It's fake and that's the point. Most people reading it think it's real because it's so close to reality. That's what makes it so damning. Funny or not, it's an indictment of the ideology it imitates.
Modern "forced matriarchies" create a perpetual underclass of un-educated and desperate males that are easilly harvested for the millitary, or dangerous deadly jobs where they work themselves to an early death, and are too helpless and "broken" to complain. You see Not all patriarchies are being "Broken" equally, and the "gender feminist paradigm" is just the "Structure" that creates this matriarchal underclass of easilly harvested legions on en-educated easilly exploiteable young men. As Esther Vilar states in her bestseller, " The manipulated man"..."American males are the most exploited on earth"...And it may well be the Femi-Nazi paradigm that are delivering and "Shaping" and "breaking" our matriachal underclass for their role into servitude to the gender feminist deviant elite.
Noobius, here's the real (as opposed to sarcastic) answer to your question: yes, that's an old post, but I like it so much I just though it would be nice to share it with people who haven't seen it.
Thanks, Archivist. I had not seen this article before. Satire, like sarcasm, is the highest form of humor and the only humorous way to handle some very not-so-humorus topics.
What makes it timeless is its "truthiness" as Colbert would say.
OT: Did everybody see the new Tiger Woods Nike ad, in which he stands there looking into the camera like a little boy being chastized by the ghost of us father? And presumably, the "ghost" is supposed to represent we, the American public, talking down to him and teaching him about adultery.
What a patronizing, demeaning slap in the face of husbands!
I accidentally typed "us father" instead of "his father," but in a way that's appropriate: the media and the patronizing women it panders to need to learn a lesson: you are not Tiger Woods' father and he doesn't need a lecture from you.
"Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”"
Feminists and imperialist neocons: the same punitive rationale.
Remind them of this connection every time they paint MRAs as 'conservatives' ...
Very Andrea Dworkin-ish. Are there really such vile man-haters abroad in academia these days? Or does this stereotype belong to the past, albeit the recent past, like bobby-soxers and flappers?
It's funny, but I didn't realize this was a satirical piece until I had read the few paragraphs and glanced up at the publication title and recognized it as a satirical publication.
Feminist arguments are so stupid that it is often hard to tell the difference between satire and the real thing.
Snark, I agree with you that it is odd for men's rights supporters to be seen as conservatives. The people who make these types of claims tend to be intellectually challenged folks who see everything in simplistic one-dimensional frameworks.
Chef Snark: excellent point about Gitmo. What our military did there is disgusting. Presuming guilt never, ever works; you just hurt the innocent that way, and damage your own cause in the process.
Every civilized society must strive to (1) eradicate heinous crimes by punishing the offenders, and (2) insure that the innocent aren't punished along with the offenders. Too often, the second half of that balance is omitted from the public discourse. Accusations of serious criminality, especially murder and sexual wrongdoing, too often are their own convictions in the high court of public opinion because the stigma is so severe. It is our mission to raise awareness about the injustices suffered by persons wrongly accused of serious criminality. Protecting the innocent from unjust harm as a result of a wrongful accusation is a hallmark of a civilized society.
21 comments:
It would be funny if it weren't so spot on.
No. It's timeless. And if you were a member of the radical feminist community, you'd know that it's truth doesn't depend on "facts."
Yes, it is fake, it's satire.
But it is indeed also timeless ...
"www.savethemales.com
The "Sugar Daddies" Behind Feminism
April 4, 2009"
Does anyone have another link for this? That URL resolves as the Barons Brewing Company.
It's fake and that's the point. Most people reading it think it's real because it's so close to reality. That's what makes it so damning. Funny or not, it's an indictment of the ideology it imitates.
Oh here it is:
http://www.henrymakow.com/the_real_patriarchy_is_plutocr.html
It should have been savethemales.ca not .com
Modern "forced matriarchies" create a perpetual underclass of un-educated and desperate males that are easilly harvested for the millitary, or dangerous deadly jobs where they work themselves to an early death, and are too helpless and "broken" to complain.
You see Not all patriarchies are being "Broken" equally, and the "gender feminist paradigm" is just the "Structure" that creates this matriarchal underclass of easilly harvested legions on en-educated easilly exploiteable young men.
As Esther Vilar states in her bestseller, " The manipulated man"..."American males are the most exploited on earth"...And it may well be the Femi-Nazi paradigm that are delivering and "Shaping" and "breaking" our matriachal underclass for their role into servitude to the gender feminist deviant elite.
Beyond funny. Just perfect.
"No. It's timeless. And if you were a member of the radical feminist community, you'd know that it's truth doesn't depend on "facts.""
I wasn't trying to defend subjective truth over objective truth, if you really want to talk feminist crap :))
And yes, after reading some feminist blogs I have seen how little facts matter.
Noobius, here's the real (as opposed to sarcastic) answer to your question: yes, that's an old post, but I like it so much I just though it would be nice to share it with people who haven't seen it.
Thanks, Archivist. I had not seen this article before. Satire, like sarcasm, is the highest form of humor and the only humorous way to handle some very not-so-humorus topics.
What makes it timeless is its "truthiness" as Colbert would say.
What is REALLY sad is I thought it was real.
This article was actually nicer than what some of these other feminists write.
OT: Did everybody see the new Tiger Woods Nike ad, in which he stands there looking into the camera like a little boy being chastized by the ghost of us father? And presumably, the "ghost" is supposed to represent we, the American public, talking down to him and teaching him about adultery.
What a patronizing, demeaning slap in the face of husbands!
I accidentally typed "us father" instead of "his father," but in a way that's appropriate: the media and the patronizing women it panders to need to learn a lesson: you are not Tiger Woods' father and he doesn't need a lecture from you.
Feminists are not the only enemies of free men. Sometimes we forget this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece
"Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”"
Feminists and imperialist neocons: the same punitive rationale.
Remind them of this connection every time they paint MRAs as 'conservatives' ...
Very Andrea Dworkin-ish. Are there really such vile man-haters abroad in academia these days? Or does this stereotype belong to the past, albeit the recent past, like bobby-soxers and flappers?
It's funny, but I didn't realize this was a satirical piece until I had read the few paragraphs and glanced up at the publication title and recognized it as a satirical publication.
Feminist arguments are so stupid that it is often hard to tell the difference between satire and the real thing.
Snark, I agree with you that it is odd for men's rights supporters to be seen as conservatives. The people who make these types of claims tend to be intellectually challenged folks who see everything in simplistic one-dimensional frameworks.
Chef Snark: excellent point about Gitmo. What our military did there is disgusting. Presuming guilt never, ever works; you just hurt the innocent that way, and damage your own cause in the process.
Well I didn't know it was fake, and it took me a bit to realise it, seeing how I've been exposed to similar feminist viewpoints in the past.
Wouldn't it be nice if people judge eachother based on one's personality, not on one's gendar, race or creed? Maybe that's too much to hope for.
Post a Comment