Latest Posts

Yep, No chivalry Here, Move along..

Psychology Today does occasionally post an article worth mentioning and I have listed a few in the past. Most in the past have had a distinctive feminist odour which ofcourse meant just another male bashing opportunity. For a magazine or online site like Psychology Today to keep quoting the comedian Bill Maher is a bit of a concern as he is hardly regarded to be a Psychologist or an even an assumed expert in any areas of female Physiology or Psychology(he has a useless Arts Deg.) for that matter..

Not only does he wander from one thing to the next, he occasionally mentions feminist lunacy whenever it's convenient but comments the opposite the next. A bit taxing to say the least. It's almost like he is reminded by someone about "how dare he" state anything negative about feminastyism, the odd times he does and will make amends for doing so..

Why women will always have more power than men.

The above title got my blood rising a little as I am sick to death whenever sites like the above generalises and indulges in promoting stereotypical behaviour which they would never do with or about women's behavior. 
Once again, my personal hero Bill Maher captures the essence of female choice perfectly, when he quips:  “For a man to walk into a bar and have his choice of any woman he wants, he would have to be the ruler of the world.  For a woman to have the same power over men, she’d have to do her hair.”  In other words, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power as does the (male) ruler of the world.

My first response was one of "what the hell.." but reading the article it would appear to be a double entendre, giving more than one meaning. The article can be viewed as being male bashing, which is about normal for the site or they were merely stating fact which they do occasionally indulge in as well..

Costa Concordia.

The other reason it was bought to my attention was because of that ocean liner going down in the Mediterranean over the last couple of days and the relentless moaning about men not lining up to sacrifice themselves at the expense of women. Here they were recommending, demanding stereotypical behaviour, confused yet..

Since when are men more expendable than women and since when or how did it come about that men should sacrifice themselves for the opposite sex unless related or if there were children or elderly involved . It may have well been the case in the past but purely because it was a decision made at the time by the men involved (think Titanic, choice or demand?) and it was in no way some command, demand or necessity. It is a well known fact that women murdered chivalry or in the case of the feminasties version "chauvinism", by doing so they also automatically ensured that we now have the opportunity of meeting our maker at the same time. That's real equality, it's what has been argued for so long and here it is and it's unacceptable..


They obviously did not get the memo..
'Forget women and children first, it was every man for himself': Cruise liner survivors describe nightmare scenes as people fought to escape sinking ship
This was the same claim made when 9/11 went down, each for their own and I for one cannot see the issue. It would appear that the Daily Mail is indulging in some more male-bashing as usual..

Here is one of the comments that would appear to express the general consensus..

I Have no kids. Should I be forced to drown because some women and children need to be saved first? Children maybe but women claim to be equal so first to the lifeboat is first off! I'm not dying because a massive hen party needs to disembark first. - Alan, Rep of Ireland, 15/1/2012 14:30 I agree although I never understand the child goes first thing. So a child has more right to live just because they are younger. Not in my book...