The Reality Blog

Quite a few feminists have come out of the woodwork to claim that violence is the answer whenever it's instigated by a "woman". As a matter of fact, even that hypocritical "register of news" the New York Times", a feminist apologist, supporter and enabler ran a story stating precisely that. It was not apparently enough that Sharon Tate Osbourne laughed at the severed penis abuse while the women in the audience rolled around on the floor, high fiving each other, joining in on the frivolity (so much for the "caring" female image, it's been shot to hell). The New York Times article refers to "Women as violent characters" and it takes copious amount of explanation to justify that lunacy and to support it as the feminised, limp-wristed,  dysfunctional writer (a precondition for employment on the New York Times) is more than happy to demonstrate..


No sane person talks like this..

 I just don’t believe that scene where her character pulls out a rifle to protect the wagon train’s Indian prisoner — or should I say when she takes possession of the symbolic phallus.

aaaandd....

This frontier proto-feminism

Bingo..

The main issues I have is they always show some waif, some thin 45-50 kilo female who would fall over if she sneezed too hard and present her on the screen as some type of heroine who can and does drop any male, regardless of size, without raising sweat (still waiting to see that in "real"life). The other issue also is that the reason these so called "delusional harbingers of crime" are completely justified by their actions for reasons that only their own sex can comprehend, understand and justify or the directors/writes/accountants will make up a specific situation that, in their opinion, justifies their violence although whenever a member of that sex participates in violence it should never and is never seen for the violence she undertakes. Like most women who murder others, be it male or female, always presents some emotive or psychological reason for doing so. If men killed for the same reason they would be ridiculed and laughed at so the sexism and bias is more than just below the surface these days, it's full blown, head on hypocrisy..

Equality should be just that. When women receive a lesser sentence or no sentence at all for a crime she commits that lands a man in jail who has undertaken that exact crime, then the question of equality is just laughable and can easily be termed as anti-male bias. To suggest that women only ever commit crime because of desperation is not only farcical but it is the aim of feminists for it to be recognised as such and we all know that whenever feminists join in on any issue, lies will be the order of the day and  mixed with their usual liberal doses of denial and hypocrisy to create another mantra..

I have only ever seen a movie where a female got a smack across the chops and put on her backside. Once. One single time over the last ten years and I am hoping that others have witnessed it more often as the opposite of kicking men in the balls appears to be standard behaviour. One to be ridiculed and laughed at. It would appear to be the case that no series or movie should go without demonstrating this abusive behaviour by women but change the sex and kick a female in the same place and wait for the same hypocrites to rage hysterically about abusive behaviour and the need to jail more men for being violent..

This is the world of hypocrisy we now live in, promoted by feminists and encouraged by women whose only goal in life appears to be to cause as much pain and suffering to my sex as possible and then turn around and wonder why no one wants a bar of them..