Remember our friend Tom Martin, the MRA who is suing LSE for being unfair to men? He just sent me a message to let me know he’s done an interview with two other MRAs so that I could listen to it if I wanted to. Nah, I don’t. But I looked around a little and found that after his chatting at my place he did some chatting at Cath Elliott’s place. Oh boy; treats.
I’ll give you some highlights.
So ‘male-dominant’ cultures, are more likely female-powerful.
It’s a skanky, whorish, back seat-driving type of power which leads to economic and cultural ruin and war – a whoriarchy.
We know for instance, that women tell men what to do in marriages 90% of time – that is the same everywhere in the world.
Right out of the gate, you assume that women just pick the colour of the curtains, but ask any estate agent, and they’ll tell you its the woman of the couple who has the final say on whether to buy the house or not.
Women make 90% of couple decisions big and small, according to a 2007 Harvard Study I can’t find, but is out there somewhere.
The next thing you’re doing, is presenting the domestic sphere as separate from the political sphere.
Women in the home have access to more political debate than men do in the workforce, as women at home have more access to media.
But yep, restricted movement and the veil are the price some women think is worth paying, as long as they don’t need to get a job.
Women can’t drive in Saudi, but they do have chauffeurs.
And most of those who can afford it, choose a chauffeur.
Muslim women are really the boss in the home, and fascism starts in the home.
In a whoriarchy, in the same way you don’t need to drive to control where the car goes, you don’t particularly need an education either, as long as you know how to steer a man, but these whores don’t, which is why their countries and cultures are failing.
Feminists sometimes tell the truth, in which case, no court case.
As soon as people lie, in order to make women look like bigger victims than they are, or men bigger perpetrators than they are, then that is no longer feminism, but anti-male victim-femalism.
It is a negative stereotype, which is harassment.
It is bias, which is not protected under the academic immunity principle.
It is a breach of university regulations, which makes it a breach of contract.
It is misleading advertising, if this agenda wasn’t made clear in the prospectus.
You cannot reason, with the unreasonable. Those addicted to the unreasonable assertions that men are bad and women are good – who refuse to acknowledge any new positions, even in light of overwhelming evidence, should not call themselves feminists.
Furthermore, I did not sign up for a degree in feminism, but one in gender – which LSE personnel acknowledge should be about men and women – but which behind the scenes, they try to make all about women.
LSE legal team please note.