You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘misogyny’ tag.
It’s hard to isolate hypocrisy with this bunch, but Harvey Weisntein’s abuse of women turned all into righteous monks. He tings all their Pavlovian bells. Hollywood? (like 🍊
) ✔️ Jewish? ✔️ Dem supporter? Rich & successful? and the Soros sin – donates to Dems!😱 ✔️ Which is why they all ignore their 😾 grabber to fight the real enemies
Some of the more notable
I knew 🍊
himself won’t resist.
this
The Albino rapist from the cupboard is also fighting the NYT
and the son of the NDA restrained ex wants Weissman NDAs released
this also made the cut
memories – good times
and
also
and the withholding the contraceptives is meant as punishment for slutery
which has even Lucifer pissed off
and this
and this exchange goes here too
000💃💃💃000
Advertisements
Elections results – ridiculously small turnout in NYC, 2 seats on congress picks by Dems
Nate Silver puts it against the usual disparaging of Dems pablum
and
In Hillary News
and this also happened
and also this
and this zing
and this on women in politics
and an interesting Miss America
what a great question for everyone
Mystery solved
Trying to walk back
but pride
and persistence
in other impeachment news
the Russia collusion impeachment count
using our social media
and also
and in voter rights
it’s designed to help one party only
– they’ll go straight to suppression
I was only scared of Jose because I read 2 models out of 3 outfits had it coming to NY. Then I heard they do tens of those and only 25% pointed to that outcome. Now
but this become more and more realistic
Can’t have a day without Nazi news in 🍊 times
and media ❤️ Nazis
ESPN too
and some good Nazi news
but the signing pen is not ready
and this needs to become a thing
and other nasty creatu
res
000💃💃💃000
From the medical business to the media to idiotic women, they all got on the Angeina Jolie bandwagon. For whatever reason she chose breast surgery, plastic or medical – it shouldn’t be our business. But she decided to make it so, so here is my reaction:
A healthy woman is hailed as brave for cutting her breasts because she might get cancer (she still might now, but better odds) I don’t know who came up with the 87% and 5 % numbers and how, but people take them on faith and miss one point: without surgery she might never get cancer. With it, she still could.
Yet the move is praised to high heaven – even elevated at the rank of “a mother’s duty”. NY Times promotes the tweet with the quote about telling her kids they don’t have to fear losing her to cancer. Keep your breasts and you are a bad mommy!
It’s nice how everyone is so cavalier with a woman’s body parts. Waiting for the praise for someone cutting testicles based on an 87% chance.
I have been called ignorant, anti-woman and how do I dare criticize her. I don’t. She wanted to raise awareness, I’m aware and this is what I know:
Genetics is in its infancy – not sure how reliable their cause/effect study is – and is there only one gene involved? The numbers are highly suspicious.
Cancer patients are less and less getting surgery these days. Boosting immunity is the state of the art treatment. With all the early screening, it was noticed that the body takes care of a great number of tumors, through its immune system.
Breasts, ovaries are not just man toys, baby-making organs. They are important parts of our body. Nerves, hormones important to our overall health are there. Lopping them off based on a “maybe” is not bravery in my book.
Oh, and this woman the whole medical science defers to today, used to carry blood vials of her spouse around her neck (they both did, Billy Bob and her) for a strange reason I forgot now.
And a balancing view
Reacting to Angelina Jolie’s Breast Cancer News
Preventive double mastectomies among women in that latter group have shot up by 188 percent since the late-1990s. The steepness of the rise suggests those operations were driven less by medical advice than by women’s exaggerated sense of risk of getting a new cancer in the other breast. According to one study, such women believed that risk to be more than 30 percent over 10 years when it was actually closer to 5 percent. I am concerned that the coverage of Jolie’s decision, if not handled carefully, will add fuel to a culture of fear, to a misunderstanding of risk that could compromise women’s health choices.
.
I once thought of naming my dog MoDo because she hates all girl dogs while getting along fine with the guys. I didn’t, because I like my dog.
NY Times’ Dowd Tries To Whitewash Her Awful Hillary Campaign Coverage
It’s a good article, so I won’t add anything to it except “what happened??????”
and not afraid to say so
The Daily News fresh from their Obamagasm, shows their true co;ors by displaying the same picture
I did not watch this non-event, but got a better perspective from this source
I guess this would show the same moment that NYC tabloids relished from a better angle and you’ll have to go to the source for their priceless narrative
On edit, the Gothamist has a good comment
A One Act Play About The NY Post’s Sexist Hillary Clinton Cover
..Excerpt
Post Editor Guy 1: So are we goin’ with “HELLARY: WHO’D WANT TO BENGHAZI THIS BROAD?!” or “MIDDLE SHEESH! WACKO WOMAN GETS SNIPPY AT SENATE” ?
Post Editor Guy 2: Hmmm, whaddya think Gary?
Post Editor Guy 3: [Brushing 7-11 Taquito crumbs off double chin]
Recent Comments