You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Fail’ tag.
And the nominee for Ministry of Truth goes to, you guessed it Fox News. The bullshite truly runs free on this fetid gem of an article featured on Faux News. (ed. sorry folks missed the link on first go around.)Yes, the War has come home. The War on MEN is ON!!!!11!1!!!
This article ranks highly on the coveted “Departure from Reality Scale”, but then again Faux News has never been a stickler for facts, or accuracy or unbiased reporting or…
“The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.”
As we all know, Pew Research speaks for all men and all women. Go read the report for yourself, drawing the conclusion that women want to marry and men don’t seems hasty and ill-advised as other factors contribute to this statistic and should also be taken into consideration.
“The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late.”
The much over-hyped male hysteria needs a media cycle or two to shake out and then, along with Faux News, come plummeting back down to reality.
“Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women. “
The dance being women now have to compromise less because they have the economic means to support themselves. What? You mean men will have act less like the entitled patriarchal douche-buckets that we all know and love. Say it ain’t so, Joe.
“During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.”
The author makes the whiny self-exclusion of fail from the gene pool sound like a bad thing.
” To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.”
Notice how the sexual revolution tended to be most rewarded when it was all about the free sex and consequence free slap n’tickle and less so for little things like women’s rights, anti-pornography initiatives and tougher rape laws. Sexual revolution indeed.
The dramatic change the author is attempting to misinterpret is the notion that women are full fledged, honest to goodness, people and not there just for their fucking and the birthing. Heady stuff, I know.
“In a nutshell, women are angry.”
Being on the short end of the stick since forever tends to do that to people.
“They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”
Unknowingly defensive. Wow. Another checkmark in the strong supporter of female autonomy column please. This is the gleaming kernel of corn in this turd of piece. The notion that somehow Women have displaced Men from their lofty status as the rulers of western society. Strangely though, the standards in society are still based on white male preference and white male privilege still remains supreme, but for the first time it has been excised from the notion of “it’s just part of how society works”, thank you very much Feminism.
“Now the men have nowhere to go.”
Except to all the places of power and dominant roles in society. Oh Dear Lard, what about the menz!
“It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.”
The dynamic of women being treated as people, is definitely at fault.
“But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?”
Lolsob *forever*. Those damn women wanting to be treated like people… unbelievable what these women will do, is there no justice in the world?
“You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.”
Riiiight. We definitely have a Gynocracy here now. Did you see all the media adds objectifying men as objects, or all the huge majority of leaders in our societies being women and thus promoting a pro-woman agenda. It is just amazing how anti-men our society has become. The strict rape laws, the violence against women act, the evidence is overwhelming.
“Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family.”
Because whiny entitled men should be our concern. Those damn women now that we’ve taken the boot off their necks…they are starting to compete with us, and we have to treat them like they were people….*eek*.
“Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”
Naturalistic fallacy combined with the notion that the 1950’s were just absolutely fucking amazing! You would think that men being the take charge and responsibility types that they “are” would not have to blame someone else for all their problems.
“It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”
Feminism is a hydra with soooo many heads. It spends so much time castrating men and their desires, but yet, it is sexy-times for all. Alarmingly, it all happens at the same time. Feminism must involve some dark sorcery just you menz wait I just haven’t got my tome o’ spells in the mail yet.
“It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life.”
WTF is “male nature” and why does it seem like a likely synonym is douche-canoe? Embracing the subordination of traditional marriage seems a long way from “seeking a balanced life”, but seeking a balanced life sounds a lot better than reaching for the stars as a premier object of the the sex class.
“So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.”
Lol, the role is “game on, dudes your free ride is almost over”. Rise to meet the new higher standard or join the whinging masses(?) of men going their own way and male rights activists. Makes differentiation *much* easier.
“Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”
Yes you can win by losing!! Awesome. Marriage should be about equality not a dominate and subordinate role, please note that masculine and feminine stand in for said roles. There is no winning for either sex in heading back to traditional roles, not now, not ever.
Let’s all congratulate Fox News for hosting this amazingly progressive work that women everywhere will adore.
But gosh and wow, all at once. There is a sociology paper to be written about this phenomena, the great mystery of why… oh why… ‘nice guys’ cannot get with women. Actually wait, it needs to be feminist paper…or actually a feminist sentence.
If women aren’t into you it is because they see something they don’t like about you.
There is nothing after that. No friend zone BS, no nice guys finish last BS, no projecting of insecurities BS. If you’re having problems with forming a relationship with women it is most likely because you are a douche-cake and have not taken steps to rectify the situation. The Tumblr called “nice guys of Okcupid” [ed. The tumblr was shutdown, I have no idea when or if it will back up// Online with new ownership] provides evidence of this phenomena. Pay special attention to the misogyny, racism and homophobia (no idea why these gems of people are not being snapped up, gals lets get in there!).
On Objectivism –
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” – John Rodgers
Liberal Viewer (and everyone else) has decided that Romney should show a little more love to the moochers and freeloaders of American society.
Just sayn’.
An explosion and/or fire at Shaw Court in Calgary has knocked out a significant quantity of telecommunications equipment, affecting not only bank machines and radio stations, but stuff like 911 service and the program that tells ambulances which hospital they should take a patient to.
I’m going to repeat the salient bit:
…SPRINKLERS…in that room…ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT…
SPRINKLERS…ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
SPRINKLERS + ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT?!
LOLWHUT?
Normally when you talk about mission-critical infrastructure, you’re talking about stuff like the servers that handle banking and the stock market. And for that kind of thing, the technology exists to have redundant servers in multiple locations that can fail-over almost seamlessly if something like this happens. We don’t have all the details, but chances are some of this stuff is weirdass old mainframes and actual physical mechanical switches that can’t be failed over quite so easily. Still, why in the name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster would you put sprinklers in with them? I mean, I know the obvious answer, which is that halon is expensive. But whose brilliant idea was it to cut this particular corner? Maybe it’s just me, but I think 911 service is a bit more important than the stock market.
Well, explained more than F-you, I’ve got mine.
Gleaned from Pharyngula, a post from Jadehawk.
I think that it’s possible to have libertarian values and still like things like governments and taxes and social programs.
yup. That’s called being liberal, progressive, or even anarcho-syndicalist, depending on the exact ratio of “libertarian” values to government/taxes/social programs
I concede the point that the phrase Libertarian has been tainted by the Tea Party
oh it was tarnished way before that, sometime around the time free-marketeers stole the label from what are currently called leftwing anarchists.
This is for reference for those who are curious:
oh FFS. Weve gone over this before. almost every single point is phrased in such a way that it, by omission, permits the limiting of freedoms of the non-privileged. a few examples:
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. […] Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
IOW: if a privately owned hospital wants to deny you visitation rights because you’re gay, well, that’s tough shit: not only can’t the government tell them to stop on principle, you’re not allowed to legally make yourself your loved one’s “next of kin” to gain legal visitation rights on an individual level, because marriages aren’t the government’s business.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
IOW, libertarians don’t want the government to fund PP, because poor women don’t deserve the same right to “conscientious consideration” than rich women do.
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression.
IOW, libertarians support power-balances in negotiations, since only employers are allowed to consist of more than one person; employees may not.
libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner.
well, too fucking bad then that you can either have a competitive, or a free market, not both, since a free market tends towards monopoly over time, since competition is expensive. And evidence suggests that libertarians in fact support a free, non-competitive market.
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights.
IOW, owning shit is just as, or more, important than not starving, not freezing to death, and not dying of preventable disease.
Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
except the Indians. They can’t have America back, we stole it fair and square.
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.
except workers, since we’re against the minimum wage. workers should hand over most of the fruits of their labor to their corporate overlords.
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution
again, because owning shit is more important than not starving, not freezing to death, and not dying of preventable disease.
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice.
IOW, libertarians know nothing about education, except that poor people don’t need it. Oh, and positive externalities don’t exist, which is why the free market will have no problem allocating the right amount of education to the right people; meaning not-poor people.
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.
poor people don’t deserve the freedom that comes from knowing that the next bout of illness isn’t going to kill and/or bankrupt you.
etc. ad nauseam. The fucking platform itself is evidence for what people have been saying on this thread: that libertarianism supports the rights of the dominant group to remain the dominant group; it does not support factual freedom for everyone, only the freedom of those who can buy everything.
Thanks JadeHawk :) Oh and another great summary from the same thread…
John Scalzi wrote the best paragraph ever on glibertarians. Here it is:
I really don’t know what you do about the “taxes are theft” crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That’ll be a fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their flensing tools.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/09/26/tax-frenzies-and-how-to-hose-them-down/
It’s funny how when the bible says some really ugly repugnant things the ability to interpret what it ‘actually’ means becomes so darn important. One would think the word of god was above the musing of mere mortals….
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…