Burn the PC Fascists

10 Responses to Burn the PC Fascists

1. Martin says:

   22 November 2016 at 22:03

   Thank you.
2. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   23 November 2016 at 09:59

   What I’m increasingly realising is that men as a gender are prepared to go the extra mile for women – and women as a gender are prepared to take that extra mile.
   Women as a gender are constantly ad nausea banging on about their rights – men as a gender do almost nothing to secure their own rights, indeed most men want absolutely nothing to do with the stupid argument – meaning that e.g. the average age at which men die is younger than women – yet from all the women’s programs about women’s health and the unequal treatment of women – you’d imagine it was women who were getting the raw end of the deal.
   Likewise, when men had to work longer to get retirement – not a word was spoken about equality for me – despite also dying earlier, so getting far less from their retirement.
   Also, more men go to prison – again if it were more women – feminists would be constantly banging on about how unfair society is to them.
   More men commit suicide – but I actually heard a program about women’s suicides in prison – a minority problem within a minority problem. But one which the feminist Nazis just had to bring up and suggest it was all men’s fault.
3. TinyCO2 says:

   25 November 2016 at 15:23

   You’re making the same mistake as people make over things to do with race. The people driving feminism aren’t women in general – they’re just a small subset of women and men, often in some sort of social related career. Similarly those banging on about race are often white.
   That doesn’t mean that wider groups don’t complain or that those complaints aren’t sometimes justified. They might also be as a result of some feature of the individual/group that isn’t the fault of society but of the individual/group themselves, so solving it from the outside often doesn’t work.
   Take the men in prison thing – more men are in prison, mostly because they commit bigger and badder crimes and more of them. That doesn’t mean that some women don’t commit bad crimes or that they might get a softer sentence.
   Men are also more likely to be the victim of crime, but committed by another man. You can hardly blame women for that. And male suicide is as much pressure put on men by men to be big and strong and succesful as it is women’s expectations of them.
   It’s often highlighted that girls are doing better at school than boys and more go on to university, but this is a distorted picture. The degrees done by women are often less useful than those studied by men and a man who doesn’t go to university but becomes a plumber would do far better than a woman with media studies degree.
   It’s a hard line for parents to tread but kids of both sexes need to be pushed to stretch their abilities. Girls often don’t study the harder subject because their parents and teachers ‘let them off’, whereas they might push a boy to use all his abilities. Not pushing the girls might seem a kinder option but it might close future chances off at a very early stage. Equally the pressure on a boy might be too hard, or not hard enough. As girls are programmed to charm their way out of hard work, boys are predisposed to fight their way out. It’s not women teachers per se that disadvantage boys but a lack of a firm hand, psychologial and if needed, physical. Boys were not done any favours when physical punishments were removed because for want of a short pain, they’re being allowed to ruin the rest of their lives.
   When it comes to jobs, women are at a genuine disadvantage, partly from the unavoidable effects of reproduction, partly because of the lack of useful qualifications, partly because they’re taught from birth not to be assertive but also by their genetics. Aparently when a man desribes his skills he naturally adds a little extra, whereas women subtract a bit. When men examine a person’s abilities they subtract slightly, to account for the male exaggeration. By being modest, women lose out doubly.
   From the other side, women are often missing some traits that are needed in high earning jobs. Risk taking, assertiveness, arrogance even. I’m not sure it’s possible to make up for something that is fundamentally missing. Sure, some women have it, just as some men have the skills that are more commonly associated with women. It’s hard to know if the two sexes will merge but at the moment, instead of assertive, compassionate people we seem to be getting callous cowards. Both sexes are adopting the worst traits of the other.
   Femininism is a poor way to try and rectify a problem. It has fought for things that women don’t want and certainly don’t need. It’s annoyed men, often deliberately, much to the detriment of other women. The feminist movement never asked women what they wanted and didn’t spend much time thinking what women needed.
   Society as a whole is flapping around, wondering what is important and where it wants to go. People feel permanently like they should have more, achieve more or be better looking. In our desire for everything we are slowly losing what we might be happy with.
4. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   25 November 2016 at 16:05

   The men in prison is an interesting thing. We both know if there were more women we’d never hear the end of it on the BBC and there would be constant demands to stop anti-female discrimination. It’s also pretty obvious that almost no men see it as an issue. This in itself tells us a lot about the difference between men and women. On the whole women will gang together and push for their own advantage, whereas men as a gender do not do “victimhood” well.
   And the point about the prison numbers is that men and women are different, and that equality doesn’t mean treating everyone the same. However, it does seem fair to me, that if we are in the sex which e.g. – gets slaughtered in every war (WWI, WWII), get restricted far more by laws and goes over the edge to law-breaking more often, if you end up dying earlier even in peace-time, then it only seems fair to me there’s some benefits that men get that women don’t (as a whole).
   I agree, we shouldn’t create sex differences that don’t exist. So I wouldn’t be in favour of giving girls and boys different educations, because there are girls who are more into “boys” interests and visa versa. But nor would I try to produce “equality” where it does not exist. If more men make it to the top in a profession – if they get there by skills and ability – then good on them. If however more women get to the top in others – then good on them. And by “profession”, you can also include being a mother which is arguably the most important role in society.
5. TinyCO2 says:

   25 November 2016 at 16:05

   To illustrate the race thing – a large proportion of the men in prison are Polish. Are they there because they are victims of racial discrimination or because they’ve committed a lot of crimes? Is the solution to be more lenient or to try and deal with the problem of trouble making polish men? Should there be a generic policy to target all men or one to target polish men? Under our current situation, busy bodies have decided that to target a specific group of people causing trouble is racist. Those creating that silly situation won’t be the Poles themselves by stupid Brits (ok probably backed up by the EU).
6. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   25 November 2016 at 16:25

   One of the points I’d like to have made, is that by having laws that repress exuberant-male behaviour, and therefore catches far fewer women, we are creating a sexist legal system.
   If e.g. you have a series of complex social rules and norms (i.e. PC crap) then it is overwhelmingly men that get caught out trying to navigate these, because women tend to have brains that just love social “niceties”.
   So, in many ways a very “PC” society – although everyone is apparently subject to the same rules – is extremely sexist in that it is anti-male, because it is overwhelmingly men who find themselves being constrained by the series of complex rules which women do not find a hindrance, because they don’t tend to engage in the same kind of risk taking behaviours.
   So, having unnecessary rules that tend to catch out men, is a blatant form of sexism – one that is hidden because it appears “fair” on the surface that we should be subject to the same rules, but the end result of unnecessarily restrictive rules is that more men tend to find themselves breaking them.
   Likewise, you could also argue that if you come from another culture, then you “don’t know the rules” and are more likely to break them.
   But it’s important to have rules, so we tend to live with the blatant sexism inherent in the different affects on men and women, in order to have an orderly society. But it then also seems incredibly unfair that whilst we have to accept gender inequality in the way laws affect us, in areas where men get an advantage due to the advantages (rather than disadvantages in the law) of our sex, we are not allowed to have the advantage.
   Equality is only a one way street – in that it only favours women and then advantages men.
7. TinyCO2 says:

   25 November 2016 at 16:35

   By and large men die younder because they drink more, smoke more and take more risks. Those differences are now being lost as women drink more, smoke more. Not the right direction. Feminists told women to sleep around and now women find it very hard to find a stable partner. ‘Why buy the cow, when the milk is free’ might be an old fashioned phrase but it’s true.
   Men do get the raw end of the stick in war… and who generally starts them? And women don’t get off scott free – do you think the female vitims of ISIS feel massively better about the situation than the men? Think about how you’d feel if they were beheading the women and turning the men into sex slaves… and then beheading them when they get too old or ugly.
   “On the whole women will gang together and push for their own advantage, whereas men as a gender do not do “victimhood” well.”
   No, men gang together for different reasons and ‘victimhood’ is actually a sign of disadvantage not success. Do you consider youself as a victim? And if you do – who are you a victim to? Are you arguing for you or for some non specific man? That’s the mistake feminism makes.
   Are feminists being friends to their sisters when they tell them that they should be able to do what they want, where they want and walk away unscathed? No. No more than men should think themselves invulnerable on a boozy night out. They’re far more likely to be mugged or beaten up by another man than they are to be the unfortunate victim of a false rape accusation.
   Our problem is that we have too many victims and few people taking responsibility for themselves. The parents who never say no to their out of control sprog and then demand drugs for his or her condition. The serial criminal who blames their childhood. The… well you know the list. Please, let’s not add more to the list, let’s make it shorter instead.
8. TinyCO2 says:

   25 November 2016 at 16:47

   “laws that repress exuberant-male behaviour”
   For example?
   It seems very hard to get arrested and charged for anything these days although there is a rise in targetting people for dropping litter. Judgements are often weird but that’s an equal opportunity insanity.
9. Ron Clutz says:

   25 November 2016 at 17:18

   Is this what you are talking about?
   http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/24a4c36/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffc%2F50%2F8c2f8f3e47f3a232f22430f1a33a%2F1.jpg
10. TinyCO2 says:

    25 November 2016 at 17:23

    Yes the bearded ‘woman’ at the front of the pack shouting ‘kill him’ is exactly what he’s talking about.

Comments are closed.