The irony is that this "Anti white heterosexual male" doctrine keeps getting repeated by white men and women.

Don't promote women and ethnic minorities in the courtroom just to fill quotas, says former top female judge

Don't promote women and ethnic minorities in the courtroom just to fill quotas, says former top female judge | Mail Online

This video shows a very important point - wisdom comes with age. The older lady said some good things in the beginning, whereas the younger one just regurgitated feminist indoctrination. Can she not see that her actions are proving everything she says as false?

The fact this broad works at Cosmopolitan magazine is enough for me to know she's full of crap.

Quote from haute macabre

The fact this broad works at Cosmopolitan magazine is enough for me to know she's full of crap.

Quite so!


She seems to exude the attitude of ‘Daddy, Daddy make them give that job because I want to play in the boardroom’ [because I’ve such a huge entitlement complex and my lovely ego thinks I’m worth it (even though I would never work to the sacrifices that other board members make)]

At 5.55 to 6.00, notice how she dismisses Edwina Currie (the older woman) about it being a “huge generalisation” that women aren’t interested in science. This is a typical feminist verbal manipulation to quash inconvenient truths because it is a valid generalisation that women in general are less interested in science than men generally are. I find that a major part of feminist manipulation of what we must think is the use of dismissing clearly observable traits of human nature as unacceptable generalisations. It is a clearly observable generalisation that men are more interested in cars than women are – it’s observable human nature!

Generalisations exist; and any intelligent person should consider how valid they are, because to just dismiss them because they are generalisations is tantamount to being verbal thought police – like feminists are when they manipulate this type of shaming tactic. It is a valid generalisation that women are less interested in competitive sport, as is that women prefer to be proposed by a man rather propose to a man for dates and marriage.

To dismiss these because they are generalisations, manipulates us to dismiss the true general nature of people so that feminists can force unwarranted social values falsely in their favour.

Frankly the Cosmo woman strikes me as a verbally manipulating air head who would benefit from being slapped in the face with a very wet and smelly halibut (turbot in the US I think).

Generalisation dismissals are one of the biggest feminist shaming techniques to prevent us beholding the truth in favour of feminist lies. If it somehow promoted feminist privilege they would dismiss the generalisation that women spend far more on clothing and cosmetics than men do, by projecting shame on you for saying so.

What she doesn't seem to understand about generalizations is that, by their very definition, are not specific, nor do they apply to everyone. I am not offended when people say that GENERALLY females don't care for science...it is true. What would offend me is someone saying that, because of my sex, I obviously don't like science. This would then be stereotyping and untrue, as I've always enjoyed science, especially my college courses.

But ask me how many of each sex were in my high school Bio/Chem Club? I will readily admit that of the 21 of us, I was one of four females. Numbers do not lie...

Quote from FloatyBoaty

This video shows a very important point - wisdom comes with age. The older lady said some good things in the beginning, whereas the younger one just regurgitated feminist indoctrination. Can she not see that her actions are proving everything she says as false?

Sometimes my statements could use some expounding...

Quote from Trauma Fried Brains

She seems to exude the attitude of ‘Daddy, Daddy make them give that job because I want to play in the boardroom’ [because I’ve such a huge entitlement complex and my lovely ego thinks I’m worth it (even though I would never work to the sacrifices that other board members make)]

At 5.55 to 6.00, notice how she dismisses Edwina Currie (the older woman) about it being a “huge generalization” that women aren’t interested in science. This is a typical feminist verbal manipulation to quash inconvenient truths because it is a valid generalization that women in general are less interested in science than men generally are. I find that a major part of feminist manipulation of what we must think is the use of dismissing clearly observable traits of human nature as unacceptable generalizations. It is a clearly observable generalization that men are more interested in cars than women are – it’s observable human nature!

Generalizations exist; and any intelligent person should consider how valid they are, because to just dismiss them because they are generalizations is tantamount to being verbal thought police – like feminists are when they manipulate this type of shaming tactic. It is a valid generalization that women are less interested in competitive sport, as is that women prefer to be proposed by a man rather propose to a man for dates and marriage.

To dismiss these because they are generalizations, manipulates us to dismiss the true general nature of people so that feminists can force unwarranted social values falsely in their favor.

Frankly the Cosmo woman strikes me as a verbally manipulating air head who would benefit from being slapped in the face with a very wet and smelly halibut (turbot in the US I think).

Generalization dismissals are one of the biggest feminist shaming techniques to prevent us beholding the truth in favor of feminist lies. If it somehow promoted feminist privilege they would dismiss the generalization that women spend far more on clothing and cosmetics than men do, by projecting shame on you for saying so.

Quote from FloatyBoaty

Sometimes my statements could use some expounding...

Mmmm; peculiar.


I always feel that I have the opposite problem. It’s one of the reasons I don’t post as often as I used to.

I didn't need to have seen a video which undoubtedly cycles a continuous loop of the same-themed arguments which are regularly debunked here.

Thrust forth a feminist myth and I will happily debunk it, wrap it up and insist you eat it.