[Roosh]

(09-20-2014 09:15 AM)Kickb Wrote:  

I'm pretty blown away at how much this domestic assault stuff has blown up like it has in the past month.

There must be some serious $$$$$$ flying around behind the scenes.

There is definite coordination behind the scenes.

[tallandblonde]

(09-20-2014 02:39 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

If women stopped fucking violent, abusive men--domestic violence would stop over night.

If women stopped fucking violent men and having their children, violence would disappear in a few centuries, maybe even a few decades--as the genetic propensity for violence and badboy-loving is eliminated from the population.

Where's the PSA on that?

I love it when women complain about all the good men being gone. Well, you eradicated them by loving the bad boys, and its the good and well behaved ones that go home empty handed every weekend and jerk off. It's honestly shocking how poorly some women prefer to be treated.

[runsonmagic]

(09-20-2014 07:49 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 09:15 AM)Kickb Wrote:  

I'm pretty blown away at how much this domestic assault stuff has blown up like it has in the past month.

There must be some serious $$$$$$ flying around behind the scenes.

There is definite coordination behind the scenes.

Roosh, I'm seeing the coordination, but I'm curious what you think the agenda is.

Jesus, the reason people jump to conspiracy theory so often is because they turn out to be true so often. There's even a conspiracy in game reviews. If the President, Vice President, and several major celebrities are involved you can bet there is someone accumulating power and money behind the scenes.

[Jack198]

(09-20-2014 07:34 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

Comedians are the last public figures who can truly speak their mind about these kinds of things and aside from TV deals and stuff, they can't be fired.

Well... ...they did pretty much beat Andrew Dice Clay into submission after he told too many homosexual jokes; his career is pretty much dead now. They also read Eddie Murphy the riot act when he did the same thing. He had to clean up his act considerably. The only reason Eddie Murphy didn't suffer as much as Dice was because he was much more established by the time the PC police took over Hollywood.

[Dusty]

(09-20-2014 08:11 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 07:49 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 09:15 AM)Kickb Wrote:  

I'm pretty blown away at how much this domestic assault stuff has blown up like it has in the past month.

There must be some serious $$$$$$ flying around behind the scenes.

There is definite coordination behind the scenes.

Roosh, I'm seeing the coordination, but I'm curious what you think the agenda is.

Jesus, the reason people jump to conspiracy theory so often is because they turn out to be true so often. There's even a conspiracy in game reviews. If the President, Vice President, and several major celebrities are involved you can bet there is someone accumulating power and money behind the scenes.

[Soma]

[Slim Shady]

Norm MacDonald in the US, and Frankie Boyle in the UK are two of my favorite comics, and both have been sent into semi-retirement for speaking their mind. Comedians are not safe either, but atleast they have loyal fan bases, and are self employed to some extent.

But you guys are right. The Hillary campaign is real. If she win's in 2016, I will not be living in the good ol' USA anymore. I am quite disappointed in Jon Hamm to be honest. The
lib-tards wet their panties when a masculine icon is tricked into believing their bullshit. They even had Daniel Craig in one of their recent campaigns [I think it was sexual assault].

The day they get Clint Eastwood is the day I lose all hope.

[AnonymousBosch]

(09-20-2014 10:48 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

I am quite disappointed in Jon Hamm to be honest. The
lib-tards wet their panties when a masculine icon is tricked into believing their bullshit. They even had Daniel Craig in one of their recent campaigns [I think it was sexual assault].

Jon Hamm isn't a masculine icon. He just plays one on TV.

[iop890]

(09-21-2014 01:14 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:48 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

I am quite disappointed in Jon Hamm to be honest. The
lib-tards wet their panties when a masculine icon is tricked into believing their bullshit. They even had Daniel Craig in one of their recent campaigns [I think it was sexual assault].

Jon Hamm isn't a masculine icon. He just plays one on TV.

Yep, Daniel Craig is the same.

[xxMarco]

Seriously wtf am I taking crazy pills?
Men are being ridiculed nowadays. If you're a man you're a rapist, thug, pedophile, scum of the earth.

I suspect it's due to Hillary 2016 but what then. Hillary takes office and we're all fucked. Feminism will be rampant and the norm. Seriously need to start thinking about moving out of the country. This is bullshit

[BadWolf]

Just on the 'grants canada' website and guess what I found:

Quote:

Training on Sexual Violence
Description

The Ontario Women’s Directorate (OWD) is seeking applications from provincial violence against women (VAW) organizations and professional groups to develop and/or deliver training on sexual violence for service providers in the community, health, education or justice sectors. These projects are to be provincial in scope, evidence- based, reflect current promising practices and tailored to meet the needs of service providers in the health, education, social services and/or justice sector.

Funds are for training that will provide professionals with the knowledge and skills they need to foster a more responsive and supportive environment for women who experienced sexual violence.

Project activities are expected to begin January 1, 2013 and be completed by December 31, 2014 with a Final Report to follow on February 1, 2015.

A total of $930,000 (over three fiscal years) is available through this Invitation for Applications (IFA). Funding for individual projects is not expected to exceed $150,000 (over three fiscal years).

your tax dollars at work

[Jack198]

(09-21-2014 04:00 AM)xxMarco Wrote:  

Seriously wtf am I taking crazy pills?
Men are being ridiculed nowadays. If you're a man you're a rapist, thug, pedophile, scum of the earth.

I suspect it's due to Hillary 2016 but what then. Hillary takes office and we're all fucked. Feminism will be rampant and the norm. Seriously need to start thinking about moving out of the country. This is bullshit

I agree, pretty insidious as well as bigoted - might as well have an ad showing black guys saying "It's on us" to stop crime.

[Jack198]

(09-21-2014 07:12 AM)BadWolf Wrote:  

Just on the 'grants canada' website and guess what I found:

Training on Sexual Violence
Description

The Ontario Women’s Directorate (OWD) is seeking applications from provincial violence against women (VAW) organizations and professional groups to develop and/or deliver training on sexual violence for service providers in the community, health, education or justice sectors. These projects are to be provincial in scope, evidence- based, reflect current promising practices and tailored to meet the needs of service providers in the health, education, social services and/or justice sector.

Funds are for training that will provide professionals with the knowledge and skills they need to foster a more responsive and supportive environment for women who experienced sexual violence.

Project activities are expected to begin January 1, 2013 and be completed by December 31, 2014 with a Final Report to follow on February 1, 2015.

A total of $930,000 (over three fiscal years) is available through this Invitation for Applications (IFA). Funding for individual projects is not expected to exceed $150,000 (over three fiscal years).

Ok - what say we all submit a bid for that proposal?

[BadWolf]

We need to put a group/organization together and yeah, I agree
we should be submitting an application for violence against men... get all the Canadian MGTOW groups together because this is outrageous. A million dollars for a make work program... god.

http://www.grants.gov.on.ca

Return Of Kings should do an article on all the 'make work' programs of North America
and their total cost to tax payers.

[kosko]

Look to who funded this thing: Both 'Pvblic Foundation'
and ' Generation Progress' are massive Non-Profits/Steering Groups with hands dipped in Academia, New Media, and the UN. Pvblic states clearly on its site is that it aims to use new media as a means to bring change and attention to their causes. This is exactly how Obama's color revolution started as a faux antiwar campaign in the media and on college campuses. This time the enemy is men and masculinity instead of bearded Arabs but don't doubt for a second the same force won't be used in attempting to swell the masses together.

Hillary is the end goal with the complete subjection of the already weak and waining masculine tone in any type of mass narrative or discourse.

Hilary is just the cloak and cover. I am realizing now that all of this "furry' on domestic abuse, the ritual and passages of sports, plus the massive amount of white noise with celeb leaks in the 'over/under' media (Not sure what to call the massive amount of garbage new media which has swelled into a counter arm of mainstream views) all serve as distractions as the USA pushes ahead with a new full war campaign.

I touched on this all earlier this year:
http:// rooshvforum.network/thread-32209-pos...#pid630944
All this stuff from nude photos to Ray Rice all are distractions.

Hillary comes into play because she will be the only one able to push ahead on full conflict with Russia (even if by proxy). It will become sexist to criticize anything she does as the handcuff climate is being set now by the witch hunts being taken against men and historic male institutions.

In 2016 any talk against her policies will be dismissed as sexist outright. Its pure censorship with woman used as a cover for it.

[Dusty]

Somewhat relevant.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/19/6405561/hil...cure-floor

Quote:

Hillary Clinton's plan to use feminism to sell big government
Updated by Matthew Yglesias on September 19, 2014, 7:00 a.m. ET


Political analysts have made repeated observations about the growing importance of "social issues" to Democratic Party campaign strategy. But speaking at a Center for American Progress panel Thursday morning alongside Patty Murray, Kirsten Gillibrand, Nancy Pelosi, Rosa de Lauro, and CAP president Neera Tanden, Hillary Clinton tested a potentially potent fusion of feminism framing and populist policy that shows how artificial the division between "economic issues" and "social issues" really is.

"Women hold two-thirds of all minimum wage jobs," Clinton observed, and "nearly three-quarters of all jobs that are reliant on tips" and thus eligible for sub-minimum wages.

Clinton discussed the plight of a working-class mother with a service-sector job that provides low pay and little flexibility. "We talk about a glass ceiling," she said, "but these women don't even have a secure floor under them."

Indeed, while people can debate the precise origins of the gender wage gap, there's no denying that women earn substantially less than men on average. Social safety net programs and income redistribution initiatives are disproportionately beneficial to low-wage workers, and low-wage workers are mostly women.

American political discourse often associates the gender gap in voting with abortion rights and other "women's issues" that specifically highlight sex or gender. But as political scientist Karen Kauffman has shown, these issues do not particularly seem to divide men and women. Instead, starting in the Reagan-era, men, but not women, have been attracted by the Republican Party's tilt against the welfare state. Libby Copeland offered an excellent overview of this literature for Slate in 2012, but it remains largely unappreciated by political journalists. Further evidence for the primacy of economics comes from international comparisons. Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris show that women's voting has skewed left in all advanced industrial economies.

Why is this? Torben Iversen and Frances Rosenbluth offered a plausible explanation in a 2006 article, writing that the "partial socialization of family work, even at the cost of higher taxes from the private sector, increases a woman's ability to work outside the home and thereby increases her exit options and her household bargaining position."

In other words, because conventional social norms leave the care of children and the elderly to women, the expansion of the welfare state to shoulder some of that burden not only helps the directly assisted, it helps women by saddling them with less unpaid work.

This is, of course, not exactly how Clinton put it. But during the discussion she referred to the Nixon-era push for a universal childcare program, inspired by a desire to grow the economy by increasing women's workforce participation rate. Clinton said that after being initially supportive, the White House found itself pressed to veto the bill "on ideological grounds not on evidence." Proponents of traditional patriarchal family arrangements, in other words, feared exactly the Iverson/Rosenbluth dynamic. More generous social provision might make the economy richer, but it would also shift the intra-family balance of power away from men and toward women.

At a time when activist government was broadly in vogue, highlighting the implications for family life was enough to sink the proposal. Clinton's calculation seems to be broadly the opposite — that putting a gender equity frame forward is a good way to bolster support for the welfare state at a time when the national mood is swinging toward smaller government.

[Dusty]

(09-21-2014 07:47 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Hillary comes into play because she will be the only one able to push ahead on full conflict with Russia (even if by proxy). It will become sexist to criticize anything she does as the handcuff climate is being set now by the witch hunts being taken against men and historic male institutions.

In 2016 any talk against her policies will be dismissed as sexist outright. Its pure censorship with woman used as a cover for it.

Agreed. I think this is what "Ban Bossy" was all about too. Setting things up so Hillary can't be criticized.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Where the hell does "PSA" come from and has there ever been a positive and substantial PSA in history of the world? This thing looks like vapid attention whoring, merely "legitimized" by some big acronyms.

[Jack198]

(09-21-2014 10:06 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

Somewhat relevant.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/19/6405561/hil...cure-floor

Quote:

Hillary Clinton's plan to use feminism to sell big government
Updated by Matthew Yglesias on September 19, 2014, 7:00 a.m. ET


Political analysts have made repeated observations about the growing importance of "social issues" to Democratic Party campaign strategy. But speaking at a Center for American Progress panel Thursday morning alongside Patty Murray, Kirsten Gillibrand, Nancy Pelosi, Rosa de Lauro, and CAP president Neera Tanden, Hillary Clinton tested a potentially potent fusion of feminism framing and populist policy that shows how artificial the division between "economic issues" and "social issues" really is.

"Women hold two-thirds of all minimum wage jobs," Clinton observed, and "nearly three-quarters of all jobs that are reliant on tips" and thus eligible for sub-minimum wages.

Clinton discussed the plight of a working-class mother with a service-sector job that provides low pay and little flexibility. "We talk about a glass ceiling," she said, "but these women don't even have a secure floor under them."

Indeed, while people can debate the precise origins of the gender wage gap, there's no denying that women earn substantially less than men on average. Social safety net programs and income redistribution initiatives are disproportionately beneficial to low-wage workers, and low-wage workers are mostly women.

American political discourse often associates the gender gap in voting with abortion rights and other "women's issues" that specifically highlight sex or gender. But as political scientist Karen Kauffman has shown, these issues do not particularly seem to divide men and women. Instead, starting in the Reagan-era, men, but not women, have been attracted by the Republican Party's tilt against the welfare state. Libby Copeland offered an excellent overview of this literature for Slate in 2012, but it remains largely unappreciated by political journalists. Further evidence for the primacy of economics comes from international comparisons. Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris show that women's voting has skewed left in all advanced industrial economies.

Why is this? Torben Iversen and Frances Rosenbluth offered a plausible explanation in a 2006 article, writing that the "partial socialization of family work, even at the cost of higher taxes from the private sector, increases a woman's ability to work outside the home and thereby increases her exit options and her household bargaining position."

In other words, because conventional social norms leave the care of children and the elderly to women, the expansion of the welfare state to shoulder some of that burden not only helps the directly assisted, it helps women by saddling them with less unpaid work.

This is, of course, not exactly how Clinton put it. But during the discussion she referred to the Nixon-era push for a universal childcare program, inspired by a desire to grow the economy by increasing women's workforce participation rate. Clinton said that after being initially supportive, the White House found itself pressed to veto the bill "on ideological grounds not on evidence." Proponents of traditional patriarchal family arrangements, in other words, feared exactly the Iverson/Rosenbluth dynamic. More generous social provision might make the economy richer, but it would also shift the intra-family balance of power away from men and toward women.

At a time when activist government was broadly in vogue, highlighting the implications for family life was enough to sink the proposal. Clinton's calculation seems to be broadly the opposite — that putting a gender equity frame forward is a good way to bolster support for the welfare state at a time when the national mood is swinging toward smaller government.

Or, more succinctly, he who controls the pussy, controls the country.

[Sombro]

Quote:

Thing is, all the rape-talk isn’t about getting justice for victims. It’s about stirring up female voters for Hillary, while demonizing, marginalizing, and silencing men, and about justifying policies that generate employment and self-esteem for “social justice warriors.” Given that these are generally execrable people, any policy that enlarges their power or perks should be viewed with deep suspicion.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/195325/

[Jack198]

This strategy of Hillary's is not new at all. Feminism and socialism/communism have both been strongly linked since their inception. Trotsky touched on this in his final book, Revolution Betrayed:

"It proved impossible to take the old family by storm – not because the will was lacking, and not because the family was so firmly rooted in men’s hearts. On the contrary, after a short period of distrust of the government and its creches, kindergartens and like institutions, the working women, and after them the more advanced peasants, appreciated the immeasurable advantages of the collective care of children as well as the socialization of the whole family economy. Unfortunately society proved too poor and little cultured. The real resources of the state did not correspond to the plans and intentions of the Communist Party. You cannot “abolish” the family; you have to replace it. The actual liberation of women is unrealizable on a basis of “generalized want.” Experience soon proved this austere truth which Marx had formulated eighty years before."

[Slim Shady]

(09-21-2014 01:14 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:48 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

I am quite disappointed in Jon Hamm to be honest. The
lib-tards wet their panties when a masculine icon is tricked into believing their bullshit. They even had Daniel Craig in one of their recent campaigns [I think it was sexual assault].

Jon Hamm isn't a masculine icon. He just plays one on TV.

That's what I meant. He plays one though and that character is seen by the crowd as a masculine icon. Therefore whatever Jon Hamm promotes, becomes the "real man" thing to do. Same with Daniel Craig and James Bond.

[Dusty]

(09-21-2014 12:10 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

That's what I meant. He plays one though and that character is seen by the crowd as a masculine icon. Therefore whatever Jon Hamm promotes, becomes the "real man" thing to do. Same with Daniel Craig and James Bond.

I like this James Bond's PSA

[BadWolf]

Lets count the number of Asian men and women in the first video..

0 that's right 0

The answer is simple, marry an Asian and abolish feminism.

When I married my Chinese girl I felt like that chick from the Labyrinth when she says to Jared "You have no power over me", except instead of them changing into an owl they would turn into a hamster. They have no power over us if we aren't buying into the 'American female'. The only US is the percentage of American males who don't choose to marry women from abroad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emebPH6ysRU

[It_is_my_time]

(09-21-2014 04:00 AM)xxMarco Wrote:  

Seriously wtf am I taking crazy pills?
Men are being ridiculed nowadays. If you're a man you're a rapist, thug, pedophile, scum of the earth.

I suspect it's due to Hillary 2016 but what then. Hillary takes office and we're all fucked. Feminism will be rampant and the norm. Seriously need to start thinking about moving out of the country. This is bullshit

Just wait until Obamacare kicks in...

Increased medicare taxes. So everyone's income taxes will go up.
Increased taxes on providers. So everyone's healthcare will go up even more.

And what do we get in return?

We men get to pay for single moms to have an easier life while we have worse lives. And we get to pay for women to get "free" birth control.

The Democratic party is the enemy of men.