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.

MoDo is still lying, of course, but she is trying to make herself look better NOT BY ATTACKING HILLARY?

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]

Not Your Sweetie

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031