19 July 2015

A Neat Blog You MUST Read!


There's a neat blog I found out about!  I can't remember how I found it (I think it was on a Manosphere forum or blog), but it's a blog all single guys have to check out.  For that matter, married guys need to check it out also.  It is: Marriage Is Purgatory.  The guy has one post about the fights he has with his wife, which is quite sobering.

The gentleman who writes it lives in a foreign country.  He doesn't say what country he's in; he only says that they don't speak English, and that men don't get put through the ringer when they get divorced.  He's originally from America, but he's an expat now who teaches English in his new land.  He married a local gal after he got her pregnant.  Reading it makes me take pause for getting married, because his then GF was wonderful to be around before marriage; afterwards, she wasn't so wonderful, and I will leave it at that.

The reason it makes me take pause is because, until my South American GF reneged on her promise to help me move down there, I was going to do the same thing.  She was going to come up here, help me clean and organize the house, pack, etc.; after that, we were going to head back down to her home country.  Unlike the host of Marriage Is Purgatory, I would not have been single first; I would have been married before moving down there.

Anyway, READ this blog, Fellas!  It's a sobering, bird's eye, man's eye view of what marriage is like.  It's also sobering because this fellow American lives in a foreign country; he married a LOCAL gal; and even so, his miserable.  Even after taking the red pill, he's still miserable.  Perhaps my GF did me a favor by breaking her promise to me?  I was going to do something similar-move down to a country that doesn't treat men like the US does, marry a local gal, teach English, etc.  I still plan to leave the States in the near future, but I may do so as a single man.  Bye for now, Fellas...


28 June 2015

SJWs Are Ruining Lives Everywhere


I had a long time reader send in the story you are about to read.  It's edited for anonymity.  However, the setting and the identity of the principals (i.e. the reader and her family) are not important.  What IS important is that SJWs (social justice warriors) are all over the world; they're running amok with their inimical ideology; and they're ruining lives in the process.

The story you are about to read occurred in a First World country.  Though English isn't the first language there, it is widely used.  This country has incorporated many, if not all, the worst characteristics of Western countries.  Feminism is alive and well there.  To put this another way, those of you in the Western world, particularly if you are from an English speaking country, will recognize this story; you will recognize it because it could have happened in YOUR country.  Truth be told, it already has!  You just don't know about it, because the Praetorian Guard media won't report it; they won't report stuff like this, because they're SJWs themselves working to advance The Cause.  I'll intersperse some commentary, though not much will be needed.  Here goes...


Hi Mark,

I've checked out your blog recently and I saw you aren't moving to South America in the end; I guess you'll post the whole story when you're ready.

Yeah, that's a long story, which I won't tell here.  The short story is this: my GF, who was supposed to come up here to help me prepare for the move, got cold feet.  She was supposed to have been here two months ago, but she still isn't here.  That's the essence of what happened.
Having said that, I still plan on going to South America, because I like it down there.  I like the climate, the food, and the people.  However, rather than moving down there in a few months, it'll more likely be a few years.  As my late mother would say, better late than never, right?
The reason I'm contacting you is because I want to tell you of something that might be of interest to you and other men, single or married, who visit your blog and similar sites. 

To sum it up, a social worker has messed up our life. 

I'm not surprised; social workers are in the family wrecking business...
What happened, you ask? Are you sitting down? Well, one of our neighbors, who happens to be a social worker, accused my husband of being a child molester. Yes, yes. We were never more shocked in our lives than when this evil, twisted rumor finally reached our ears! What did she base her vile accusation on? Why, on seeing my husband talking to a neighbor's little girl and showing her around our garden, and on my husband displaying affection and kissing and hugging his own little daughters. Obviously you can't go to the police and report stuff like that, but in her twisted mind, it was enough to throw the accusation into the air. She just went behind our backs and "warned" all our neighbors, one by one, to be careful with their kids. 

Maria (not her real name), you and your DH are fortunate.  I say that because, here in the USA, one COULD go to the police with an accusation like that and make it stick; that's especially true if that someone is-gag-a 'respected government official'!  To put it another way, your DH would have been interrogated by the police here, and possibly arrested.
Obviously it's possible to file a lawsuit against her for slander, and we are going to do that, if for no other reason then so she'll think twice before spewing her poison on anyone else, but unfortunately it's impossible to take back what has already been said. Our life in this community is ruined. People are trying to get us to move, rather aggressively I'm afraid, and my kids haven't had friends over for weeks, and finally I understand why.

If you can file a lawsuit successfully, do it; these SJWs need to be taught a lesson!  They need to be taught many lessons, actually.  SJWs like your neighbor are meddling bullies, and the only thing they respect is forceful push back.  When someone fights back effectively, SJWs chicken out and run, because they are cowards at heart.  If they weren't, they wouldn't have a problem with those who hold dissenting opinions; they wouldn't try to silence and destroy those who disagree with them.  So yeah, take it to her, please!

There's also your good name to consider.  Since you're a Bible believing family, you cannot ignore Proverbs 22:1.  It says that a good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.  What this verse is saying is that a good reputation is MORE VALUABLE than a great fortune.  Since the good name of your family has been trashed, you need to do whatever you can to get it back.
Please, if you can, publish this story anonymously and warn every fellow man to be very, very careful around social workers. During their studies, they are indoctrinated to see every man as a wife abuser or potential child molester, and unfortunately they often develop a twisted world view that can really rip families apart for no reason. 

Actually, there IS a reason for this madness and insanity: the powers that be want to destroy the family, so they can take over the world.  SJWs like your neighbor are simply useful idiots advancing the establishment of a world government; they are pawns in the war on humanity, though they're too stupid and indoctrinated to see this.  Why else would this sort of thing be happening all over the world?  Why else would there be domestic violence public announcements on the TV in South America?  Simple-to undermine men, and ultimately undermine the family.
You see, Maria, men are natural troublemakers; we like to stir things up-especially if we're bored!  Also, men (real men, that is) don't run from a fight; though we won't seek one out, we won't run from one, either.  This is especially true if someone is attacking or hurting our wives and families; we'll lay down our lives to protect our wives and families.  Well, if you undermine men; if you take away their stake in society; if you give then nothing to live or fight for; then they won't.  That means they won't resist tyranny, because they have no 'skin in the game', as it were; they have nothing to fight for, so they don't fight anyone-including a wannabe tyrant taking over their country.  When the old Soviet Union was first formed, they made easy divorce and abortion widely available and easy to get for precisely this reason-to neutralize the opposition, i.e. men.  That is the real reason why your story is happening in all the First World countries...
Take care,
Indeed, I shall.  I wish you and your DH the best of luck in going after (legally, of course) this SJW cretin; go get her!  I also wish you and DH the best in your future endeavors.  Thanks for writing, and your story WILL be a help to my readers...


23 May 2015

How Women REALLY Think...


I am back!  I took a hiatus because I thought I was going to be expatting to South America, but that doesn't look like it will be happening now.  In coming weeks, I'll tell the story.

Anyway, Avenging Sword found this poster on Mancoat.  I liked it, so I thought I would share it with you guys....

I thought that was good.  Have a good day now...


16 October 2014

Impeach the Bastard!


President Barack Hussein Obama should be IMPEACHED-yeah, I said it!  Why?  Because, he has committed treason against the American people, that's why.  What is the definition of treason?  Taking actions to deliberately harm one's nation would constitute treason, would they not?  Would it not constitute treason if a nation's president or prime minister  DELIBERATELY IMPORTED a deadly disease, such as Ebola?  Isn't it true that a government's first duty is to protect its citizens?  Who is the leader of our government?  Is it not President Barack Hussein Obama?

In Article II, Section 4, the Constitution of the United States provides the reasons for impeachment and conviction of the President and other public officials.  It says: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Let me ask you this, dear reader: how much higher a crime can you have beside the DELIBERATE IMPORTATION of people from a part of the world (west Africa) known to have an epidemic of a fatal disease, hmmm? If that doesn't constitute treason, then pray tell, what does?

Ergo, President Obama and his team of America haters/destroyers should be impeached.  Impeach the bastard, and do it yesterday!  After that, convict him and try him for death!  Isn't that a bit extreme, MarkyMark?  No, it is not.  Why?  Because, by importing untold thousands of people (many of whom could be carrying the Ebola virus, BTW!) from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone,
President Obama and his minions of sentenced US to death-and we committed no crime!  I wish we could confine Ebola to Washington, DC, so it could wipe out all the crooks there; then, America would be a better place.

Those are my thoughts.  President Barack Hussein Obama should be IMPEACHED!  I said impeach the bastard!  By allowing continued airline flights from west Africa, BHO is deliberately importing a deadly disease and turning it loose on the American people; he has deliberately sentenced us to death!  He has committed treason; he has more than committed high crimes against the American people.  For this, he deserves impeachment, conviction, and punishment.  I won't hold my breath, however; after all, it would be 'racist' to do that to "America's first black president"...


01 October 2014

WTF Are We Doing with Ebola?!


I don't get it.  WHY are we letting in Ebola patients and sufferers?!  Doesn't the federal government know that Ebola is a nasty, DEADLY disease?!  First, we let those doctors back in a couple of months ago.  Now, we have an Ebola patient in Dallas, TX!  WTF?!

Concerning the doctors, they were medical missionaries trying to help Ebola sufferers in Africa.  God bless 'em for it, but, by exposing themselves to the disease, they got it themselves.  What did they THINK would happen?  They put themselves at risk by working with those who have it, and they got it themselves.  If you play with fire, you're going to get burnt.

Ah, but our government, rather than protecting us, the citizens and taxpayers, brought them to Atlanta for treatment!  Why weren't these medical missionaries treated in Africa, rather than bringing them back here?  Our government told us that there was no risk for us catching it; that Ebola isn't airborne, etc.  However, they were brought over on a specially equipped plane; those treating them were wearing special suits; and they were treated in a special section at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta.  If Ebola were not dangerous, why the precautions, hmmm?

Then, there's the matter of the non-medical traveler bringing the disease in to the country.  WTF are we still ALLOWING flights to and from Africa?!  Why are we allowing people to travel between the US (where we did not have Ebola) and Africa (a hotbed of Ebola)?  Why?  Can anyone explain that one to me?  Furthermore, how many people were on the flight and possibly exposed to it, hmmm?  If I didn't know better, I'd say our government WANTS Ebola to be introduced into America...

Those are my thoughts.  I'm glad I'll be leaving this hell hole next year!  Hopefully, I won't get Ebola before I do.  Have a good day now...


08 September 2014

Thoughts on Joan Rivers


I don't know about Rivers' history with Johnny Carson, nor did I see any of her comedy routines.  I only knew her from her red carpet commentary..  I wasn't a fan of Joan Rivers.  I didn't like her, nor did I dislike her; IOW, I didn't care for her one way or the other.

That said, she had her own, unique style.  When she opened her mouth, you KNEW it was Joan Rivers!  Even without seeing her, you'd know her when you heard her.  In that sense, she was better and more talented than the cookie cutter actresses we have today.

Finally, I like her comment about Barack & Michelle Obama.  Rivers said that Barack was gay, and that Michelle was a tranny!  She said it unapologetically and without equivocation.  You can find the clip on YouTube.

Those are my thoughts on Joan Rivers.


27 July 2014

What Men Should Know BEFORE Getting Married


I was reading Dalrock's post about the secret the KGB couldn't keep, followed by the comments.  One of the respondents linked to a post on the Happy Bachelor's forum, where I found THIS...


Date: 2008-01-01, 6:15PM EST

I think that there is a lot of unduly inflammatory and derogatory talk about women and marriage these days, and I believe that this stifles men from understanding several truisms about marriage. Women are not bad people, out to destroy men, or trying to trick men. Women and society simply have certain characteristics and men should be aware of these characteristics when they decide whether or not to get married.

1. You will be having sex once a month. This is not because women are trying to withhold sex from you. It is also not because women view sex (and particularly fellatio) as a loss leader or necessary evil before marriage. It is simply because women (unlike men) need to be seduced before sex. This means that during the courtship period where there are many romantic and fun events going on, she will want to have sex more often. After marriage, on the other hand, there will be far fewer of these romantic and fun events because (particularly if there are children) there is a lot of work to be done in order for the family to function smoothly. You will notice that if you take your wife to Paris or buy her jewelry, then you will all of sudden be having sex as often as you did before marriage. Some men would interpret this as a woman being some type of gold-digger or prostitute. However, it is simply a reflection that if a woman is feeling elated (something that will not happen very often after dealing with screaming kids all day), then she will want to have sex.

2. Women need a lot of attention. If you have ambitions on having a great career, then you should definitely not get married. This is because wives take a lot of time. You will need to speak to her on the phone, be home for dinner, go on vacations with her, and so one. Many men think that women will understand and accept that careers take a lot of time and effort to build, but this is not the case. Women, however, are unwilling to be left sitting at home all day until you arrive at 10:00 pm because you had a big meeting. Again, inflammatory language about women being dream killers or life destroyers is not helpful. You simply need to know that careers take a lot of time and your wife will also take a lot of time, and there will not be enough time available to have both. To put it another way, how would you like to live with someone you rarely saw? Wouldnt you want to find someone that you could at least see on a regular basis?

3. Women become less attractive over time. First, they gain weight. This is because married women have a lot to do (ie. taking care of the kids) and it is difficult to make exercising a priority. When they were younger, they could count on their high metabolism to keep thin, but that high metabolism is long gone. It is not that your wife is intentionally ballooning up after marriage, but this is what happens. If you cant accept being with a fattie, then dont get married. Second, wrinkles etc. appear and there is little that even the finest and expensive plastic surgeon can do. If you dont believe me, type in the name of any aging movie star and see how she looked in her prime and how she looks today.)

4. Marriage is a partnership. This, to my mind, is one of the hardest concepts for men to understand. They typically think of marriage as being what it used to be - a lifetime commitment. You need to understand that in a partnership (any partnership), if one person is unhappy, then that person can leave at anytime. Saying till death do us part in church is only binding in church. Once you are out the church doors, the marriage is determinable at will.

5. Men are always the losers in a divorce. If you or your wife want to get divorced, then the court will follow a very set pattern. The first issue is money. Since you have a greater earning capacity than your wife, the court will order that you must work to provide money to support the family. The second issue is custody of the kids. Since you are busy working, your wife will get custody. The third issue is the residence of the kids. Since your wife will decide that she wants a fresh start on the other side of the country and since it is in the best interests of the kids to have a happy custodial parent, the court will allow her to move across the country.

6. It is crucial that you ask your potential wife if she will change her last name to yours after marriage. If she refuses, then you will know that she is a very independent women and does not have family values. Any aspirations that you may have of someone calling your house and hearing an outgoing phone message saying that they have reached the Smith family will be over when she says she is not changing her last name. Also, there is going to be big problem with the last of the children, because your wife is not going to want the last name of her kids to be different than her last name. You should note that in some jurisdications (like Ontario, Canada), women have the sole right to name the children. Men have no right to any input whatsoever.

7. Your only role in the family is to pay the bills. This is very hard for men to accept, but women are absolutely convinced that they know what is best. You will not have discussions with your wife. Instead, she will explain to you why things must be done her way. This will, in effect, limit your input into the family to supplying the money that is needed to allow the family to function. You should also know that making money will be seen as very easy by your wife and not something that is worthy of respect. This is because she will know about all the hardships she suffered that day (because she experienced them), but the hardships you suffered will be foreign and unrelatable to her. Also, if you do not fulfill your role of paying the bills, then your wife will divorce you. This will be dressed up as her not being happy but you will notice very quickly that her new husband, coincidentally, is able to pay a lot of bills. (I would add that your only defence in a bad marriage is to quit your job. To be clear, dont threaten to quit your job, just quit it. This will shock your wife into seeing that you were doing something useful for the family afterall.)

8. You will not be able to watch what you want on television. This may sound trivial, but you should definitely try unplugging your television for a couple of months before getting married.

9. Ugly women can cause just as much trouble as good looking women. I am only making this point, because I know that some men think that the problems with women only apply to very attractive women and so if they find a less attractive woman, then they wont have to deal with the above. This is not true. Women behave very similarly in similar circumstances. Even the ugliest woman among us believes that she is beautiful on the inside and once you get married she will act as married women do.

I know what you are thinking. That your girlfriend is different and that the above wont apply to you. You are also thinking that you and your girlfriend are in love and that this again makes you an exception. You are, of course, free to think what you want, but I wish I had been warned.


What more could I POSSIBLY add?


01 June 2014

M113 to Area Police Force?!


Yesterday, I was out riding my Suzuki.  It was a beautiful day in North Jersey, so why not?  I took a ride up PA 611, then 191 to Stroudsburg.  That was  ride I used to make all the time, but I hadn't done it in a while.  Anyway, while I was out and about, I took a ride over to the Stroudsburg area of PA.  I took a quick ride through ESU to see if any cute college chicks were still around; they were.  After that, on the way out of town, I saw something that made me do a double take...

As I was crossing the Brown Street bridge, I saw a small, single axle dump truck hauling a trailer.  That isn't unusual; you see many small dump trucks hauling trailers with backhoes, bobcats, etc.  What WAS unusual about this particular dump truck & trailer was what was on the trailer: an M113 armored personnel carrier!  Not only that, it was painted in livery denoting it was for the "Stroud Area Region" police.  WTF does a small area police department need a M113?!  I could understand a big city police department wanting one for SWAT operations against real bad guys or terrorists, but you don't see either of those in Stroudsburg, PA!

The M113 was painted in a semi-gloss black with white lettering.  The word 'police' was in large, capital letters, while the the department name was painted in smaller letters below 'police'.  I did some quick searching, and it seems that Stroud Township, Stroudsburg, and East Stroudsburg have combined their police departments into the Stroud Area Regional Police Department.  Again, I could NOT believe what I was seeing, because the Stroudsburg area is a nice, sleepy college town with a good, regional hospital.

Oh, by the way, the truck towing the M113 went over a 13 ton bridge!  That's right; they violated the weight limit of the bridge.  According to Wikipedia, the M113 alone weighs 13.6 tons.  That's short tons, which is the ton used in the US; in fact, we just use ton to denote the 2,000 lb short ton.  The truck and trailer had to weigh another five or six tons minimum, for a combined weight of of about 19 tons.  Not only was the bridge rated for 13 tons (much less than the approximate 19 tons of the truck, trailer, and APC); it was old, so it may not even bee good for 13 tons anymore.  Ah, but because it was a police vehicle, I guess it was ok; after all, the blue gun thugs can and do do what they want.

In closing, I cannot believe that a small, PA police force is using an M113 APC!  I could understand a big city department needing one, but not a small police department.  When would they ever need to do SWAT operations, let alone fight real bad guys with real weapons justifying the need for an M113?  In any case, the police are indeed being militarized, and it's not a good thing.  Until next time...


17 May 2014

A Warning from Judge Napolitano


Here's a sober warning from one of America's foremost Constitutional scholars and watchdogs, Judge Andrew Napolitano...

Scary stuff, isn't it?

24 April 2014

A Good Insight in to Women


I heard this song while skating recently, and I thought it was funny.  This song shows the true, VAPID nature of women.  After watching this, you'll have to ask yourself: we let these creatures vote?!

What more can I say?


21 April 2014

The Law, Sir, Is an Ass!


I cannot make this up; I simply cannot!  Read this story, and shake your head.  Here's a prime example of the old cliche' about the law being an ass.  As always, my commentary is provided free of charge...


Earlier, Prep Rally brought you the story of Plymouth (Mich.) Salem High soccer coach Scott Duhl, who was allegedly fired over a parent complaint before the start of the season. Well, across town at Plymouth High in Canton, Mich., another complaint has the prep sports community as equally fired up.

You're going to love this-not!

Six years ago, parents of Plymouth High's boys' varsity team raised money and built stadium seating so they could watch from above a black chain-link fence that made spectating difficult, according to WJBK-TV. The parents also installed a new scoreboard for the baseball field.

Note two things here.  One, the parents paid for these field improvements with their OWN money!  Two, that this money is above and beyond the school taxes they already pay on their homes.

Now, the school must tear it all down. The U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation following an anonymous complaint. Ultimately, officials demanded that the seating and scoreboard be torn down because the upgrades are superior to Plymouth's girls' softball facilities (pictured). The boys' seating is also not handicap accessible, which is a separate violation of government regulations.

Here we have a woman and feminist (redundant?) whinging that it's not fair that the boys' ball field has nicer seating-waaaaaaahhh!  Never mind the fact that it was the boys' PARENTS who paid for it out of their own money.  This is from the same Obama Administration that has an office for women and girls, yet has no equivalent for men.  You have to love the hypocrisy here!

Plymouth High School superintendent Michael Meissen said the seats and scoreboard will be preserved until the district decides how to remedy the situation. Meissen told WJBK-TV that the school wants to follow the government's regulations and be "fair to everyone," but it does not have the funds to upgrade the girls' softball bleachers. The school reportedly plans to install a new scoreboard on the softball field, though.

Why should the school upgrade the girls' softball field bleacher seats?  Why should they give the girls preferential treatment here?  Why shouldn't the girls' PARENTS pay for improved seating, just like the boys' parents did?  Finally, what would the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights response be if the school upgraded the girls' field, when the boys field received no such largesse from the school?  I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?

There are obvious Title IX implications to this story, as federally funded schools are required to provide equal opportunity for both boys' and girls' sports. Forty-two years after the law was passed, schools and colleges across the country are still struggling to comply with the rules in the face of shrinking budgets. Plymouth joins a long list of schools that may be in violation of Title IX, whether they realize it or not.

Uh, pardon me, but what Title IX implications are there here?  Does anyone care to explain THAT one to me?  While the school itself may receive federal funding, the improvement to the boys' baseball field did not.  Since the parents paid for the new seats and scoreboard themselves, does that not mean that no government funding (either federal, state, or local) was used?

Furthermore, how do spectator seats provide or diminish opportunity for sports participation?!  Don't the girls have the opportunity to play softball if they are so inclined?  Don't the boys have the opportunity to do likewise?  After all, don't they each have ball fields on which they can play their respective sports?  Pardon me, but how does Title IX even apply in this instance?!

Of course, there could be a quick resolution to this controversy. The girls' softball parents might also think about raising money to build their own stadium seating. It seemed to work for the boys' baseball parents for six years.

DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!  We have a winner!  THAT is how this whole mess can be solved-provided the girls' parents are so inclined, of course.  The fact that they haven't ponied up one, red cent for improved seating and scoreboards on the girls' softball field; the fact that they haven't done this over the preceding six years tells us all we need to know; it tells us that it isn't that important to the girls' parents-duh!  Until next time...


13 April 2014

Former Obama Supporter NAILS It!


I've seen this video on Mancoat, FB, and other places.  It's gone viral.  It's a video of Carey Wedler, a former Obama supporter, burning one of his shirts.  In the video, she also lists a few of Obama's crimes against the American people.

Though I do wish she mentioned Obama's use of the IRS to squelch political opponents, I think she did a pretty good job. One thing she's DEFINITELY right about is the lack of meaningful differences between the two major parties, something of which I need to be reminded. Thanks, and have a good day now... MarkyMark

13 March 2014

M-18 Hellcat


I just watched this documentary again.  Yes, I've seen it before; the last time I saw it was with my late mother, who died two years ago.  My mom, born just before the beginning of WWII, was old enough to remember Pearl Harbor; she was a little girl when the attack happened.  Ma always loved & admired the WWII generation, which was one reason why she enjoyed this documentary you're about to see.  Not only did it depict a WWII machine; it was reunited with its commander, the guy who rode in it during the war.  Enjoy...

What I especially loved about this series of documentaries was that they were about guys doing guy stuff-rebuilding awesome machines!  No chickies here-can't break a nail now, can we?  I also like the connection to history featured in these documentaries.  I know that this particular episode choked me up when I finished watching it a few minutes ago.  Well, bye for now...


09 March 2014

Screw Sheryl Sandberg & The Horse She Rode In On!


As I so often say, I CANNOT make this stuff up; I just cannot!  My imagination isn't that good.  Anyway, it seems that Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, wants to ban the word, "bossy", because of all its negative connotations and how it supposedly holds women back from pursuing leadership positions-gag!  Vance, a member of Mancoat, found this; it was too good to pass up, so I'm posting it here.  I'll post the article below, and render my unique brand of commentary and analysis...


Sheryl Sandberg Wants To Ban The Word 'Bossy' 
Jillian D'Onfro
Mar. 7, 2014, 9:03 AM 

Sheryl Sandberg's ninth grade teacher once called her out for being too aggressive and too "bossy."

People use the word to describe someone who likes giving orders, someone they consider pushy or domineering. The word is inherently negative, and yet it is almost always only applied to women. While man is a "boss," a woman is "bossy."

No, you dumb bitch (a Miss Jillian D'Onofrio wrote this poor excuse of an article), bossy isn't applied exclusively to women; it's applied to men too!  I know, because I and other coworkers (both male AND female, I might add!) have used it to describe asshole male bosses too.  Folks, it only gets better, as you shall soon see...

Thankfully, Facebook COO and "Lean In" author Sandberg didn't let that early criticism stop her from continuing to be a strong leader.

There's no stopping this strong, independent woman!   Never mind the fact that she: 1) took advantage of preferential treatment in college admissions; 2) never mind the fact that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action when hired; and 3) never mind the fact that, because the all too often held "we just have to give women a chance" meme held by the management of Whoreporate America, she was given preferential treatment on the career ladder, enabling a quick and easy trip to the executive suite.  Strong, independent woman, my ass!

Now, Sandberg is teaming up with former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and CEO of the Girl Scouts Anna Maria Ch├ívez to launch a public service campaign called "Ban Bossy," according to a Parade Magazine interview

Are you KIDDING me?!  Are you freakin' kidding me?!  Waaaaahhhh, we don't like the word, so we're going to ban it-waaaaaaahhhhh!  Leave it to a woman & a feminist (redundant?) to ban words, ideas, and beliefs that they don't like.  Women & feminists are always seeking comfort and comity, so we can't have any dissent & disagreement here-no sir!  Or should I say, no ma'am?

Oh, and did you notice that former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, is a member of this campaign?!  If memory serves me right, she was a member of the Bush Administration (Bush 43, not Bush 41)?  You see, feminists are found in BOTH political parties, even though they're predominantly in the Democrat Party.

Another thing I'd like to point out here is this: banning the word will not stop its use; people will simply be more covert in using it.  People who have to work for a bossy person will simply use it amongst themselves; they won't use it where the higher-ups will hear it.  Did you ever think of THAT, Ladies?

Before I forget, Miss D'Onofrio, you're a poor excuse of a writer!  You actually got PAID to write that preceding, clumsy phrase?  What clumsy phrase are you alluding to, MarkyMark?  I'm referring to this: "...and CEO of the Girl Scouts Anna Marie Chavez...".   It would have been better to say: Girl Scouts CEO Anna Marie Chavez, Miss D'Onofrio-and I'm not even a professional writer!  And what about capitalizing the title, Secretary of State, hmmm?  I learned about that in eighth grade, Sweet Pee!  You know, Miss D'Onofrio is living proof that women are beneficiaries of affirmative action; she actually got PAID to write such a poor turn of phrase.  Who is the editor over there at Business Insider?  Why did he let such an obvious faux pas past him?

Because of the negativity built into the word and its potential to stop girls from pursuing leadership roles, they want to strike it from common vernacular and empower women and young girls.

Excuse me, but I'm confused here.  I thought girls and women were strong, independent, and empowered.  I thought that they could do anything a man could do, and do it better.  Yet, we're to believe that, because of one, little word, girls are being discouraged from pursuing leadership positions; they're too weak and fragile to overcome one, unpleasant word.  So, which is it?  Are women strong, independent, and empowered, capable of doing anything?  Or are they such fragile little flowers who need a word banned?  Which is it?!  Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways, Ladies...

“Women still represent only 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. And more worrisome is that the number has been stagnant for a decade," Sandberg told Parade. "What hasn’t changed fast enough is our acceptance and encouragement of female leadership. That goes for all of us – parents, teachers, managers, society, everyone.”

Uh, Miss Sandberg, might there be-gasp-a REASON for that?  Might there be a reason that the number of female, Fortune 500 CEOs has remained stagnant?  Could it have something to do with the CHOICES women make with respect to their lifestyles?  Isn't it true that women will often take more flexible, less lucrative jobs so they can spend more time with the families?  Isn't it also true that these choices will impact women's abilities to rise to more lucrative and more demanding positions in a company?  If someone wants more pay, will they not have to accept more responsibility to go with it?  Will they not have to-gasp-give the company a reason to pay that person more?

My brother is a VP of a well known company (a household name everyone would know), and he NEVER, ever works less than 50 hours a week; in fact, he considers a 40 hour week a vacation!  THAT is the kind of dedication it takes to rise to the executive suite, and it's not everyone has that level of dedication.  Furthermore, on average, men work 200 hours more per year than woman do; that is to say, over the course of a year, a man will work the equivalent of five, normal (i.e. 40 hour) work weeks!  Gee, when it comes time to promote someone to a demanding position, who will the company pick?  Will they pick the woman who leaves on time or early to spend time with her kids?  Or will they give that promotion to the guy who's willing to go the extra mile?  Who, in short, provides extra value to the company?

You know, when I was working in Whoreporate America (I worked at two, well known Fortune 500 companies, household names everyone would know), women we always promoted ahead of the guys-always!  In fact, when I was new there, a biker chick told me that, if I wanted to get ahead, I'd have to have boobs and a vagina.  Only the division president was a man; everyone else in positions of leadership was a woman!  It's not that women aren't given chances to rise to leadership; if anything, they're given too much preference, I think; no, women simply aren't willing to do what it TAKES to rise to the very top-end of story.

They hope the Ban Bossy campaign will not only start an open dialogue about women in leadership and their obstacles, but help inspire young girls to speak up and seek out leadership roles early.

Oh, gag a maggot!  Either women are strong, independent, empowered, and capable of anything; or, they're such fragile little flowers who cower at the mere mention of an unpleasant word.  Which is it?!  If they're strong, independent, and empowered, why does a mere word need to be banned?  If women are everything we're told they are, should a mere word matter?

You know what needs to be banned?  It's PC, fascist bitches like Sheryl Sandberg!  I feel sorry for the poor SOBs who have to work under her.  After all, she considers "bossy" a compliment; she considers it a good thing!  Well, I and others who've had to work for bossy people consider it many things, but none of them are good.  Until next time...


28 February 2014

Don't Worry about Looks, by Chris in Oregon


There was a discussion on Happy Bachelors about what attracts women to certain men.  Here were Christopher in Oregon's thoughts on this...



Let me hammer this point home:

It does NOT matter what you look like physically. Every so-called ugly man could bed down the most beautiful women on the planet. All it takes is money. Every woman has her price. EVERY woman. You could look like something out of a grade-B horror movie, but if you've got $100 million dollars, pretty much every broad alive will spread her legs for you.

All it ever takes is money. The more money you have, the more available she becomes. If you're rich, ugly becomes "rugged". Fat becomes "solid". Three eyes and horns on your head become...well, I don't know. But if you've got three eyes and horns as well as $100 million, you WILL get laid with any woman you choose.

A woman is a whore by nature. Period.

So stop this useless whining about whether or not your looks are acceptable to these foul, smelly broads. If you just have to get laid, then get rich.

While we're on the subject, I'm reminded of something from long ago. In high school, in my senior year, we all took showers after gym class. Or maybe it was my junior year. There was this guy in gym class, James. He had the tiniest dick I've ever seen on a guy. Like a tiny button mushroom. He used to get teased about it. A lot. He was dull average in the looks department. Wore glasses. Not the least bit athletic. Kind of reclusive. But, his father was the head of some company with several hundred employees. The kid was slated to inherit, and ultimately, he did inherit- a lot.

Guess what this dinky-dick kid's girlfriend looked like? Yeah, she was a knockout. Drop-dead gorgeous to the extreme. I know he was banging her at the time, the only question was "how?" (And with what?) But, she was all over this weird kid. We were all jealous as hell.

So, stop worrying about looks.

Christopher in Oregon


Chris has a point.  Look at Donald Trump.  How many hotties has he married in their prime?  At least three that I can think of.  First was Ivana.  When she accumulated some wear & tear, the Donald went for the busty, blond Georgia peach of Marla Maples.  Now, he's married to Melania Knauss, who was a model.  I have ONE question to ask you people: if Donald Trump were collecting Social Security checks rather than being a billionaire, do you REALLY think that he'd have any female attention at all, let alone from some of the most desirable women on the planet?  I think we all know the answer to that one!  IOW, Christopher in Oregon is right.  Until next time...