What a stupid event.

France24:

The cabin crew of an Oslo to Paris flight in October 2022 asked a man to swap seats with a woman before takeoff, saying he could not be seated next to two children travelling alone.

The man, Dominique Sellier, filed a complaint with the Norway’s anti-discrimination tribunal Diskimineringsnemnda.

In proceedings, a lawyer for Air France argued that the crew was merely following company policy, which was based on the argument that men account for 97.93 percent of all suspected sex crimes.

“It was not a very nice situation,” Sellier told AFP on Tuesday.

“The passengers around me were looking at me, they were waiting for me to change seats so we could take off,” he said.

“Maybe some of it was me projecting, but I interpreted some of the looks like ‘this guy is shady’,” he said.

According to Diskimineringsnemnda’s ruling late last year, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, Air France’s policy stipulates that if a flight is fully booked, a woman should “preferably” be seated next to unaccompanied minors.

…

According to the summary of proceedings, the airline argued that Diskimineringsnemnda had no authority in the matter, as the incident occurred on a plane which was not registered in Norway.

It also argued that the different treatment for men and women was justified by the need to protect unaccompanied minors from the risk of “trafficking and other forms of violence and aggression.”

Sellier said Air France generalisation about men went too far.

“How can we accept this kind of suspicion because we belong to the male gender?”

While he won his case before Diskimineringsnemnda, which was made up of three legal experts, Sellier said he had received no damages nor an apology from Air France.

Personally, I would’ve kicked this faggot off the plane just for whining.

Everyone whines about everything constantly.

It’s disgusting.

Everything is rape these days.

What did Puff Daddy actually even do? People keep saying “it’s like Epstein,” but it looks a lot more like Weinstein to me.

Daily Mail:

Teachers are telling schoolboys that displaying traditional gendered roles in a family could lead to them committing rape, a bombshell report has claimed.

The report from the Family Education Trust (FET) found that almost a third of schools that it surveyed use relationship and sex education classes to teach pupils about ‘toxic masculinity’.

In one schools’ teaching materials on the subject, children are told that while masculinity ‘in and itself is not necessarily a harmful thing’ certain masculine traits can be be seen as ‘problematic’.

Another presents a ‘pyramid of sexual violence‘, which suggests that certain minor behaviours such as ‘displaying traditional gendered roles’ may develop into other examples of ‘gender-based violence’ such as flashing, groping and even rape.

The FET said that such lessons are teaching pupils about a ‘problematic new ideology’ that presents the idea that ‘boys and men possess traits that are inherently negative for society’.

The report, titled ‘Boys and the Burden of Labels: An examination of masculinity teaching in schools’, surveyed 303 secondary schools and academies across the country, asking whether they taught the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ in lessons on relationships and sex education.

It found that of the 197 schools that responded, 62 confirmed they were teaching lessons on ‘toxic masculinity’.

A total of 10 schools also admitted that they were teaching that ‘men and boys possess traits that are inherently toxic and negative for society’.

The FET were also shown a range of teaching materials that the surveyed schools used for lessons about ‘toxic masculinity’.

The report stated that these resources often portrayed masculinity ‘exclusively through a feminist lens’ and ‘on occasion this was overtly political’.

One slide from a lesson on ‘toxic masculinity’ states that while ‘masculinity in and itself is not necessarily a harmful thing…the way that masculinity is traditionally defined in society can be problematic’.

It adds that certain masculine traits ‘can be limiting for women, girls and other people who don’t identify as men who are not expected to display these traits’.

Another slide also informs pupils of the difference between ‘toxic masculinity’ and misogyny. It states that ‘ordering a man a beer without first asking what he wants’ as an example of ‘toxic masculinity’, while ‘trying to control what your girlfriend wears’ is seen as misogynistic.

The reports adds: ‘There was a strong emphasis that traits such as strength when inhabited by men could very quickly lead to misogyny.

‘Anyone can display toxic behaviour, but schools are confusing behaviour taken to extremes as the standard archetype of masculinity.’

I did a pyramid of sexual violence once.

I don’t regret it, but I wouldn’t do it again.

Stop doing woke, Britain.

It’s over.

For at least like, two years, we’re not doing this weird shit.

We’ve put a halt on it.

See the recent Democrat National Convention. They didn’t talk about trannies even once. We’ve put a hold on all woke gibberish for a minimum of 2 years or at least 18 months.

Stop it.

Daily Mail:

A United Nations agency has been branded ‘Orwellian’ after it told staff not to use the term ‘Englishman’ in the latest crackdown on ‘gendered’ language.

The Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organisation – which protects trademarks and patents globally – has also vetoed masculine terms including ‘forefathers’ and ‘brother­hood of man’.

Even ‘man’s best friend’ has been blacklisted – with ‘a faithful dog’ to be used instead. And ‘birth attendant’ is suggested as an alternative to ‘midwife’.

The move comes after the British Red Cross was accused of having been ‘hijacked by political extremists’ after clamping down on phrases such as ‘ladies and gentlemen’ and ‘maiden name’.

According to the ‘Guidelines on inclusive language’ published by the UN agency – known as WIPO – using ‘masculine-specific’ terms risks giving the impression that ‘women are not represented in certain groups or do not possess certain skills’.

Among the terms staff should not use are Englishman – with ‘English person’ or ‘English national’ given as alternatives.

Yeah, I think you’re not allowed to acknowledge the existence of “English people” either.

We’re all just human, after all. And most humans are niggers.

‘Man in the street’ should be replaced by ‘ordinary citizen’ or ‘typical person’, while the word ‘sportsmanlike’ is to be avoided in favour of ‘fair’ or ‘sporting’.

Caveman or cavewoman are both frowned upon, with the guide suggesting ‘cave dweller’ or ‘prehistoric people’, while ‘humanity’ is preferred to ‘the brotherhood of man’.

A separate list of gender-neutral terms for occupations advises replacing ‘lumberjack’ with ‘wood chopper’ or ‘logger’ and waiter/waitress with ‘wait staff’ or, ‘server’.

Another on the list is ‘midwife’, with the suggested alternative given as ‘birth attendant’ – although the guide does concede that midwife ‘may still be the preferable term, depending on the context’.

Last night Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, said: ‘This is precisely what George Orwell warned us about.

‘Banning certain words and phrases to advance a dogmatic political ideology is a hallmark of totalitarianism.’

Yeah, I guess.

I don’t know.

I’m sort of tired of people referencing 1984.

How about talking about the Talmud instead?

It’s hilarious when people don’t understand that the whole point of feminism is harming men.

Countries that are not called “America” get confused about this stuff, and think it’s actually related to “equality” somehow.

BBC:

An Australian museum has been ordered to allow men into a women’s-only exhibit, following a high-stakes court case over the matter.

The Ladies Lounge at Tasmania’s Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) sought to highlight historic misogyny by banning male visitors.

After being denied entry, one filed a gender discrimination lawsuit, which he won on Tuesday.

“We are deeply disappointed by this decision,” a Mona representative said.

The velvet-clad lounge – which contains some of the museum’s most-acclaimed works, from Picasso to Sidney Nolan – has been open since 2020.

It was designed to take the concept of an old Australian pub – a space which largely excluded women until 1965 – and turn it on its head, offering champagne and five-star service to female attendees, while refusing men at the door.

Jason Lau, a New South Wales resident who visited Mona in April of last year, was one such male.

Representing himself throughout the case, he argued that the museum had violated the state’s anti-discrimination act by failing to provide “a fair provision of goods and services in line with the law” to him and other ticket holders who didn’t identify as female.

The museum had responded by claiming the rejection Mr Lau had felt was part of the artwork, and that the law in Tasmania allowed for discrimination if it was “designed to promote equal opportunity” for a group of people who had been historically disadvantaged.

In his ruling, Richard Grueber dismissed the argument – finding that it was “not apparent” how preventing men from experiencing the famous artworks held within the Ladies Lounge achieved that goal.

Throughout the case, the museum’s supporters, including artist Kirsha Kaechele – who created the work – had used the courtroom as a space for performance art, wearing matching navy suits and engaging in synchronised movements.

Mr Grueber said that while the behaviour of the women hadn’t disrupted the hearing, it was “inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous”.

His decision to allow “persons who do not identify as ladies” to access the exhibit will come into effect in 28 days.

In a statement, Ms Kaechele said she was “deeply saddened” by the ruling, and would be taking time to “absorb the situation, seek council and compose myself”. She added that she was grateful for public support through what has been “one of the most difficult periods of my life”.

…

But she also noted that having the Ladies Lounge shut down could help drive home its intended message.

“If you were just looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint, being forced to close would be pretty powerful.”

Men should go into this lounge and just start masturbating.

No connection to the article

Finally, we have an example of what I’ve been saying from the beginning: you don’t have to prove you are a tranny. All you have to do is say that you’re a tranny.

For as long as those rules exist, men should be exploiting the rules for personal and political benefit, and because it’s funny. Women have destroyed all men’s spaces, and then claimed that they somehow have a right to their own spaces, even while they say everyone is equal.

There are no jobs fairs for men only.

You can take these jobs. If they ask you why you’re a tranny, just say “I just feel that way inside.” You don’t have to claim to suck dick.

This can benefit you personally. You can get jobs, you can go into a women’s locker room and jack off. However, what we want is to escalate the conflict between women and trannies.

New York Post:

Attendees of the largest gathering of women seeking careers in STEM fields are livid after scores of men invaded the tech job fair — because they allegedly lied about being non-binary.

Videos across social media showed men racing to meet with potential recruiters at the annual Grace Hopper Celebration event held in Orlando between Sept. 26 to 29 — a job fair specifically aimed at helping women and nonbinary technologists.

The female attendees, some of whom paid about $1,300 per ticket for a chance to network with recruiters, have blasted the cisgender men for skipping all the panels and seminars in order to beat the women to the recruiting lines.

While cisgendered men are not prohibited from attending the event, as they have done so in previous years, AnitaB, the company that organized the seminar, said the men came out in higher numbers this year by skirting the rules.

“Yesterday, it became clear that there are a far greater number of cisgender men attending than we anticipated,” AnitaB Chief Impact Officer Cullen White said in a statement.

“Simply put, some of you lied when you registered. And as evidenced by the stacks and stacks of resumes you’re passing out, you did so because you thought you could come here and take space to try and get a job,” he added.

White noted that the cisgendered men also took discounted academic tickets for the event, as well as interview slots that were supposed to go to women and actual non-binary attendees, who remain minorities in STEM fields.

“So, let me be perfectly clear: Stop,” White told the men.

As more and more men claim to be trannies for advantage (because seriously – why wouldn’t you?), women are going to start calling for rules by which to define trannies.

If/when women succeed in demanding rules, then we need to start targeting trannies and claiming they’re not real trannies, and encourage women to get really aggressive about this issue.

But right now, just look for any women only places and go there, dressed and acting normally, and say you’re a tranny. Or you can say “non-binary.” No one even knows what that means.

I still understand nothing

The fact that women suck at chess proves that they really are inferior to men.

With the sports, you can say “oh well, of course they are physically weaker, but what does that matter in modern times???”

Being bad at chess means they are intellectually inferior, and therefore should not be treated as equals by society.

You can figure out how they should be treated. But we must start from the point of “women are inferior to men and therefore should be treated differently by society.”

I mean, we treat people with Down syndrome differently, do we not?

Personally, I think women should be banned from making their own decisions. That is to say, they should be “disenfranchised.” But regardless of how you think this issue should be dealt with, the fact that they have to ban trannies from playing chess because otherwise women will be destroyed by vastly more intelligent men pretending to be women, proves that women are mentally inferior, just as they are physically inferior, and we have to make decisions based on that basic fact of reality.

AP:

The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for women until its officials make an assessment of gender change.

The decision by the Switzerland-based federation FIDE, published on Monday, has drawn criticism from advocacy groups and supporters of transgender rights.

FIDE said it and its member federations increasingly have received recognition requests from players who identify as transgender, and that the participation of transgender women would depend on an analysis of individual cases that could take up to two years.

“Change of gender is a change that has a significant impact on a player’s status and future eligibility to tournaments, therefore it can only be made if there is a relevant proof of the change provided,” the federation said.

“In the event that the gender was changed from a male to a female the player has no right to participate in official FIDE events for women until further FIDE’s decision is made,” it said.

Holders of women’s titles who change their genders to male would see those titles “abolished,” the federation said, while holding out the possibility of a reinstatement “if the person changes the gender back to a woman.”

“If a player has changed the gender from a man into a woman, all the previous titles remain eligible,” the federation said.

It acknowledged that such questions regarding transgender players were an “evolving issue for chess” and that “further policy may need to be evolved in the future in line with research evidence.”

Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force in the United States, lashed out at what she said appeared to be “a case of ‘trans panic’ with no justification, not grounded in reality and once again marginalizing trans people.”

“The new ‘guidelines’ on trans competitors in chess are infuriating, confusing, contradictory and a sign that the anti-trans movement, particularly those who are promoting exclusion in sports, is spreading into other areas of competitive sport and is a very disturbing development,” Renna said in an e-mail.

Good luck fighting the tranny lobby.

The tranny lobby is superior to the vagina lobby for the same reason men win all these competitions – because men are superior to women.

I support trannies being in everything designed for women, of course. Because it proves, over and over again, that women are inferior to men. All of these people who complain about trannies in women’s competitions are saying “this isn’t fair because women are inferior to men.” This is obviously true.

There is a reason there are no women geniuses in any field, and the women who were competent at certain things usually had a husband who was competent in those things (how much did Percy help Mary with Frankenstein?).

Furthermore, this whole concept of “women’s sports” and women’s chess or whatever else was retarded from the beginning.

Women should stay at home and have kids.

Period.

End of story.

Alex Crow

A 30 year old with an 18 year old is like pedophilia.

We need laws to stop it.

Oh – I guess there already are laws to stop it.

New York Post:

Police in Mobile, Alabama, are investigating a defrocked priest over claims that he had been “grooming” a recent high school grad before the pair shipped out to Italy.

Former priest Alex Crow, 30, is on the run with a 18-year-old graduate of McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he spoke in theology classes and heard confessions, according to local reports.

Although police initially didn’t suspect any romance between the pair, they soon discovered that the teen had received a love letter from the unholy man on Valentine’s Day, while she was still a student.

“I believe there was some grooming that’s gone on, and you’ve got a much older adult interacting with teenage girls in an inappropriate way,” Sheriff Paul Burch told NBC 15. He also suggested that more female students may have been involved with Crow.

Crow, who was ordained in 2021, had been assigned to the Corpus Christi Parish, but was removed from the clergy by the Archdiocese of Mobile last month after he abandoned his post and ran off to Europe with the teen.

What is the purpose of human sexuality?

Are we not allowed to ask that?

If the purpose is reproduction, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man of any age approaching and romancing young girls.

I don’t even know what the “grooming” law is, actually. I’m going to have to look into it. I think you’re allowed to flirt with girls before they’re 18 and then engage them sexually after their birthday, right?

I mean, how is it possible that this is illegal? What exactly would the crime be?

Also, the age of consent in Alabama is 16 anyway?

Of course, there is a problem here with the fact the guy was a priest. Either that, or there is a problem with the policy of celibacy for priests.

By the way, celibacy was not mandatory for Catholic Priests until the 12th century and marriage is still the norm for Eastern Catholic (“Orthodox”) priests.

Moreover: in 1970, Joseph Ratzinger – who became the Pope and was run out by homosexuals – wrote a letter calling for a council to be convened to discuss mandatory celibacy. He never officially condemned it, but clearly wanted it changed. He was an anti-homosexual activist.

I only recently found out about this. After reading the article, I intended to write a piece about it, but sometimes these things never get done, so I’m mentioning it here. Ratzinger died recently, and published a posthumous book saying faggot priests in America are having orgies in the churches. He was run out by the faggots because he was about to start making moves – one of which almost certainly would have been abolishing mandatory celibacy.

Celibacy for priests was always an option, but making it mandatory is just wrong. Sorry. I’m saying it. It doesn’t make any sense.

This rule was initial implemented not for spiritual reasons, but to prevent priests from gifting church land to their kids. Seriously. It was purely political. Look it up. I think there are probably other ways to solve that problem!

Saint Paul didn’t stutter on this issue: celibacy is preferred, if a man is capable of it, but if he’s not, there’s nothing wrong with marriage. This is from Corinthians, so it is a letter to the church leadership (he obviously wasn’t saying that most people in general should try to be celibate):

Very straightforward: the ability for celibacy is a gift from God, and if you have it, embrace it. If you don’t, then get married.

I have brought this up to Catholics who support mandatory celibacy. They will start with the “you can’t just interpret a random verse!”

But it’s not my interpretation – it’s the interpretation of the Church itself from the 4th to the 11th century, and is the current interpretation of the Eastern Church. If you are blocking men from getting married while being priests, you’re actually violating what Paul said. He said it for a reason. Now, we have a den of homosexuals in the Church, and a literal homosexual Pope!

The Church is now literally having discussions about gay marriage, there are anal flags in Catholic Churches in Germany, they are talking about woman priests – but what Ratzinger suggested more than 40 years ago, that mandatory celibacy be reevaluated, is off limits. It’s obvious that at this point, it is the homosexual cult that has infiltrated the Church that is pushing for continued mandatory celibacy.

There is zero wrong with a Catholic questioning this. Again – the man who would become Pope questioned it.

You have a lot, lot, lot of men who would like to devote their lives to God. When you then add the variable of “oh and you can never have sex or children,” you cut out at least 99% of those men.

Again: celibacy was always an option, and there is something special about a man who devotes himself to that, and I do think in some ways he is going to have a closer connection to God by suppressing the base impulse. But that’s assuming he’s actually doing it, and is not a secret homosexual! How many of the current priests are secret homosexuals???

You’re going to enforce a POLITICAL POLICY from the middle ages at the cost of being infiltrated and destroyed by homosexuals???

Obviously, a policy of celibacy could be enforced without being infiltrated by homosexuals. But priest is a very good job for a homosexual – he can explain why he’s not married, and he can have access to pubescent boys. And, when you’ve limited your pool to the point that the church as limited the pool, you are by default going to end up with more homosexuals, and now you have a takeover by homosexual and homosexuals recruiting other homosexuals (not least the alter boys that they turned homosexual by molesting them!).

E. Michael Jones, who is I think in some ways the last true public intellectual, is a hardcore Catholic and will defend priestly celibacy. However, E. Michael Jones is also a massive critic of the current state of the Church, and it sure would be nice to have a guy like him serving as a Bishop, wouldn’t it???

Why isn’t he serving as a Bishop, I wonder???

Well, maybe ask his wife, kids, and grandkids, huh???

Sorry. This is so obvious and it needs to be said. Ratzinger basically said it, I’m saying it. Enough is enough.

That Having Been Said…

There is probably a problem with a priest using his position as a priest to find the hottest teenage girl as his wife, even if you ban celibacy. I think it’s a pretty hard policy in the Orthodox Church that you must be married before you are ordained as a priest, because you shouldn’t really be able to use the authority of the Church – which is ultimately the authority of God – to pick the fittest girl you can find.

I mean, if you’re the parish priest, you presumably have authority over the parents of the girl you pick, and it just creates a kind of inappropriate situation.

Anyway, that’s a minor issue, and it is a separate issue from this guy, because he actually abandoned his post out of love. I assume this guy just got very smitten and I’m not blaming him for his decisions, necessarily. We don’t know the details of this situation.

Figuring out how to make it so people can’t become priests and then use that authority to get the hottest girl in town is a problem that was apparently dealt with during the MORE THAN 1000 YEARS that Christians did not mandate celibacy, so I’m sure we can find a solution to it now.

I don’t think anyone really needs to explain this one.

Liberalism created a sexual utopia for women, while forcing boys and men into hell on earth.

What’s more, women are more likely to just go along with whatever the government says, while boys are more likely to use logic and reason to question just what the hell these kikes are up to.

The Hill:

A popular narrative suggests young people are liberal and getting more liberal. Thus, social media buzzed when a chart surfaced in spring that seemed to suggest 12th-grade boys had become overwhelmingly conservative.

As with many Reddit posts and viral tweets, the truth was more complicated. But the numbers do say this: Twelfth-grade boys are nearly twice as likely to identify as conservative versus liberal, according to a respected federal survey of American youth.

In annual surveys over the last three years, roughly one-quarter of high school seniors self-identified as conservative or “very conservative” on the Monitoring the Future survey, a scholarly endeavor that dates to the 1970s. Only 13 percent of boys identified as liberal or very liberal in those years.

The figures represent a striking shift in the political views of boys. As recently as the late 2000s, liberal boys occasionally outnumbered conservatives. Back in the Carter era, both boys and girls leaned liberal.

Nowadays, it is girls who are drifting to the left. The share of 12th-grade girls who identified as liberal rose from 19 percent in 2012 to 30 percent in 2022. Only 12 percent of girls identified as conservative in last year’s survey, administered by the University of Michigan.

Young women, too, are trending liberal. Women ages 18 to 29 are more likely to identify as liberal now than at any time in the past two decades, according to Gallup surveys. Young women are almost twice as likely as young men to claim the liberal tag, a widening gender gap in political beliefs.

The political leanings of young men have changed little over the past two decades, according to an analysis by the Survey Center on American Life. Last year, 43 percent of young men identified as moderate, 31 percent as conservative and 24 percent as liberal. Twenty years earlier, the numbers were more or less the same.

But the leftward drift of young women alone has sufficed to move the needle on young adults as a whole. Generation Z favors liberalism over conservatism by a 48-to-33 margin, according to NBC News polling from 2022. Ten years earlier, young adults split evenly between the two political camps.

The rightward drift of high school boys is comparatively subtle. Indeed, when it comes to politics, most boys seem reluctant to pick a side. In the 2022 Monitoring the Future survey, the largest group of senior boys, more than two-fifths, claimed no politics at all, answering the liberal-conservative question with “none of the above” or “I don’t know.” Nearly one-fifth identified as moderate. Only 36 percent selected liberal or conservative as an ideology, and only there did the trend emerge.

Jean Twenge, an author and professor of psychology at San Diego State University, presented the data in her new book, “Generations.” To spotlight the growing gender gap, she couched the numbers in a chart that split boys and girls along ideological lines, omitting moderates and the undecided.

“Among liberals, the future is female,” she wrote. “And among conservatives, the future is male.”

In April, someone posted Twenge’s chart to Reddit. The image also circulated widely on Twitter, the platform since rebranded as X. Other researchers took note.

The chart gave the impression, at least on first glance, that two-thirds of 12th-grade boys were now conservative. In the small print beneath, Twenge noted that she had omitted moderates.

The full story is messier and murkier. High school seniors, boys and girls alike, are more likely to claim no political identity than to throw in with either liberals or conservatives.

Much has been written about the liberal drift of young women. The Donald Trump presidency mobilized millions of women, outraged over words and alleged deeds that, to Trump’s critics, suggested an unrepentant misogyny. More women embraced liberal politics in response to the conservative drift of the U.S. Supreme Court, a movement emblemized by a 2022 ruling that struck down the constitutional right to abortion.

Less has been said about the politics of 12th-grade boys.

Trump himself may be a key to the conservative trend in that group. The 45th president energized male voters with his rhetoric: his “overt hypermasculinity,” as one NPR analysis put it, and his frequent use of language one might overhear in a high school cafeteria.

“Donald Trump talks like a high school student. Maybe there’s a connection there,” said Robert Palacios, 21, a student at the Catholic University of America and president of District of Columbia College Democrats.

“If you grew up playing video games that were not age-appropriate, and you were sitting in the [virtual] lobby, screaming at the mic, Trump was your president,” said Ethan Benn, also 21, a student at the George Washington University (GWU). “He really channeled that energy.”

More broadly, the conservative wing of the Republican party has made pointed appeals to disaffected men of all ages.

Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other conservative beacons have derided “woke” ideology, accusing the left of overreach in seeking redress for injustices involving race, gender and sexual orientation.

Liberal politicians, of course, are just as eager to win the vote of young men. Yet, the progressive agenda seeks equality in gender and race, a platform that costs them some male support, especially among white people. In the 2020 election, Black and Hispanic men voted for Joe Biden at much higher rates than non-Hispanic white people, according to Pew Research data.

As one recent Politico article put it, Democrats have a masculinity problem.

“I believe that traditional notions of masculinity are much more accepted within conservativism,” while feminist values “are clearly one of the driving forces of liberalism,” said Delano Squires, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“I could see male and female students saying, ‘I’m choosing sides.’ Do you want matriarchy, or do you want patriarchy?”

Defenders of the patriarchy reach young men where they live, on social media and in gaming circles. Benn, the GWU student, notes a “sort of intersection of Internet culture and gaming culture with conservative politics” that draws some apolitical young men into conservatism.

It’s not an “intersection.”

You can’t have a feminine, faggotized gaming culture. It doesn’t work. They tried to do that with Hassan Piker, and now he doesn’t even play games, he just gets high and mumbles.

Destiny I guess does play games, but only those stupid autistic resource management games. When he played Starcraft, he was saying “nigger” and “faggot” like every other gamer. He isn’t even a real liberal, he’s just getting paid to act like one – but he can’t do that act while also playing real boy’s games.

We have to subject women to masculine authority by force. There is no other solution.

Democracy, of course, makes that impossible. Democracy is a cancer on humanity which will end with the death of all life (including animals and most plants, though it is possible some insects and bacteria will survive).

We have to turn everyone into a faggot to stop car crashes.

Sound familiar?

It’s a template:

Bad thing -> solution (Jewish agenda) -> utopia

So far, it’s never worked.

We do not yet have a utopia.

But you have to become a faggot, because we at least need to try one more time to build a utopia.

Because why would anyone want to live, except in a utopia?

The Guardian:

A road safety awareness campaign in France is tackling the role of gendered behaviour behind the wheel, warning for the first time that toxic masculinity could be as important a contributing factor to road deaths as speed, alcohol, drugs and fatigue.

The campaign’s video – released for the web, TV cinemas on Wednesday – shows men at the births of their sons and seeks to portray them as thoughtful and sensitive in contrast with the revved-up virility of macho stereotypes.

“Speed, alcohol, drugs, fatigue … what if we need to add masculinity?” asked the French road safety body of the list of factors that typically lead to road accidents.

In France, 78% of those killed in road accidents in 2022 were men – close to the average across the EU. Of French drivers aged 18 – to 24 killed on the road last year, 88% were men. Of people suspected to have caused road accidents, 84% were men, while men accounted for 93% of drunk drivers involved in an accident.

Men drive more, and are vastly overrepresented in jobs that require driving, including driving buses, taxis and trucks.

Was that taken into account?

Probably not.

Florence Guillaume, the interministerial delegate for road safety in France, said the campaign was absolutely not about stigmatising or blaming men in general. “It is about prompting people to examine their behaviour,” she said.

Guillaume said the number of men dying on the roads was a serious issue and “does not mean all men are bad drivers – that is not true”. Instead, she said society should look deeper at behaviours such as risk-taking or the pressures on some men to show they could drive faster or seek to dominate the road.

The message of the video campaign is about urging men to resist social pressure. “You don’t have to follow what people expect of a man,” the voice of a new father tells his son in the clip.

The sociologist Alain Mergier carried out a study on masculinity and driving across all age groups for the campaign. He said: “It’s striking how certain stereotypes are persistently passed from father to son, including the car as a symbolic object of masculinity, male identity and virility. This isn’t given much thought and yet we can see the far-reaching impact on accidents.”

Why do the people lecturing us on masculinity always have so little of it themselves?

He said some boys and men were taught from childhood that the car was their symbol and it was through driving that they could “defend their manliness”.

…

“It could lead to the sense that a man has to prove himself by mastering a vehicle, such as accelerating or breaking speed limits to show ‘I’m a real man’,” Mergier added.

He said the instinct for some male drivers to compete after being overtaken by another car comes from a sense among some “that masculinity has to be defended, lest it be seen as fragile or vulnerable”.

“What’s important about this campaign is that it doesn’t stigmatise men, it suggests another vision of men and masculinity, which is not about confrontation, or being aggressive, but about sensitivity,” he said.

In other words it’s about “being a faggot.”

There is no reality in which “sensitivity” and “man” are the same thing. I can promise you that. If you are sensitive, you are not a man, in fact. You are instead a faggot pussy.

Maegan Hall with her husband Jedidiah.

Previously: Married Female Cop has Sex with Six Male Officers, Gets Fired

Imagine you’re a normal looking guy and you marry some fatty with tattoos and a face like a weasel thinking “well, at least she’s loyal.”

They you find out she’s doing the whole squad!

New York Post:

The husband of the Tennessee police officer fired for having sex with six of her coworkers is standing by his wife, the Daily Mail reported Friday.

“I don’t know how he’s doing it, he’s more of a man than I am, but he’s trying to salvage his marriage,” Jedidiah Hall’s boss, Coffee County Sheriff Chad Partin, told the outlet.

Jedidiah’s wife, Officer Maegan Hall of the La Vergne, Tenn., police department, was fired after allegations emerged she engaged in sex with coworkers, sent them nude pictures, took off her top at a “Girls Gone Wild”-themed hot tub party, and performed oral sex on two fellow officers while on duty.

The hanky-panky also led to the firings of Sgt. Lewis Powell, Officer Juan Lugo, Sgt. Ty McGowan and Detective Seneca Shields, according to the internal investigation last month.

Officers Patrick Magliocco and Larry Holladay, who allegedly also had romps with Maegan Hall, stayed on the force but were suspended.

Maegan Hall had told her coworkers she was in an open marriage, investigators said. One of her coworkers, however, said that Jedidiah, who the Daily Mail reported is the son of a pastor, was not on board.

It would be one thing if it was just the blacks – white little piggy skanks simply cannot avoid the allure of dark meat injections.

But she was also doing the whites as well!

She takes all comers – in every hole!

All women are horrible, and they are whores. Don’t get it twisted. This goes back to pre-history.

The Church Fathers talked about it a lot.

But the biggest sluts of all are going to be the ones who try to do man stuff.

You should look for a woman who is into cutesy things and shopping. If you find a bitch who’s into man things – video games, for example – she’s the Queen of Cock City.

Female cops are all cock-crazed psychos.

Do not abide.

PS

I used to say “white women look like trannies.”

Now I feel like: they all look like Greta Thunberg somehow.