Male bashing in the media

“They (daughters) smoke much less marijuana” ohh Fox News and tucker. It’s so hard to listen to him but he has facts and I mostly wanted to hear JP talk.

An interesting article on boys and girls in school.

Nah, T Carlson has raised his game in his 40s.

The last couple minutes are worth the price, at any rate. Instilling courage (encouragement) is among the cardinal duties a father has to his children, male and female. If my kids were subject to any indoctrination at all, I would consider that an intolerable encroachment on those duties. Peterson is absolutely right about that.

The biggest takeaway from the video is that we don’t have enough information.

Interesting video, lots of solid facts. America sounds like an increasingly bizarre place to live: not sure how much of that weirdness is making its way across the pond.

Couldn’t help thinking that Tom Hiddleston is going to look exactly like Jordan Peterson in 20 years time.

Same guy than this other video I watched before:

It’s indoctrination, not education, in many schools nowadays.

What if they teach the doctrine of a father’s cardinal duties?


Personally I think it’s a great idea, and I don’t care if that contradicts my earlier pronouncement.

Evidently some fathers need a step up. They won’t get a lick of help from the Liberal Arts departments of most universities, that seems certain.

Apropos of nothing, I thought some might find this interesting (although I wish she’d stop to take a breath occasionally and not keep saying ‘mmmkay’):

I read Paglia when I was at university; I loathed social psychology with a passion, but she and Shere Hite struck me as formidable intellects. Her views seem to have evolved somewhat. Greer likewise.


If laws are written as equal, and it is the reality of culture here that is perhaps leaning towards favoritism towards a gender/group then why would we be spending mass amounts of dollars and time changing laws, that are technically equal (more or less) and ignore the practicality of things.

Men cant have babies, women tend not to grow chest hair. biological facts are senseless to try and change through law.

cultural injustices should be dealt with severely, but not via the cost of another groups’ rights.

Taiwan is a sexist place, no doubt. Racist too. but its a slippery slope when laws are changed in order to to try and make the balance between groups. instead of giving allowances to groups that are not as benefited, just punish people who truly abuse other people and let the weaker of the society fight and get some grit. its the way the world works. All for human rights, not just women, but we shouldnt be blindly going overboard in any direction, regardless of gender, race, lifestyle etc etc.

Lets not do a Canada…


Everyone who’s suffered under the tyranny of Canadian feminism, please raise your hand!

Where to draw that line is the big question, and that’s what legal reform is about – redrawing the line(s).

Other than conscription and Taiwan’s gender equality committees having female member quotas but no male member quotas, can you show us a law that’s unfair to men?

And while we’re at it, can you show us a Canadian law that’s unfair to men?

women tend not to grow chest hair.

That’s obviously because of soy milk. :smile:

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist. :smiling_imp:)

1 Like

There’s a difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal outcome”. You’re talking about the latter. You want the Fortune 500 CEO’s to be split 50/50 between men and women. You want the outcome to be equal, regardless of whether the men/women are qualified or even want to be in those positions. Why stop there though? Why not make everything 50/50? Every company, government, etc. should have a 1:1 ratio between men and women. We should also include every race that lives in that country too and make sure the ratio between races is equal. Forget whether or not these people are the best choice, whether they are more qualified than their competitors, we want equal outcome. Everyone has an equal opportunity to become that Fortune 500 CEO, but how many would take it? I certainly wouldn’t because I don’t want to work 100+ hours a week, I would rather have a personal life surrounded by family and friends. Equal outcome is not a good idea, equal opportunity is.

FWIW, growing hair in weird places is linked to excessive sugar consumption. Overweight women do often get (sparse) chest hair as a knock-on effect of metabolic collapse.

1 Like

Jesus H Christ. More power to this guy for standing up for principle.

Old argument, of course sexism is wrong, the argument today is Individual empowerment which I hope we all agree with vs social feminism.

Wow. Serious sense of humour failure there: the joke revolved around the existence of elevators in department stores and the announcements that used to accompany each floor, not lingerie per se. It would have been the same joke if he’d said “housewares and appliances please”.

The lady needs to be sent to re-education camp, where she will be forced to watch Carry On movies and Benny Hill for hours on end.

1 Like

Or. “Are you being served?”

1 Like

It just occurred to me that the pinpoint source of her offense is the fact of a man mentioning the word ‘lingerie’. Which suggests, frankly, that she has a whole raft of festering issues with her own sexuality that would have had Freud writing up an enthusiastic case study on her.

The mistake he made is not apologising unreservedly for being offensive. That’s the key nowadays. It doesn’t matter what you do, or even what you didn’t do, just apologise for being offensive and you’re off the hook. Trudeau is an expert at this. He even chucks in the tears.

They just want to hear the apology. I guess it gives them a sense of power or control.

1 Like

As I’m sure you know that’s the main schism in modern feminism, and oddly enough it’s the older feminists who tend to support individual empowerment.

1 Like