men have been told over and over by women in their lives, except now it is at the level of the UN.

          

#43.     Is anything going to be done for men at all? Apparently not, according to what I have seen on the HeForShe website.

          

#44.     I'm constantly being told that fathers are optional. Why else are single mothers lionized and subsidized, and same-sex couples romanticized and legalized?

            Later on, Watson is pointing out that society sees daddy as a lesser parent than mommy, but that can be seen as being about her rather than her daddy. After all, if stay-at-home dads become more acceptable, it will be easier for women to pursue their career ambitions.

          

#45.     Is she calling for a fundamental readjustment of society? What would that look like? A society composed of submissive men constitutionally incapable of leadership, together with controlling, uncontrolled women?

          

#46.     English Statesman Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men and women to do nothing.”  There was no "and women" in his original quote.  I guess in your rush to redefine everything in nature, it's okay to fabricate a historical quote, or two, maybe three.  Oh. By the way, Emma.  Edmund Burke was an Irish Statesman, not English.

          

#47.     On some level the "He-for-She" motto implies that if a male goes along with the agenda, that he will somehow be rewarded.  Oh Goody.

          

#48.     When I was 8, I was called bossy because I wanted to direct a play we would put on for our parents.  Translation, "My feeling were hurt over 10 years ago, and I am a victim forever."

          

#49.     So what do men get out of supporting He-For-She?  I guess we should just commit to a course of action, to be determined by feminists, without our input. Whatever is asked for, you are to provide, in a thoughtless and unchallenging manner, no matter what sacrifice to yourself, like an impotent soldier following orders.

          

#50.     And at current rates, it won't be until 2086 before all rural African girls can have a secondary education. Sorry to rain on your parade, Emma, but Most rural African boys also do not get a secondary education.

          

#51.     Yes, feminism is seen as anti-male, but for the same reason the Klan is seen as anti-black – because they want to be treated better than those who are of a different and, supposedly, less human group. As an example, only a couple of years ago, the National Organization of Women called for all crimes of violence against women to be considered hate crimes, hence ensuring that they would carry a greater penalty than violent crimes committed against males. If wanting greater protection before the law isn’t bigotry then, what the fuck is?

          

          

#52.     If this is all about gender equality, why did   Emma give the example of wanting to be in charge of the school play, rather than SHARING directing duties? Couldn't a boy direct the first half of the play, and a girl direct the other half of the play?

          

#53.     What was the context of her being called Bossy when she was 8?  Was it a remark from an 8 year old boy, or a remark from an adult commenting on mini-Hitler behaviour?

          

#54.     her female friends dropped out of sport lest they be seen as muscle-bound. “Eeew! I don’t want to look like some filthy boy!” is as likely an explanation.

          

#55.     And sure, she goes on to make a good point about male suicide, but you have to throw a dog a bone once in a while. And given her apparent admiration of Hillary Clinton, she may be thinking that women are actually the primary victims of male suicide because they lose their husbands and sons! Not to mention that tragedy that life insurance doesn't pay out in the case of suicide.

          

#56.     She even complains that men don’t feel welcome in the conversation about gender, which is a bit like Fred Phelps complaining that gays don’t feel welcome at his church.  If you are not aware of Fred Phelps, he is the owner of God hates Fags dot com.

          

          

#57.     This speech unveils "feminism" for what it truly is... sexist frustrated women claiming to be the "strong" gender, but who do little more than whining about an unfair world without actually making it a better world themselves.  Further demanding that men make it a better place for them. Oh the irony..... Everyone can tell it hurts the anally retentive femifascists like a third-degree burn. It hurts so much they have to block, ban and delete everyone who confronts them on their hypocritical Bullshit.

          

#58.     THIS FALSE, PRETENTIOUS CONCERN BY EMMA ABOUT HOW MEN SUFFER IS ALWAYS SEEN AS A MINOR SIDE NOTE. I DON'T NEED NOR WANT WOMEN SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF, HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND?

          

#59.     Women, especially feminists,  don’t ask of me what you wouldn’t ask of yourself.

          

           

#60.     "Today we are launching a campaign called He-For-She."  As fellow MGTOW Gregory Becker asked... Who the fuck is WE?  You and your femifascist friends?  the UN? or some behind the scenes lobby group?

          

#61.     I bet that millions of African women, women in South America, and Asian women will be very happy that the UN has chosen a RICH WHITE WESTERN woman with millions of dollars in her bank account to represent them. Not a slap in the face of those who are starving and are truly underprivileged at all. No way. It makes perfect sense in the crazy world of feminists.

          

#62.     I personally find it very troubling that this movement is funded by JP Morgan Chase & Company, as well as Barclays.  For those that don't follow investment news, JP Morgan paid a 13 Billion Dollar penalty for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.  Barclays was also fined TWICE for failing to keep its clients' money safe by failing to ringfence client assets from its own. Just over a month ago there was an article how Barclays could face an extra 1.2 Billion Pounds in legal costs and fines.  

          

#63.     I don't want an invitation, I want an apology for all the anti-male laws that feminist brought us.

#64.     Absolutely no mention of misandry.  I guess 'this has to stop' only applies to the association between feminism and man-hating. Perception management rather than reform.

#65.      Once she came up with the “bossy” story, you could see it wasn’t about helping females in 3rd world countries, but getting more attention for feminists in 1st world countries.  The most privileged women in the world, if not the most privileged humans on Earth.

#66.      Notice how feminists don't seem to have any problems with how women are treated in Islam and in third world shit holes. It's always about the big bad white man who wants a hot meal and a beer after work.

#67.     This speech was the perfect example of White Knight bait:  Shaky emotional tone as if she is some scared little girl who is just so nervous and desperate for help.  No wonder they got an ACTRESS to give this speech.  I'll save you Emma!  And if I'm lucky she'll let me have sex with her one day!

#68.     Today's Feminism is the women's privilege movement.  He-For-She is incredibly sexist and just as one-sided as the term "Feminist." Clearly, Emma Watson believes Men are just here on Earth to serve Women. She's not for equal rights because if she was, she would say she's an egalitarian, or a humanist.

#69.     Feminism in a nut shell: We need to start helping women. As for men, we need to start helping them help women.

#70.     "promoting female equality" Is inherently sexist because it focuses solely on the problems of women. That is not equal.

#71.     Stop treating women like children. They have the opportunity in the west. Give them some credit and let them be responsible for their own actions instead of blaming "the system".  Oh crap.  There I go again with that accountability theme again.

#72.     Does Ms. Watson realize that the number 1 perpetrators of child-abuse are women? How about some root-cause analysis?

#73.     I think it's funny how feminists think that the male gender role exists in a vacuum, and that it has absolutely no connection with female expectations and sexual selection. There's a good reason that men act stoic and macho. It's because women LIKE men that are stoic and macho. Women don't like men that are emotional, vulnerable and passive. Women think those men are wimps. Women don't like wimps.

#74.     To me there appears to be a possibility that this hot, young, fertile, influential woman has been put onstage to get men's logic and reasoning centers to take a break. Had Woopie Goldberg had given a similar speech, far less young male minds would have been influenced by the message of "sacrifice yourself" (he for she).

#75.     Back in 2012 Emma Watson was quoted as saying  'I won't date English men because they are too shy! Man up!'  Typical feminist shaming language.  Fast forward to 2014 and she's quoted as saying 'It's terrible how men are expected to be masculine in this society! End gender roles!'  


Stay tuned for Part 3 which will cover issues 76 - 84.