You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Limbaugh’ tag.
Wow...wow.
*“Women are lauded for encompassing unladylike traits such as violence and assertiveness; especially when they use those traits against men. It is why a lot of young men have developed a stance of indifference towards women, marriage and family.” — Dr. Helen Smith, Psychologist
.jpg "Darryl James")
You know the article is going to be messed up when it opens with this quack or, as her husband calls her, the “Instawife”.
Darryl James, I don’t even know where to begin.
For the longest, men have been looked at as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence. And, propaganda dictates that those men are violent in pursuit of power. But just because those thoughts are popular, doesn’t mean that they are the truth.
Propaganda? Where is this propaganda? I must immediately switch viewership to this progressive domestic violence channel.
A great deal of violence has less to do with power and more to do with a lack of self control.
Okay, everyone. Let’s keep this line of logic in mind as we continue reading his article. The rise of feminism = the decline of self-sovereignty.
Men who beat women are usually male bitches—more than likely crapped on by their parents and not respected by their families. Having little self-control, they are unable to simply walk away from a provoking woman (real or imagined provocation) and so participate in an escalating situation that ends in violence. And, if those men are imprisoned, they will more than likely spend their lives behind bars as someone’s female companion. Powerless from beginning to end.
So the goal here is to not imprison the “male bitches” because that would just mean further feminization. Check.
So if domestic violence isn’t always about power and control, then we must at least consider that other propaganda is BS, including the propaganda that claims men are always violent and women are always victims.
I’m not sure how he proved that it wasn’t about power and control, since the “male bitches” lack control and thus perpetrate violence. There is necessarily a theme of power and soveriegnty. I mean, did he not just say that the feminized person in the relationship is usually the one in the victim role?
Let’s take a look at some of the feminist propaganda that has given way to the masculinization of women, which laid the foundation for increased violence from women and a decrease in men’s pursuit of marriage.
Let’s do. Apparently men suddenly don’t want to get married — forget the savvy bachelor/playboy model that’s existed for centuries. Forget about anything other than heterosexual relationships.
Feminism began as a very good thing.
Thanks for the shout out.
According to a report in the Journal of Men’s Studies, titled “The Feminization of Domestic Violence in America,” contrary to society and the media’s portrayal of women as “recipients of domestic violence…epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behavior between adult partners suggest gender parity.”
One thing I learned very young was to consider the source. One way to get around that, is to get multiple references to support your conclusion. Quoting the free blurb from the journal’s website generally doesn’t cut it.
“Feminism taught the current generation of young women to unsex themselves,” said Smith. “The reason they were taught to unsex themselves is because the Second Wave Feminists believed that femininity is inferior to masculinity. “
Once the goal of shedding femaleness was realized in a substantial portion of the female population, male/female relationships became problematic, if not impossible for the newly masculinized women who still wanted to date men.
A “substantial portion” of the female population shed their femaleness? Mr. James, please check out Scarleteen’s article, Genderpalooza! A Sex & Gender Primer. Furthermore, during the commonly accepted brackets of the Second Wave (1950s-80s), we did not have the technology to “shed” sex. We barely have it now, and what we have is quite expensive. Much too expensive for “a substantial portion” of the female population.
“As a result (of shedding feminine behavior), women are lauded for encompassing unladylike traits such as violence and assertiveness—especially when they use those traits against men,” said Smith. “Praise is heaped upon the women who are self-centered, uncouth, egotistical and devious. It is why a lot of young men have developed a stance of indifference towards women, marriage and family.”
If we’re talking binaries (male/female, woman/man) and the women are self-centered deviants which push the men into “indifference”, who is doing the praising? Just other women? And in what forums? I’m pretty sure that Oprah and Cosmo, the leading advisers on femininity, would disagree with Dr. Smith’s statements. If not them, then for sure Sherry Argov, writer of WHY MEN LOVE BITCHES.
And how exactly are men indifferent to women? Is Mr. James suggesting that feminism caused an increase in male homosexuality?
To be clear, Feminists created a huge paradigm shift in society, and then began to blame men for the poor results, which include a sharp decline in the marriage rate, and a sharp incline in domestic violence initiated by women.
Frankly, the pervasiveness of destructive Feminist propaganda has facilitated the evolution of many women into something close to Vikings. And their status as violent, narcissistic and vengeful creatures has turned them into unmarriageable beings. It is this modern “turning of the shrew” that has dampened marriage rates more than any other development in society.
Feminism has turned women into violent, vengeful creatures. If only. Then there might be less cleavage when selling products like web hosting.
Secondly, if Mr. James is trying to make a Shakespearian reference, the proper title is “The Taming of the Shrew”, which actually was the inverse of this article. The female “Shrew” was tamed by her husband.
Perhaps he’s thinking of the Henry James novella, The Turn of the Screw which deals with an off-kilter governess?
In a discussion forum for my column, one psychotic man-hater who curiously views herself as a “prize catch” for men because of her education and financial wherewithal, admitted to being disappointed in the changing of the times. Her disappointment comes because previously, men were working hard and dying early, leaving their widows in comfortable financial conditions, so that they could live out their senior years alone and comfortable.
If this is what men have to look forward to in a so-called “prize catch,” why would any man with a working brain want to live under such parasitic circumstances?
A) It was not Second Wavers that created chivalry and dowries.
B) Heterosexual women want to be left alone? What happened to the legions of praising women who are lauding her bitchery?
C) The marriage sale is necessarily parasitic: the husbands feast upon the ovaries to produce male offspring. Look at Henry VIII. I bet he was a victim too? I’m sure that if history could be re-written by the second wavers, the institution of marriage would be largely different. Alas, we can only aspire to dream.
D) “psychotic man-hater”? Who are you, Limbaugh?
In a study on sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners, titled Aggression and Violent Behavior, the author reports that while men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners, women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object.
Who did this study? You? What kinds of objects are we talking about here…pillows? Could you please provide the link to the blurb you lifted this from?
And, some women are turning violence into a game.
Like fight clubs?
In one survey of college students, twenty per cent of men who had been attacked by their girlfriends thought it was funny.
It is anything but funny.
Define “attack” please. Also, it’s exactly Mr. James’ own sexist stereotyping (“male bitches”) that would, in a sense, disallow these college students to reporting violence. So what else are they going to do, when these supposed male activists are the ones perpetrating harmful thought patterns, besides laugh it off?
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, “children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%).”
What’s ironic here is that the site Mr. James quotes, Department of Health and Human Services, has a specific page just for women in abusive relationships. Wouldn’t citing this government source kind of contradict his previous suggestion for a feminist-propaganda-less media?
As a result of some of the harshness displayed by some females today, there is a growing lack of interest in relationships, marriage and family. Many men, faced with the possibility of being harmed by a woman who will file for divorce and ask for half of the assets and custody of the children, simply choose not to marry at all.
So, since men are afraid of a woman who can’t control her anger, they’re not getting married. If we were to accept this, how would Mr. James explain the fight for same-sex marriage and adoption?
If we truly seek to protect our families and decrease the violence that our children are exposed to, we would do well to take our heads out of the sand and realize that women have come into their own where violence is concerned.
Knowing is half the battle.
I’d agree with the last line: knowing IS half the battle. So if perhaps this guy has read anything besides his Men’s Rights BS, he might have a stronger argument.
You can see the original article in its entirety here, the bottom of that article includes his email address. You can always agree/disagree/correct me here by leaving a comment.
And now, for some funny.
Limbaugh the Hutt
Here’s also a video of Richard Dawkins on The Colbert Report. A good way to spend 6.5 minutes.
There’s been a lot of fail going around. It’s cool to be fail. Or at least funny. There’s whole blogs on being fail.
Fail can be a verb, to fail, or a noun. He is fail. Fail can also be a proper noun in certain extreme circumstances: “Hey, Fail! You’re looking pretty fail today.” (Notice its adjective status in the latter sentence.)
Gamers and comment trolls of all sorts have also begun doing spelling variations on the word, including: faille, fale and faill. Perhaps the last was a typo.
Let’s look at the word “fail” in relation to the current President, as begun by Rush Limbaugh.
The first definition of “fail” as a verb on www.dictionary.com, is the following:
1. to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved. Here, for Rush to say, “I hope Obama fails,” would imply that he (Limbaugh) had originally wanted him to succeed. We can’t say this is a realistic assumption.
2. to receive less than the passing grade or mark in an examination, class, or course of study. In terms of passing grades, President Obama can’t do much worse than the previous incumbent, who left with a 33% approval rating. Obama was not a scholastic failure but were he to be unsure, he has certainly reintroduced academia into the White House.
3. to be or become deficient or lacking; be insufficient or absent; fall short: Our supplies failed. President Bush spent an average of every third day going to, or already on, vacation. It has recently been brought up that Obama has requested a long weekend retreat, but as averages hold, he’s been more success than fail in this department.
4. to dwindle, pass, or die away. If we were to substitute these synonyms for Limbaugh’s outburst, it might read, “I hope Obama dies.” In this case, perhaps he should be behind bars?
5. to lose strength or vigor; become weak. Obama is young and surrounded by multi-partisan advisers. He’s an avid basketball player, so the Commander-in-Chief is himself healthy and fit.
6. to become unable to meet or pay debts or business obligations; become insolvent or bankrupt. “I hope Obama ‘becomes bankrupt’”. Just silly, especially considering the current financial crisis.
7. to break, bend, crush, or be otherwise destroyed or made useless because of an excessive load. Ew.
8. to stop functioning or operating. The most likely so far of the definitions. “I hope Obama stops functioning,” however would not solve what seems to be Limbaugh’s problem, which is the politics. If Obama were to turn into some kind of Marxist cyborg, everything is still technically in place for his policies to go through at least for the time being.
Limbaugh is so fail!
