What A World Ruled By Feminists Would Look Like

Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones

A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.

After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.

We thank you for your comments and feedback.

Ego-assuaging sanitization.





Comments


  1. Someone can’t pull the Google-cache of it?

    Like


    • Yeah I’d really like to take a look at the study if anyone has a link

      Like


      • We have always been at war with Eastasia.

        Like


      • Thanks Josue.

        While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.

        You read that right. New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.

        Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.

        A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.

        In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.

        They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.

        Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.

        The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

        Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.

        “I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.

        Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase.

        “We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. “But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.

        This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.

        Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.

        The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.

        One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.

        “The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.

        Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s.

        “There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.

        Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women’s hormones

        as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.”

        “It was long thought that a woman shouldn’t be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.

        A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.

        One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.

        He’s not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn’t real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more “manly men” when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of “provider of the family,” so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman’s preference.

        Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.

        “Even if the finding is correct, there’s a chance that it won’t have a cumulative effect on the electorate,” he said.

        Like


      • ^Ha, good reference, wonder how many will get it.

        Best parts from the article:

        “Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.

        “I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.”

        Like


      • It’s Oceania. But who’s counting.

        It looks like you’ve had too much to think.

        http://tinyurl.com/8md4fh6

        Like


      • Did Orwell join up feminazi hell with random dictatorship hell? Not in 1984 as I recall: maybe circa ww2 it wouldnt have occurred to him that ww3 is sneaky rather than explosive.

        Like


      • He did, actually; see quote below from Nineteen Eighty-Four.

        Like


      • Or as my wife puts it, “THAT is not what I said.” The funny thing about solipsism, is the sufferers don’t know they are suffering from it. And can never know, apparently.

        Like


      • In any case, Orwell’s “1984” was a rework of karin Boye’s “Kallocain” published almost a decade earlier. And she knew, she had lived in Germany when it turned Nazi, moved back to Sweden, was hard left, visited the wonderful Soviet Union, got disgusted and wrote the book. Totally disillusioned, she died very young, presumed by suicide.

        Thor

        Like


    • The point being that the feminazis are trying some near1984 -techniques.

      You know, like when Obama had a guy arrested for making a movie.

      Like


      • The movie is just a manifestation. The underlying thoughtcrime is the real issue.

        Thor

        Like


      • CH’s twitter update this morning was hilarious. Something about nasty femcunts menstruating all over CNN. Not gonna forget that one for a while…

        Like


      • (Stolen from) Walknot

        Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to “Vote with your Lady Parts”.

        Like


  2. Hmmm. It’s like the NYBetaTimes publishing all the news that fits – and by extension, leaving out news that might not fit.

    Thor

    Like


    • “The Newspaper of Record”.

      What a fvcking joke.

      Burn, NYT, burn. You can’t go away too soon.

      Like


      • I walked by the NY TImes building once late at night and literally gave it the finger all the way past.

        Several guards came out to watch me as I got past (it’s a big building with a glassed-in lobby), startled that someone would dare insult the venerable times! And a few of the late night street walkers looked at me to.

        One trucker rode past and gave me a honk, though.

        Like


      • *Applause*

        A classic example of showing the flag in the back yard of the enemy.

        (pay attention guys, this is how its done)

        Like


  3. The author’s wife saw it and put him in the doghouse. What else could he do? Certainly not displease her.

    Like


  4. I think Gawker has an excerpt from the offending article. Bronan posted some graphic yesterday that’s somewhat relevant: http://i.imgur.com/iC2gG.jpg

    Like


  5. Link to the professor and her works: http://business.utsa.edu/faculty/kdurante/

    Like


    • on October 26, 2012 at 3:11 am Days of Broken Arrows

      Thanks for posting this link. I made it a point to put it on my Facebook page and get it to the guys at The Spearhead. The more people that see how this was censored the better.

      Like


  6. on October 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm Christopher Paul

    “the editorial standards of CNN”

    Lozlolzozlolz

    Like


  7. […] I tried to save it via Google cache but was unsuccessful. Thankfully someone at Heartise found a mirror. […]

    Like


  8. I thought you were gonna post a picture of Detroit.

    Feminists rule the world = nobody breeds but the losers, the government grows like cancer, driving out all other productive enterprises in order to pay for whorish single mothers and their bastard spawn, and sooner or later everything falls apart.

    Like


    • Men with Game are either A) the sexual degenerates (think the travelling salesman with the farmer’s daughter; “I love you!” – and then he’s gone the next day), who are a minority of any population, or B) the Alphas who would have settled down in a previous generation with a cheerleader, but nowadays are confronted with a female-id spiralling out of control, which can only be aroused by the “Hurt me, abuse me!” bad boys; unlike the Betas, the Alphas have the determination and patience to learn how to mimic the scumbag traits, and get women.

      Unlike the Omegas, however, we use condoms, and unless we find that needle in a haystack, we’re not getting married..

      So you’re bang on; Feminist Utopia = loser, criminal, “skittles” degenerates father all the children, while the Betas raise them, and the intelligent, Alpha, masculine men don’t pass on their genes.

      Like


      • A, yes, the machinery is extremely dysgenic except in the narrowest sense of the badboys propagating their genes being ipso facto a sign of “good” genes propagating. But if you want boring stuff like economic development, or scientific development, or any other improvement, then dysgenic.
        .
        But saying so is a career buster. Keith Joseph, circa 1975 starting breathing about this, which cost him a prime minister post. It worked out OK for the UK as the alternate, Maggie T, was a bigger win then Joseph. But the fact remains, this kind of opinion remains a thoughtcrime.

        Thor

        Like


      • Yeah, but being alpha can be learned too…rags to bitches and all that. If all of today’s alphas disappeared new guys would step up and take their places eventually, all it would take is a few guys noticing that life gets better when they take what they want and ask questions never.

        Like


    • Or a screenshot of search results on PlentyOfFish.

      Like


    • “nobody breeds but the losers”

      In an evolutionary system, that statement is a logical fallacy.

      Like


      • Actually, no. But it has to understood in the correct sense. If by “loser” you mean those that don’t breed, then you are of right by definition.

        If, OTOH, you by “losers” mean that cannot or will not contribute to the construction and maintenance of civilization, then the statement is basically true.

        Let’s make a thought experiment (it has actually been run as a real experiment with fruit flies). A few males with a non-Medelian genetic trait that makes them produce nothing but male offspring, who in turn inherit the same peculiarity. (Google for “genes that cheat” or look at e.g.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
        )

        Now, you let them loose on a fruit fly population. Great success – for a while,
        until the local population goes extinct, by necessity.

        Thor

        Like


      • I’ve thought of the same thing, but use females because they’re more vital reproductively; you wind up crashing the mosquito population to zero, the male-only strategy leaves room for a comeback.

        Why has science not done this yet?

        Like


      • You’re right. Although the statement that “nobody breeds but the losers” does sorta-kinda imply that there exists non-losers who does not breed, which is most certainly wrong.

        Breeding is necessary to avoid being loser, but not sufficient. Having 10 kids doesn’t help much if you simply burn them for heat as they’re born, or (more likely) less dramatically fail to raise any of them to reproductive age.

        And, going a bit further; even if you do raise children to reproductive age, if yo fail to prepare them for the task of ensuring they are able to do the same, you’re still a loser.

        Extending the latter example multigenerationally, it looks increasingly like pretty much everyone in the West, even those precious few single moms who actually have kids, is on the road to loserdom.

        Like


      • check out the big brain on Stuki!

        Like


      • Democracy and technology (birth control) together defeat the natural evolutionary processes.

        Like


      • whatever, Nature always bats last.

        Like


      • A civilization can have greater goals than an evolutionary system. Evolution also has it’s blind alleys – breeding endless parasites will eventually kill the host.

        Like


      • Precisely. Evolution does not plan, it is an incremental search algorithm. People and societyes CAN plan – if they so choose.

        Thor

        Like


      • +1

        Evolution always seeks the path of least resistance. Many higher species (d)evolved into lower species or parasites simply because it was the easy path.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm John David Galt

        Unfortunately, the US welfare/child-support-enforcement system so subsidizes out-of-wedlock births that a majority of all births are in that category, and this has been true for at least 20 years.

        Now the Marching Morons are here, and we have to deal with the fact.

        I suppose in the strict evolutionary sense, they’re winning and thus not losers. But they’re sure turning this country into a banana republic, and I’m not aiming that comment at any racial group. The welfare state must fall before we all do.

        Like


      • As has been touched upon elsewhere, by me and others, evoulution is blind and will sometimes run headlong into blind alleys. Humans, however, can plan ahead if they choose to. The welfare queens are winning, as per evloutionary definition, but it is a hollow and temporary victiory – for them and their boyfriends. In the end something breaks. Either the parasites kill the host
        (that’s us), or the hosts rise up (sing bars of the International) and/or quiely go Galt, as some on this blog appear to hav done, including, in a sense, yours truly.

        Thor

        Like


      • “Humans, however, can plan ahead if they choose to.”

        Thor, nature does not care about your “plans”.

        if sapiens go the way of Australopithecus robustusmaximus superbadious… it will not be a unique event,

        but Just another example of nature.

        Free your mind bro.

        Like


      • One of my favorite cartoons shows a Neanderthal couple cowering before a huge, accusing hand coming out of a cloud and the caption reads:”Who are you and what have you done with my dinosaurs?!”

        Like


  9. “Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.”

    Shows you how dissonant women’s psychology is: while they are at their most fertile, they lean more toward a (rational) preference for abortion. I suppose the instinctual logic here is that the liberal candidate affords them the most reproductive latitude, quite regardless of the fact that “reproductive rights” here means the option to prevent and terminate pregnancy. Whereas the married women go into protective mode, having reached the goal.

    Like


    • Next paragraph:

      “”I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.”

      Ah, so the married, i.e. successful and settled women, must be ‘overcompensating’, ‘convincing themselves’. This is a rational process, though. The article is about extra-rational choice. Looks like someone needs to blame married women for their virtue.

      This hamster’s a contortionist.

      Like


      • Those paragraphs sent hamsters spinning at warp speeds!
        The article is very “manosphere” and the fat/old chicks are going crazy!

        Like


      • Sure. But no.

        Women will play the field according to their hypergamous drive (and will defend this as in the article/study), until they choose and settle, and then they will defend what they’ve chosen (as in the article/study). And yes, they at that point will also quietly try to get some more alpha fvcks to go with their beta bucks, but you think they’re going to voice this opinion/view/desire? You crazy.

        Being a woman is never having to say there is a real line that we don’t cross. This is a foreign idea for most men.

        Like


  10. It says the article was even written by a woman. Maybe it was a case of women trying to sabotage one of their own.

    Like


    • The article was written by a woman CNN staffer (Elizabeth Landau – CNN.com Health Writer/Producer) about a study done by a team of scientists headed by a woman (Kristina Durante of the University of Texas). I’ve seen other similar studies done by women; there seems to be a class of women scientists who are willing to follow the data wherever it leads. Elizabeth Landau, otoh, must be in Big Trouble for bringing attention to it — or not panning it enough. They’re a lot more efficient in China; any journalist knows how to write an article in such a way as to kill the subject.

      Like


    • Not unusual or particularly blameworthy. Women’s fiercest competitors are other women. Men’s fiercest competitors are other men. Etc.

      Thor

      Like


  11. Re NYT link.

    “Some writers have argued that the hookup culture makes women more vulnerable to depression, feelings of low self-esteem and sexually transmitted diseases. But others have embraced the shift, arguing that it allows women the freedom to enjoy their sexuality without getting locked into serious relationships or marriage, which might impede their efforts to further their careers or education.

    In her new book, “The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,” Hanna Rosin writes, “To put it crudely, now feminist progress is largely dependent on hookup culture.”

    Can’t make this up.

    Like


  12. The study said that women are even more controlled by their hormones than are men.

    No shit. Like women ever think.

    Like


  13. I love it! Censoring the story draws even more attention to it. Red Pill triumph. Unfortunately, it wasn’t up long enough for the Internet Archive to get it, but hopefully it’ll be preserved for posterity elsewhere.

    Like


  14. Here’s my take: the closer the woman is to ovulation, the higher the chance she will vote for the most attractive, masculine candidate. In this case, objective analysis says this is Obama. Considering that 1 in 4 women is ovulating in any given week, that’s going to give him a slight edge in the all-important female vote. Women on the rag are likely to vote for Obama, too — Romney tends to remind them of the sanctimonious old fart of a stepfather, or ex-husband.

    But I find it fascinating that women would object to this undoubtedly gynocentric study.

    Like


  15. Women should be taught self-control over those irrational hormonal behaviors from an early age. Just like we teach men how to control their hormonally-charged sexuality.

    Like


    • Precisely. Both ways.This used to be the case; in fact much effort went into teaching women how to handle their sexuality.

      This can be quite difficult, although desireable. Teach a woman (and a man) that sex is dirty, horrible and to be avoided. And then on the wedding night, expect wonderful performance. This is HARD to pull off.

      Thor

      Like


  16. Reading the Jezebel comments section from their take on the article only cements the feminsteriat lack of actual statistical reasoning. Charges of pseudoscience and mansplaining abound, as do individual anecdotes about how the commenter’s “vagina never forced me to change my vote!!!” No, sweetie, it’s a STUDY. That shows a GENERALIZED, MEASURED GROUP TENDENCY through OBSERVATION. Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses; then they could at least have some claim to the scientific method.

    Like


    • “Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses”

      RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!

      Like


    • “Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses; then they could at least have some claim to the scientific method.”

      Yeah but that’s not convenient, because if they start to use logic, there would be no more women’s studies majors.

      Like


      • Women using logic is like an ape using a Mauser. It’s possible, but extremely unlikely except by accident, almost certainly resulting in an unpleasant oputcome.

        Like


    • Walknot

      Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to “Vote with your Lady Parts”.

      “Women’s studies majors should really mandate statistics and logic courses; then they could at least have some claim to the scientific method.”

      But then they would be using their brains to think and everyone has one of those whereas not everyone has ladyparts to think with.

      Like


  17. My favorite comment:
    “‘m sorry that real life and biology hurt your feelings!
    😦 !!”

    It’s funny cause its true

    Like


    • hahaha nice…might as well be posted automatically whenever some feminist harridan comments on anything.

      Like


  18. “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

    Like


  19. I wonder if one of the original arguments against letting ladies vote was that they’re all a bunch of commies? Or rather, what were the arguments in favor of letting them vote?

    Like


  20. Just look out the window, for a textbook example of what a world ruled by feminists looks like. Unless you’re reading this from Afghanistan or something.

    Like


  21. OT, they probably should have sanitised this article proving that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap as well:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/virgins-wanted-high-price-brazilian-woman

    This story has too many levels of WTF for her hamster to handle.

    Like


    • The top bidder for her hymen was an anonymous Japanese guy.

      Rich but omega Asian buying sex. I wonder if Larry Greenfield put in a bid.

      Like


  22. on October 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm Full-Fledged Fiasco

    “What A World Ruled By Feminists Would Look Like.”

    You wanna know what a world ruled by feminists look like? Read this book: The Revolt of Man.

    Highly recommended.

    Like


  23. anyone got advice on how to deal with picky girls. maybe some articles to read.

    Like


    • Be exceptional. Then disappear. – “The Tao of Steve”

      Like


    • Next them. If you’re not being picked then pick one that will pick you. In the end, under the hood, they are all the same. There is no “one”. Continue to move, continue to approach, learn from each encounter.

      As for articles, gegin here with Rollo Tomassi. This a post called Year One. What is important is at the bottom of the page there are links to key readings. Read them all. All are valuable.

      https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/year-one/

      Read these blogs then you won’t even wish to waste your time with picky girls. Picky is a form of covert communication, it is their way of telling you are you are not being “picked”. Forget about it and move on.

      Like


  24. on October 25, 2012 at 7:22 pm Hugh G. Rection

    Sensitivity is more important than truth. Feelings are more important than fact. Feminists love censorship.

    Like


    • This should be put up on billboards across America.

      Like


    • “I’m offended by that fact.”

      Like


      • Don’t you know that there is a freshly minted right, the right not to be offended. In actuality, it does not cover white men, sometimes no men.
        But it especially covers Muslims.

        Thor

        Like


      • Yep. One of the reasons why I moved out of Europe.

        Thoughtcrime is a reality in Europe now. It’s well on its way in the USA as well, sadly.

        Like


      • I’m VERY hard to offend. Primarily because 99% of the time, I just don’t give a fuck.

        Like


      • Making it a crime to offend someone is a very, very dangerous precedent. I would say just these laws have the potential to destroy our societies, if we weren’t already doing a bang-up job of this in so many other respects.

        Like


  25. informational sanitary napkin. toxic shock for your brain. males will be servixed.

    Like


  26. The amount of crazy comments on the CNN website make me believe that large portions of the white population are a lost cause and must be extricated. As a WN that makes me very sad.

    Like


  27. Questioning any conclusion is fair game. Sink or swim based on your argument.
    People who claim there are questions that cannot be asked need to be shunned.
    If there is one reason I keep checking this site, it can be summed up in three words: No Sacred Cows

    Like


  28. Video porn that works for females: Very hot girl showing extreme enthusiasm for fucking the guy she is with.
    Therefore, the guy must be hawt and so orgasms are pre-approved.

    Like


  29. I think that Freud is the one who destroyed the ability to properly perceive and conceive manhood.

    With his repression and mommy issue that, the bastard really made men look like clowns.

    Like


  30. “”White privilege” has overtaken “institutional racism” as the delusion du jour.” (Chateau Heartiste)

    So called “anti-racists” will say that there is no such thing as race and that race is just a “social construct,” but then they’ll blame the world’s problems on White people (mainly on White men).

    So they make accusations against a group of humans (Whites) and when people from this group of humans tries to defend themselves against these accusations these “anti-racists” will then deny that this group even exists in the first place.

    These so called “anti-racists” are really just anti-White. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

    .

    Like


  31. I want the truth!

    You can’t handle the truth!

    Like


  32. Some editors over at The Good Men Project have just now totally defaulted on their man card. The next few steps need not be prolonged.but they ought to be brutal.

    Like


  33. this guy sounds like a creepy 20yo virgin

    Like


  34. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about the sorry state of journalism these days. How everything is either left or right wing news and there really is no such thing as objective journalism anymore.

    He brought up the interesting point that part of the blame lies in the consumer. Think about it, even if a truly objective news channel launched tomorrow, with real journalism and an actual diversity of opinion on it, would anybody watch it? Probably not, most people want to be given an intellectual stroke job and never have their views challanged.

    Like


    • Yes, we’re shifting back towards a more explicitly partisan press, much like the one that existed in the nineteenth-century.

      It was the twentieth century’s idea of objectivity — which was a chimera anyways — that temporarily suspended this squabbling. And that era was driven by advertising dollars, which are always apolitical.

      To be fair, though, a small handful of media outlets such as The Washington Post have always maintained that objectivity was impossible, and that it was more realistic to simply try to be “fair”. Though that’s hard to define.

      Like


    • Not a bad point. Additionally, it is hard to define “objective”. At best, coverage of a chosen topic can be objective, but this becomes almost impossible or at least unprovable when it comes to which topics to cover.

      Thor

      Like


      • Even if you cover the topic, the outcome highly depends on how you comment on it, which pictures you show,…
        If you watch the same topic on different news channels from different countries your opinion and/our your feelings may totally differ.
        Take, for example, the terror attack on an airport in moscow last year. If you watched the coverage on cnn you got the facts, you saw some pictures. If you watched it on russian television you got the same facts but the pictures were not edited, meaning you saw blood and body parts everywhere.
        Same topic, same facts, totally different outcome.

        Like


      • I would say it is probably impossible for a human being to be 100% objective, but it doesn’t mean an effort shouldn’t be made. The best way I would think for a news organization to be objective is to try to hire people with different views, to at least be balanced and fair as much as possible.

        Like


      • This is a good idea. But it won’t happen. And one of the reasons is that 80% of all journalists are leftists. This is a fact, based on self-assignment and/or voter registration. So, if you become a right-wing journalist, maybe they will pay you more because of your scarcity value? (Don’t hold your breath.)

        Thor

        Like


    • “… How everything is either left or right wing news and there really is no such thing as objective journalism anymore. …”

      First,

      Actually at least 80% of news is left wing disguised as fair and balanced news

      Second,

      the feminists tell pretty lies, the manosphere makes the lies perish
      the manosphere does not create bigger lies to counter attack the feminist lies, it exposes the lies with the truth

      the left news tells pretty lies, the right wing news makes the lies perish – not by telling bigger lies but by exposing the lies with the truth

      the amount of lying on the left and right are no more equal than they are between feminists and real men

      Like


  35. Dude whips out his D at feminist rally

    Like


  36. I hate feminists, and I hate women with liberal stances. They are the most hateful bunch. They are also stupidly stubborn because they refuse to accept any opinions that contradict their stupid liberal brainwashing.

    I’m not surprised they hate this study, as of course they are too delusional to accept the truth about their hormones. Hormones can alter a woman’s judgment, there is no question about it. If I had to go in front of a male judge or a female judge, I’d choose the male. At least I know there will be logic in the mix and no surprise decisions. Don’t get me wrong, female irrationality could be fun at times, and come in handy when you want to play coquettish with men and be elusive and full of mystiques, but it has no place in serious things like politics, court, business, and other important issues that influence society.

    Feminists put up such a fight and get so indigent when they are threatened by the truth about women, they result to censorship. Women are in denial about their emotional aspects, but science is catching up with them. There are many medical studies underway on sex hormones. I believe we shall know a lot more soon.

    Like


    • I really need to comment on this. Studies and their results always have to be read with extreme care. Working in this field i know just how easily one can manipulate the outcome.

      First of all you need to know the number of participants. The more the better. Then you need to know about the study design, meaning what kind of test are done, what questions are asked, how long are the tests conducted,…
      Don’t get me wrong, i am not saying that the results of this study are wrong per se, just that you always have to keep in mind how they came along. Personally, after working several years in the field of clinical studies, i have real trouble believing any kind of result without prior checking everything myself.

      As for the results of this study, i’m really not convinced that hormones can alter ones perception this dramatically. I find my husband very attractive and during certain times of my cycle i find him even more attractive.

      But what if the results of this study are correct, what would this mean for ageing men? The testosterone level in the blood steadily declines the older the man gets. Does that mean that he gets less manly the older he is?

      Like


      • nah because testosterone still formed his brain’s logic circuits during critical development. A woman’s irrationality has more to due with the having of estrogen and a uterus than a lack of testosterone.

        Like


      • Stop commenting.

        Like


      • Freckled,

        Sigh….women simply don’t understand how hormones control their lives.

        Please, don’t use nonsense excuses why we need to treat the results with care. Of course, not all studies are accurate, but here your argument is irrelevant since this is not just one sole study. A few have been done already in multiple countries confirming how hormones influence women. These studies confirm what most people already knew before feminism and the sexual revolution of the 1960s brainwashed them regarding the erroneous assumptions that men and women are exactly the same. The fact there is even a need to do studies on many issues relating to human nature, only shows how common sense has been thrown out the window for 5 decades now. Almost every study out there, always confirms sage consensus of old. The only ones that disagree are feminists and leftists.

        Therefore, I never had a doubt that women’s emotions and moods change throughout their menstrual cycle. As a woman, I can tell you this with absolute certainty. I don’t need a study to confirm it for me. Women who need conformation, are not readily able to accept themselves as women. They need to be convinced and proved of the obvious, specifically when they don’t like the supposition.

        100%, hormones can alter one’s perception very, very dramatically. Think about your mood and feelings before your period (PMS), and see how much more emotional you get. For instance, if you are happy, you’ll get elated or euphoric. Therefore, if you had great sex with your husband a few days before, you’d want him even more just before your period through your ovulation. Your care and compassion for him will soar. On the other hand, if you are sad or annoyed, you’ll get even more irritated about mundane things, especially with him. Ask your husband to rate you throughout the month (keep a journal starting from the first day of your cycle to the last day – a full month). Guaranteed, you’ll see how your mood changes influence your emotions, which in turn influence how you relate to him. It’s fascinating and eye opening. Do this before you render judgment on whether or not hormones alter women’s perceptions.

        Like


      • i did not contest the results of the study, i just wrote, that not every study can be taken at face value.
        I know very well how my mood changes during a month, sometimes it is downright scary.
        Hormones do play a vital role in ones life. I just have trouble to believe, that perceptions can change that drastically.

        Like


      • “I just have trouble to believe, that perceptions can change that drastically.”

        Trust me, they do. And you are right, mood change is downright scary. In addition, mood and perception are related. Your perception changes according to your mood. Do your own study like I recommended using a journal and tacking your emotions through one full month and you will see what craziness lie beyond.

        We women just need to learn how to control it; not let it control us. That’s when you become rational and your mind clear. Common sense begins to flourish.

        Like


      • I guess my problem with the results of the study is the change of perception. I might get heavily irritated during hormonal change, but my perception of my partner doesn’t change the slightest. I am not looking around searching for a presumably better provider, because i always know what i have.
        Everyone around me acts the same in this regard, i begin to believe that i am living on a perfect islands 🙂

        Like


      • Freckled,

        “But what if the results of this study are correct, what would this mean for ageing men? The testosterone level in the blood steadily declines the older the man gets. Does that mean that he gets less manly the older he is?”

        You obviously don’t understand how testosterone works. With men there are no huge mood swings like there are with women because testosterone doesn’t affect men like estrogen effects women.

        First, it’s not about the man being less manly physically with low testosterone. It’s about him being less aggressive and having less of a sex derive from what he had in his 20s. Maybe the difference stabilizes him a little, but the difference isn’t huge like it is with women and their hormonal changes. So a man in his 40s can’t fuck twice a day like he used to do in his 20s. So what? He can fuck once a day, or every other day. It’s not a big difference, since he still has a stronger sex drive than women, and can still impregnate. Not so with women.

        Second, there is a way to increase testosterone for men the old fashion way. Just get more aggressive and more successful, and that in turn will increase your testosterone levels. A man that makes lots of money has more testosterone than a drifter/loser of the same age. Same thing applies to sex. The more sex he gets with beautiful women, the more his testosterone shoots up. A man who has a very sexy wife, for instance, will have higher testosterone levels than a man of the same age who is married to a woman that stopped being sexually attractive to him, like an obese wife for example.

        It’s hard for women to accept that they have sexually and physically a disadvantage compared to men, but nevertheless it is so, and it’s not men’s fault. They didn’t make the rules.

        Like


      • I do know how hormones work and i am well aware of the differences between the sexes and i have no trouble accepting them.

        In the last time there have been so many studies concerning gender and hormones. One study claims to have found out that men have a menopause too, however that might work, other studies found out that regular beer drinking men get femal traits because of the estrogen like hormone contained in hops,…and the list goes on.

        The real problem is the self censorship of the press in some kind of anticipatory obedience.

        Like


    • Many, maybe most, professional women can be quite objective about their jobs. But this does not necessarily spill over in their personal lives, where too much emotion comes in. In fact, something similar can be said of men; in particular, many men get into trouble by “thinking with the wrong head”.

      Thor

      Like


      • best doctor I ever had was a woman to be fair. Good women are great. Most women are meat sacks.

        Like


      • “Good women are great. Most women are meat sacks.”

        So true, when a woman is really good, she is great. The problem is most women are very irrational and not deep thinkers. That’s why they are mostly liberal. Once you appeal to their emotions, you can get them to agree with you on anything, unless they learned to conferral their emotions and approach things logically.

        I often say that as boys grow up they need to learn to control their anger and sex drive, and most do. For women it’s their emotional nature. Unfortunately, women have been treated like they are entitled. Not once would a woman stop and think how her actions affect a man, for instance, yet man are called selfish and sexist if they don’t consider a woman’s feelings or needs. Men learn early that they must keep that masculine anger in check. They also learn that they can’t have sex on demand so they learn to control their sex drive. Women need to exercise control with regard to their emotions.

        On the whole, the Left is emotion based, it’s not fact or logic based. Liberals act and base their policies on their emotions. They don’t think through anything, and throw logic and fact out the window. How else could one explain then the Left’s backing polices that directly hurt society and America, not to mention them directly through their pocketbook? Policies such as undocumented workers (illegal immigration), economic justice (higher taxes), gay rights (homosexual marriage and destruction of the family), and reproductive rights (forcing private and gov’t institution to provide birth control when not all of us want to pay for other people’s choices). Many of these policies are detrimental to us and yet the Left backs them, why? Because they think with their emotions not their logic.

        Did anyone see the last Obama commercial equating voting for Obama with having sex for the first time? It’s all about appealing to the emotions of young teenage women. The Left knows how women think.

        Like


  37. Romney is more manly than Obama. Women like manly men, so I’m hoping they will end up voting for Romney. Of course most married women like Romney because he appears as a strong family man, while Obama appears like a clown, especially Joe Biden. Of course, my perspective could be influenced by my politics. Nevertheless, Obama comes across like a liar and a flake. Why would any woman feel she could trust him to protect her? women are truly irrational. But, I don’t think their hormones are at play here. If their hormones were influencing them, they wouldn’t be voting Obama. I think it’s their feminist brainwashing circumventing their hormones.

    A woman’s intuition and hormonal influences would steer her to the most manly of men, a man she could trust to provide for her and to protect her. Obama doesn’t inspire such feelings because he has proven himself nothing but a liar and a flake. If women are voting for Obama it has to be brainwashing. They like his supposed equality stances on “homosexual marriage,” “reproductive rights,” equal work for equal pay.” Women have been brainwashed that those issues are in the interest of women. They don’t understand that these issues only enslave women.

    Like


    • Ones stance on homosexual marriage and reproductive rights are highly personal and everyone has a different opinion on that. But equal pay for equal work should be a given. That does concern everyone. I know so many examples where even to men in the same company did the same work, achieved the same results and were paid differently. Equal pay for equal work is not so much a question of gender but a question of common decency.

      Like


      • The “equal pay for equal work” is nonsensical. How do you truly measure “equal work”? It is not enough that the job description is the same. And I have observed in an office setting that while men and women maybe put in about the same hours, the men are much more flexible about it, and are more willing to accommodate the employer’s needs.

        More to the point, making this political would perforce mean that the government create an enforcement mechanism….. Brrrr.

        Thor
        P.S. I switched browser, and my name changed to “Anonymous” before I caught it. Fixed now.

        Like


      • As long as your are not using the Internet Explorer now 🙂

        I am against an enforcement mechanism and yes, in many cases it is hard to measure.

        Being flexible about working hours is for some women just not possible due to opening hours of kindergarten, school, sick kids…In most relationships there is still a traditional role allocation and most women (not all) take care of the kids, thus are less flexible working overtime,…

        And the case i was talking about did concern two men, doing the same work, achieving the same results and working the same hours. The only difference, the one who got paid less is a college drop-out, the other has a degree. Does it affect his performance, no. He quit the company and moved on to a better paying job where he gets paid based on his performance, not on his degree.

        Like


      • “Being flexible about working hours is for some women just not possible due to opening hours of kindergarten, school, sick kids…In most relationships there is still a traditional role allocation and most women (not all) take care of the kids, thus are less flexible working overtime,…”

        This means lower pay for the women, deal with it.

        “And the case i was talking about did concern two men, doing the same work, achieving the same results and working the same hours. The only difference, the one who got paid less is a college drop-out, the other has a degree. Does it affect his performance, no. He quit the company and moved on to a better paying job where he gets paid based on his performance, not on his degree.”

        Its up to the employer to set wages to the levels they see fit, not you nor government should have any influence.

        Like


      • “This means lower pay for the women, deal with it.”

        In general i agree with your opinion, if you work less than you get paid less. But that does not justify that a female nurse in some german hospitals gets paid 3 Euro less per hour than her male counterpart for identical work and that’s the case for all the nurses there because the employment contract is the same for everyone.

        Like


      • A man needs more money so he can marry, support a wife and (hopefully) several children.

        Otherwise, what’s the point? A man wants a wife, not a business partner.

        And as most of us know, who have worked in co-ed environments, even women in the same exact job title never really do “equal work”.

        Like


      • The employee’s “needs” are of no particular concern to the employer. Nor should they be. And market forces are even less interested in the “needs” of somebogy, just in what he can do (as an employee) and what he is willing an ABLE to pay for, as a customer.

        Thor

        Like


      • There is certainly no reason why a hospital wouldn’t hire all female nurses, so why was the man hired for more? Could it be because he is needed to carry or restrain patients? This is no reason to pay the women more

        Like


      • Hehe. Echoes of my paternal grandather, who was a nurse – in a mental hospital. They needed big burly guys to handle patients that were either not cooperative or too sick to handle themselves. But he was not paid much.

        Thor

        Like


      • There is a general lack of qualified medical personal, therfore everyone who has the necessary credentials is hired regardless of gender.
        I wish the men were hired and paid more because they restrain and carry the patients, sadly that is not the case. Female nurses have to haul overweight patients around just like the men.
        The reason why there are so few men is due to really bad working conditions and poor pay.

        [heartiste: no, the main reason why there aren’t more male nurses is because men don’t like the kind of work that involves taking care of people and seeing after them in their times of need.]

        Everyone who is able to (doctors and nurses alike)moves to Switzerland or the Netherlands because the pay and working conditions. German hospitals don’t want to pay more and have started to hire personal from Eastern Europe…

        Like


      • @Freckled – Do men automaticly get $3 an hour more in the contract you describe? Also, it’s pretty universal for people with the exact same work contract to produce different amounts of work. Some people work harder than others, some take more sick days etc.. In nursing, I would assume the guys end up lifting the heavier patients, and restrain the more combative ones etc.

        Like


      • @DarkTriad – yes, men do get, at some hospitals 3€ more per hour, that’s about $ 3.75.
        I am all for rewarding individual work ethic, german employment contracts on the other hand are highly regulated and don’t reward individual work. It doesn’t matter how many sick days you have, as long as you are not longer sick than 6 weeks (with a doctors approval) in a row your employer has to pay you your full salary. After six weeks in a row social services tkae over a pay you a certain percentage.
        If you are working overtime these hours are granted in free days or paid for. Because of the staff situation you habe real trouble if you want free days. The prefered method is to pay you those hours, the problem is, over half of the money you made is owed to the state in taxes. Either way, you are a fool if you work overtime….

        Like


      • There might be a few reasons women are payed less:

        1. They dont ask for as much pay, or are unwilling to another place to work

        2. Their work is not worth as much.

        Either way its their own fault, and not some imaginary injustice.

        Like


      • true, women normally ask for less pay than men do, that’s their own fault.
        Is their work less worth? That highly depends on the individual.
        I am not complaining about some injustice – imaginary or otherwise.
        The threadopener just stated that women have been brainwashed into believing that “equal pay for equal work” is in their interest. I’m simply believing that it is in everyones interest, regardless of gender, but i do not want any government to create an eforcement mechanism on this topic as Thor pointed out.

        Like


      • “Is their work less worth? That highly depends on the individual.”

        Yes, and it seems that on average womens work is not worth as much.

        Like


      • The employee’s “needs” are of no particular concern to the employer. Nor should they be. And market forces are even less interested in the “needs” of somebogy, just in what he can do (as an employee) and what he is willing an ABLE to pay for, as a customer.

        Thor

        Nor should they be? WTF?

        Dude! A society’s concern with having strong families and people willing to have children to grow into productive members of society are what I’m talking about.

        When employers aren’t concerned with these “needs”, well… you see what you get here in modern America… the downhill spiral.

        Back in the day, employers WERE concerned with these needs, and admitted outright they wanted married men as employees and would pay them a wage upon which a family could be raised. America grew strong under mentality.

        Don’t go Marxist on me now… we’re more than economic units… at least we should be… and life is more than market forces… IF a nation is healthy.

        Like


      • This illustrates my point. If there is no real difference between two people’s job output, then the market will, over time, erase the difference in pay. If women truly were as productive as men but paid less, then companies would preferentiallyhire women, out of self interest, until the difference became erased.

        And yes, women’s lack of flexibility regarding working hours are typically caused by family duties as you say – but this does not help the employer; somebody who is more flexible is simply worth more. Unfair? Perhaps, but c’est la vie.

        Thor

        Like


      • Pushing papers = manual labor

        In the mind of the hamster.

        Like


      • It is fascinating to hear a female talk about ‘working her fingers to the bone’ when all she did was sit in a cubicle, made a few notes and answered a few phone calls. Or showed ‘plus-size’ lingerie.

        Like


      • Sometimes i really have to wonder what kind of women all of you know. I guess in that regard i’m seriously lucky to not live in the US…

        Like


      • I know both of them very well and I think the biggest difference between European women and American women might be called the Princess Syndrome. Daddy told her she’s a Princess, Mommy told her she deserves nothing less than Brad Pitt, the 6’5 multibillionaire Navy test pilot who moonlights as a brain surgeon and still finds the time and energy to fuck her 4 times a day and take her to Bermuda on the weekends, private jet, of course, and Oprah told her she’s a Goddess. And she swallowed all that shit hook,line and sinker. That’s how even 4’s and 5’s think their are ‘hot’. Granted, I haven’t been there in about 12 years, but in the Europe I remember, girls did not grow up that way.

        Like


      • some women are nurses. all the rest charlatans.

        Like


      • @heartiste you are mainly right, men in general don’t have a nursing disposition and even if the pay would drastically increase there would always be more female nurses.
        In Germany there is just a slight difference to the US. The ambulances mainly belong to private organisations like the Red Cross or the hospital itself and are not stationed near or at the fire station. The crew consists of an emergency doctor and several mainly male nurses and those are paid equally as bad. Ambulances are a male dominated domain and when i am refering to general lack of male nurses i am including emergency care.

        Like


      • Many patients will refuse a male nurse. Especially older female patients, but some men will likewise not allow another male patient to do things of a personal nature to them. Patients perceive women as being there to care for them and men as the authority. Male nurses and even orderlies are often mistaken for doctors.

        Like


      • Sure, but because there is an increase in muslim male patients in herman hospitals who refuse to be treated by female nurses, there is a definite need for male nurses.

        Like


      • More male nurses?

        No there is a need to reduce the number of Muslim immigrants coming in every year ( sending them back home would be better but I will not hold my breath )

        Like


      • on October 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm Hugh G. Rection

        That’s called an EMT though, not a nurse. And it’s a different profession in Germany.

        Like


      • It is a different profession, but not a recognised occupation requiring formal training. Therfore lately many have started training as a nurse and later switching workfield.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2012 at 4:09 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Just pay everyone the same. There is a word for that, I just don’t know which one… Something with ism.

        Like


      • Freckled,

        “But equal pay for equal work should be a given. That does concern everyone……Equal pay for equal work is not so much a question of gender but a question of common decency.”

        Emotionally, you are right. However, let’s think about it logically and back it up with facts. Statistically, women take more leave days because they always have issues with their children, or they care for elderly parents. How is that the employer’s fault? Woman should be happy they even get work under such conditions, because with a man that wouldn’t be tolerated.

        Another thing, many women go into the work market for a few years after college, but after they have children they either leave, or cut their hours. Think about the employer that invested resources in these women training them and now having to start all over again with someone new.

        Yet another thing, women cost more health insurance wise. They go more often to the doctor, have more health issues besides the physical a man gets once a year etc….if anyone thinks health insurance is a free perk, he/she is wrong. It’s factored in with your salary. If employers didn’t have to offer health insurance packages, everyone’s salary would go up. Just some food for thought.

        Oh, and BTW, in my original comment about Obama’s policy regarding “equal work for equal pay” I forgot to mention what irked me about it most. It’s how he tired changing the law that even after 20 years if a woman thinks she got gipped working for a certain employer she can still sue all of those years later. This is yet another caving in to feminist whims. It’s an anti-employee, anti-employer, anti-business policy, not to mention anti-woman. Under these circumstances, why would anyone wannna hire women? Fewer women working for you, fewer sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination lawsuits. I mean these tools don’t help women, they end up making women a liability.

        Like


      • Your right on the first two points. Regarding health insurance i don’t share your opinion, but that’s due to the fact that i am living in Germany where everyone has obligatory health insurance and everyone pays the same.
        Only about 9% are privately insured. I am privately insured and can chose between different options. In my case it is cheaper to pay for a one person bedroom in hospital than for a two person bedroom. Logically that doesn’t make sense. The explanation given to me by my insurance company is, that statistically in Germany women are not as often in hospital as men and don’t get as sick…

        Like


    • It’s hard for me not to laugh at this.
      Hubris much ?

      I have the right not to sleep with or hire tattooed landwhales.

      I have the right to divorce a woman who gets fat or tattooed.
      And not be divorced raped for it.

      And I reserve the right to mock and disparage solopsist femtardz .

      Because, you see, this is my body and I can use it however I want too.

      Like


      • Notice that whilst she is protesting she is drawing attention to herself – and without any awareness of the contradiction.

        Like


      • …and isn’t it curious that the only women who make this sort of Video are less than good looking; the very people who most guys will ignore, not withstanding that she has her largish boobs pretty much on display. As the Bard said, ‘she doth protest too much’.

        Like


      • she be rocking facial asymmetry too. Yikes.

        Like


      • It’s all part of feminism – all body shapes and styles are equally beautiful, and in fact beauty is to be discarded as a criteria, because we’ve made it a crime to “discriminate” and “offend”, and valuing one person over another due to their beauty is therefore a crime.

        Leftists love to legislate against biology/evo psych. By doing this, they make everyone a criminal, and use this against us whenever this is needed. Gotta keep the hoi polloi in line on the Road to Serfdom.

        Like


      • I should also mention that this entire video is a quite craven attempt by Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) to get out the vote for 0bama, because PP knows there is a possibility they will be defunded by Mittenz. PP wants to keep the free pie coming, and lots of it.

        Like


      • “Inherent right to happiness”. Sigh. Someone should try reading the Declaration and the Constitution some time. Duh.

        Half of the video is women saying “this is my body, not yours”. Gee, thanks for the revelation.

        Of course these women most likely approve of Obamacare aka “The Affordable Care Act” (I love that all Leftists legislation is always named the opposite of what it delivers), an Act that places more control over their bodies and lives than any legislation ever implemented in the USA evarr. And, they love it. Such idiots.

        Like


      • on October 26, 2012 at 8:58 am Ector de Maris

        So self-indulgent. Self-righteousness must be giving them the tingles that they aren’t finding elsewhere.

        Like


      • I’d like to lay a little first Corinthians 7:4 on those she devils.

        Paul would be tormented by feminists in today’s world.

        Like


      • A bit of a paraphrase from another creed…

        This is my body. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me…my body is useless. Without my body, I am useless. I must keep my body true. I must keep my body better than the enemy who is trying to kill me.
        My body is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my body clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.
        Before God I swear this creed. My body and I are the defenders of my life. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
        So be it.

        Like


      • There is nothing wrong with declaring self-ownership. On the contrary. But the principle applies generally.

        For example, if the right to abortion follows from self-ownership (technically labelled by the Supremes as “right to privacy”), although it at least arguably involves another person, then why does this right not apply – as it a forteriori should – to using whatever food/medicine/drug you want? And why does it not extend to the products of that body – i.e. how do you justify taxation? The products of my work is an extended phenotype (Dawkins’ term) and should thus be considered part of my body, and thus inviolate.

        Thor

        Like


      • The real issue is that these femtards are once again attempting to have an entire dialogue that is a straw man/obfuscation. And unfortunately, they’ll probably succeed, because nobody on the conservative side in the USA knows how to have an argument with a Leftist.

        Nobody I know is actively seeking to prevent women from having access to abortion, mammograms, condoms, etc. Sure, that element exists in the USA, but I doubt very much it’s the majority.

        No, what we folks object to is that we are being required to pay for these services with our tax dollars, and that this is neither the proper role of government, nor respectful of our individual rights.

        If these women want to tart themselves out, cock carousel, etc., fine. But it is ridiculous on its face that we taxpayers should be required to pay for this. If Planned Parenthood is such an awesome organization, why can’t it stand on its own two feet and remain a going concern through transactional profits and private donations? Pfft.

        Like


      • This is my body, and I refuse to use it to support yours.

        Have a nice day.

        Like


    • Yupp. And one of the craziest accusations is that Republicans want to “deny women contraception”, when the fact is more like “some Republicans don’t think that providing contraception via healrh insurance should be mandated”, i.e. that it is OK if some women pay for their own contraception. When do you hear a massive cry for free condoms? The whole thing is absurd.

      Thor

      Like


  38. Handling an overt shit test correctly.

    Like


  39. So typical to try to hide what everyone with a brain already knows… But as with many obvious things – we aren’t supposed to point them out…

    I hear all sorts of non-sense about the US Constitution and voting – and it is because the Founding Fathers had it that “If you paid taxes, you got a vote.” And you only paid taxes if you owned land. Most people do not know that the first woman and first black to cast their votes were in the late 1700s – because they owned land, and paid taxes. So there didn’t NEED to be a RIGHT to vote – it was already there – if you paid taxes you got a vote. The reason for this was argued rightly by Thomas Jefferson that you should only have a voice in government, if you are paying for that government, and this would ensure that only people who were “living” in the US and had a “stake in the US” would have a say.

    All of the mess of today is simply because they got rid of that very simple foundation – so today you have people who have lived all of their lives with their hand out, contributing nothing, who have a vote and one particular party caters to those dead-beats… The Founding Fathers were once again very wise in understanding the base nature of humans and set up the Constitution exemplifying the BEST. All you had to do to vote was show that you had paid your taxes on the land you owned, nothing else needed to be said.

    That is why there is nothing about race, color, creed, or gender in the Constitution – the Founding Fathers didn’t care, if you were paying, you had a right to have your voice heard. THAT is what we lack today, and is the reason for the mess we have at present…

    Like


    • Precisely. My motto is “no representation without taxation”, i.e. net tax eaters should not vote. This would go a long way towards solving all sorts of ills.

      Of course, it is very unlikely to happen until a post-crash reconstruction.
      Heinlien had a somewhat similar idea – only veterans could vote. Either way, restricting the votes to those who are putting into the system rather than being net takers makes fundamental sense.

      Thor

      Like


      • +1 for Starship Troopers reference (The real deal – the book. Not the convoluted faggy stupid movie).

        Like


    • È a cosa nostra. I just love the guy (no homo), even if he is one crooked bastard. Well, probably because he is one crooked bastard.

      Like


  40. One female commenter wrote:

    “Our values do not drift due to hormone surges.”

    Uh, yes. Yes they do.

    Like


  41. OT: U.S. Ban on HIV-Positive Visitors, Immigrants Expires

    “President George W. Bush began the process to repeal the ban in 2008, and in October, President Obama took the final steps to complete the move. The repeal took effect on Monday.

    “If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it,” the president then said.

    He also called the ban a “decision rooted in fear rather than fact.”

    The ban has kept out thousands of students, tourists and refugees and has complicated the adoption of children with HIV, immigration rights groups say. The United States has also been unable to host a major international AIDS conference because HIV-positive activists and researchers have been barred.

    “You’re running into a huge public expense because most people simply cannot afford the drugs to treat HIV out of their own pockets,” Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told ABC News. “[HIV-positive immigrants] will require all sorts of assistance from the government to pay for the drugs that they need, and so our issue in terms of permanent immigration is not so much a public health issue but a public charge issue.””

    WTF ‘murrica?

    Like


    • Welcoming HIV positive immigrants to the USA is simply one more thing the people in charge are doing to destroy Western Civilization.

      The slow suicide is gaining momentum…

      Like


  42. Planet of the Women

    Like


  43. Editorial standards of CNN? Huh?

    Like


  44. Did anyone see Stephen Colbert’s coverage of this? He compared this to phrenology.

    Just goes to show you.

    Like


  45. […] Porn, Reader Mailbag, The Value Of Makeup Is Declining, Men Can’t Be Friends With Women. . ., What A World Ruled By Feminists Looks Like, Alpha Troll Of The Month, Chicks Dig Serial […]

    Like


  46. Correction: Ego-assuaging sanitization only applies to women and minorities. If this were an article about how irresponsible men were vis their voting predelictions, it would be shouted from the rooftops

    Like


  47. […] and I don’t intend to contribute to any thinning of ideas and conversation. As feminists add heavy censorship to their calculatedly gynocentric agenda, I find it damn near a moral imperative to continue […]

    Like