|
Angry Harry
Blog
Page3
Guide To Feminist Nonsense
Recent comments from some emails which can be
viewed in full here. ...
"I cannot thank you enough."
"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I
read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."
"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."
"I would just like to say that you are
indeed a hero. "
"Your articles and site in general have
changed my life."
"I have been reading your articles for
hours ..."
"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly
wonderful site."
"I must say there aren't many sites that I
regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."
"It is terrific to happen upon your
website."
"I just wanted to say thank you for making
your brilliant website."
"I think I'm in love!" (from a woman)
"I love you. That is all. I love you!!!!"
(from a man!)
"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours
of entertainment."
"You are worth your weight in gold."
"Love your site, I visit it on a regular
basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone
mad."
"I ventured onto your site ... it's
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"
"I love the site, and agree with about 98%
of what you post."
"I have been reading your site for a while
now – and it is the best thing ever."
"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing
the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."
"Every single day I am sending thousands of
youngsters to your site."
"I have to say it old man, but you are
brilliant."
What a Piece of Sh*t is Man
The Trojan Horses Of Feminism
Fools And Feminists
Women - Weak and Pathetic?
Were Women Oppressed in the West?
The
NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped
Rape Baloney
Harriet Harman Sucks
Are you an intelligent person who believes that
feminism is about 'equality'? If so, then please just take five minutes of your
time to read the piece Equality Between
Men and Women Is Not Achievable and you will see that feminism is nothing of
the sort. Far from it. It is one of the most malicious and destructive
ideologies imaginable. Apply your intelligence for just five minutes, and you
will surely see the truth about feminism for yourself.
| |
|
Self-Harm
According to the BBC - and to the politically-corrected 'professionals' who
masquerade as therapists, psychologists etc etc - Women have higher rates of self-harm than
men.
This, however, is not true.
It is one of the customary deceits that is designed to hide from the world
that it is men, not women, who are the majority of victims of, in fact, most
things.
The 'evidence' that women are more prone to self-harm than men is carefully
selected in order to ensure that women appear to be the majority of victims when
it comes to self-harm, and any type of self-harming that men are prone to engage
in is sneakily categorised as something else.
For example, ...
Many people indulge in behaviour that's harmful to themselves, such as smoking or drinking to excess. But people don't smoke to damage themselves - harm is an unfortunate side-effect. The reason they smoke is for pleasure. Yet people who cut themselves intend to hurt
themselves.
The idea here is to give the impression that the millions of people who smoke
or drink to excess (men mostly) are not in any way attempting to harm
themselves, but, in fact, a significant percentage of people actually do smoke or drink
to excess precisely because they no longer care what harm they do to themselves
- so miserable about themselves do they feel.
Men also self-harm in many other ways. They take drugs. They behave
violently. They commit crimes. They no not bother to go out socially, to climb
the career ladder, to study, to care about their general health.
"I don't care if I crash the car."
"I don't care if I get cancer."
"I don't care if I get caught."
"I don't care if I lose all my money."
There are numerous ways in which men self-harm, but these ways must be hidden
from view lest the public wake up to the fact that women are not quite as
deserving as men when it comes to receiving help for 'self-harm'.
Indeed, the fact that men self-harm more so than women is recognised quite
happily and openly when it comes to debates about the reasons why men die
earlier than women.
"It is all their fault," is how the general discourse about this
matter goes.
"Men drink and smoke too much. They do dangerous things and get
themselves killed. This is why they die younger than women. It's got nothing to
do with the fact that they receive much poorer health care."
In other words, when the debate is to do with the reasons why men are
outlived by women, the politically-corrected 'professionals' agree that men
are self-harming more so than women (the implication being that men only
have themselves to blame for harming themselves and, hence, for living shorter
lives) but when the debate is about self-harm itself, the politically-corrected
'professionals' suddenly change their tack. They deny that men 'self-harm' more so than women!
But it gets worse.
If you take the trouble to wade through various current international reports
(e.g. from the WHO) concerning the allegedly poorer health of women in
developing countries, you will see that billions of extra dollars are now being
diverted to support programs that are specifically concerned with women's
health.
And yet, in nearly all these countries, the women still outlive the men!
So, how is it possible that the health of women is worse than that of men?
Well, here follows a crude outline of the scam currently being used by these
international organisations to argue that women in the developing countries are,
in fact, worse off than men when it comes to health, even though they live
longer.
In the developing countries, the differences between the life
expectancies of men and women are smaller than are the differences
found in the more prosperous countries - such as those in the west. From this,
it is argued that women - biologically speaking - should be
outliving men.
And, apparently, they should be outliving men by seven years! -
just as they do in the more prosperous countries.
And so because the women in the developing countries do not live a full seven
years longer than their men, this is said to be indicative of just how poor is
their health compared to the health of their men.
In other words, it is increasingly being accepted that women should outlive
men by about seven years - and, further, if they do not do this, then this is to
be seen as an official indication that their health is poorer than that of their
men.
Needless to say, the argument that the lesser longevity of men is due to
inherent biological factors is also being used as an excuse for not helping men.
"What can we do? It's genetic. Nothing to do with us."
But you will not hear this same argument being used when it comes to all the
medical issues that specifically concern women; such as breast or ovarian
cancer; even though such things are also, clearly, and wholly, 'genetic' and 'biological' in
origin.
In summary, it has been ordained that men die younger than women because it
is their fault and because of their biology. Women, however, should simply live
much longer than men, and they need many extra billions of dollars expended on
them in order for this to happen.
...
|
|
... just one example (July 2008) ... notice that the fact that women outlive
men is deemed to be just one reason why men should be 'abandoned' and that there
is also no suggestion that men should be living as long as women ...
- my underlining ...
Men on a slippery slide in future hermaphrodite world
July 11, 2008 The Age (Australia)
...
ARE men the new endangered species? According to a Melbourne bio-ethicist,
they're way up there with pandas and polar bears.
In a speech titled Should human beings have sex?, Dr Robert Sparrow yesterday
told the Australian Medical Students Association convention that females could
soon rule the world as hermaphrodites without any biological use for men.
With the help of some frozen sperm at first, females could procreate on their
own until stem-cell technology meant bone marrow and other human tissue could be
converted into sperm, the senior lecturer at Monash University's Centre for
Human Bioethics said.
To reach this post-sex world, Dr Sparrow said parents wanting the best for
their children should start choosing baby girls through IVF because they live
longer and have more opportunities in life.
"There are significant restrictions on the opportunities available to
men around gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding, which will be extremely
difficult to overcome via social or technological mechanisms in the foreseeable
future. Women also have longer life expectancies than men," he said.
Dr Sparrow said his somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" argument was based
on a line of thought about medical ethics that suggests medical technology
should be used to serve the welfare of individuals and remove limitations on the
opportunities available to them.
"I argue that, if these are our goals, we may do well to move towards a
'post-sex' humanity. Until we have the technology to produce genuine
hermaphrodites, the most efficient way to do this is to use sex selection
technology to ensure that only girl children are born. Girl babies therefore
have a significantly more 'open' future than boy babies," he said.
The argument, Dr Sparrow says, started developing in his mind after the
professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, Julian Savulescu, suggested
in 2005 that "designer babies" should be created by enhancing their
DNA before birth.
When asked if people should act on his suggestion, Dr Sparrow said he didn't
expect many people would take up the challenge just yet.
"I don't think we're seriously looking at a world of only girl children
just yet, but I do think that when philosophers start talking about using
medical technology to achieve things that aren't about health, so increasing
people's IQ or life expectancy for example, you have to ask why we shouldn't all
be girls," he said.
... That's right, Boys. This professor of Bio ****ETHICS**** is using the
fact that men live shorter lives than women not as a rallying call to help men -
when it comes to their health - but to exterminate them.
|
| |
The so-called 'oppression' of
women ...




click a picture
Western men die some five years earlier than
women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there
is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on
men's health. Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly
compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources
being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys. Men
make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes
as boys. They are many times more likely to be
wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They
are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times
more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times
more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be
imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned,
denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media. Men also pay much more in
taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.
In
other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it
comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their
education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even
when it comes to their own personal safety.
They are nowadays also being
heavily discriminated against in the work place.
How is it possible,
therefore, that women are being 'oppressed' more than men?
In what areas?
Where?
|