Occupy Wall Street. “Eradicate Males.”
Filmed by ABC News on November 16, 2011, the Occupy Wall Street march carried a sign saying “Eradicate Males.” In the still photo, unlike the one broadcast on ABC Network News, the sign carrier apparently is not displaying her hate sign as prominently as in the video.
This level of sexist hate by organized feminism has been their real goal for more than a century, but seldom is it disclosed in public. In any less radical group than Occupy Wall Street that kind of advocacy of Holocaust style extermination of half the human race would not be tolerated, but this is the radical Bolsheviks of OWS. Their psychotic hate for themselves and all productive people is what fuels their protest. Eradicating half the human race, the half that produces all the food, clothing, shelter, and their iPhones, is what they call a worthy goal.
These are Odumbo's people. They are creating revolution to promote Odumbo to Dictator. They are all about hate and destruction of good men.
This level of sexist hate by organized feminism has been their real goal for more than a century, but seldom is it disclosed in public. In any less radical group than Occupy Wall Street that kind of advocacy of Holocaust style extermination of half the human race would not be tolerated, but this is the radical Bolsheviks of OWS. Their psychotic hate for themselves and all productive people is what fuels their protest. Eradicating half the human race, the half that produces all the food, clothing, shelter, and their iPhones, is what they call a worthy goal.
These are Odumbo's people. They are creating revolution to promote Odumbo to Dictator. They are all about hate and destruction of good men.
Labels: Amber Hate, Feminism, Misandry, Obama, Obamanation, Politics, revolution, Women's Studies
posted by Bob | Friday, November 18, 2011
78 Comments:
What does Amber Hate mean?
I wouldn't have thought most of the OWS people were opposed to productive individuals, but rather to the parasitical bankster elite who, amoung other outrages, have funded feminism and other hate movements with some of the money they've leached from us. Try typing "Rockefeller Foundation feminism" into a search engine. You of all people should be right behind the OWS movement.
OWS protesters are being denied the opportunity to be productive. Unemployment in the US hovers around 9%, with the rate nearing 16% among returning military veterans. There are five workers for every job. Depending on location, there can be more than 100 applicants for one position. Youth face terrible educational debt without jobs to help pay it off. Meanwhile, hedge fund managers and other fraudsters pay themselves millions in pay and bonuses. The so-called "job creators" do not create jobs, they just accumulate wealth and hoard it overseas. The Occupiers are for the most part non-violent while being subjected to increasing brutality by the blue gun thugs. At UCDavis peaceful protesters were pepper-sprayed by police, and reacted with non-violence. See YouTube for evidence. The police are in the employ of the increasingly worried banksters. OWS has spread across the country for good reason. And they are non-violent.
Note to anonymous:
OWS protesters include the useful idiots who voted for Odumbo and his fascist revolution and destruction of jobs. Many have attacked local merchants instead of applying for a job. Many are violent. Advocating a Holocaust to exterminate half of humanity is not non-violent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/19/police-response-to-occupy-wall-street-is-absurd/
What exactly is wrong with using violence against the banksters and their hired goons? The bankers and pigs are all traitors who need to be brought to justice. Hopefully the OWS movement is the first step.
Note to anonymous:
While there are always some unscrupulous people in banking, used car sales, furniture, medicine, etc., most banker work hard to provide much needed, and even necessary services for our economy. Everyone who uses a credit card, debit card, or check book to pay bills or buy products has used, and demonstrated his support for bankers and banking services. Everyone who lives in a home with a mortgage, borrowed money for college, or bought a car on payments has demonstrated his support for bankers and banking services. The OWS attacks on banks shows a really stupid and ignorant view of their own economic life.
You of all people should be right behind the OWS movement.
What are the goals of OWS?
Does it depend on who you ask?
Wow, this debate is gonna get good.
If anyone should be eradicated, it should be male haters
Note to readers:
Bob gets a big laugh at all the femiNazi hate mongers who spew anonymous comments. FemiNazi comments are routinely deleted among loud laughter.
Things have been pretty quiet on this site for awhile so bear with me if this is completely OT.
I am pro-life. But in every discussion I see online or on TV there is always discussion of exceptions for rape or incest. If you are pro-life then you are pro-life, not "in case of." I understand concerns of birth defects in cases of inbreeding, but if you are pro-life then it is still a baby. In cases of rape I feel sorry for the woman, but it is still a baby.
In other forums there are choruses of women who say "butt out since you will never face it" but women don't post here so I ask the opinions of other readers and you.
I do not know if you are pro-life but do you think abortion should be permitted in these cases? What do other readers think?
December 20, 2011 2:11 PM, gotta side with the ladies on this one. I don't like the idea of the government, which is made up entirely of idiots and crooks, having a say in people's personal lives. You're pro-life? Good for you, but keep gov't control of individuals out of it. First they came for the women...
Note to anonymous:
Bob is not "pro life" or "pro abortion." Bob rejects the sexist femiNazi demands for complete female domination of law and family embodied in "A woman's right to choose." Bob supports the rights of fathers to share equally in all decisions regarding OUR children. We will never have peace about abortions until and unless femiNazi are willing to give up their sexist demands for total domination and negotiate sharing of rights with fathers.
Note to anonymous:
"Rape" is the premier feminist hate propaganda agenda. Most of the time its fiction, and the feminist hate penalties are far in excess of the harm done. With rare exceptions, "Rape!" is a hate program, not a real crime.
Note to anonymous:
The notion that abortion should be allowed for "rape" comes from the Roe v. Wade court decision. Ms. "Roe" lied that she had been raped to justify abortion. Like all feminists, Ms. Roe's claimed "rape" was a feminist hate program and lie, not a real crime.
"...and negotiate sharing of rights with fathers."
Finally, someone who can help me with this. I've gotten into discussions about this with co-workers in the past. Everybody agrees that divorced dads should share custody of their children, no problem there. But about abortion they always point out that in the end the woman will either have to bear an abortion or a pregnancy, and I'm left flat-footed. Can you help me put forth an argument that bests that? I can't think of a way to make it equal, but there has to be one. TIA.
How about reinstating the traditional right of fathers to kill baby daughters, if they don't want them?
Note to anonymous:
There are many ways that equality could be negotiated in abortion laws. For example, the approval of BOTH parents might be required before a child is aborted. The classic equality is that no abortion is legal, but its equal. Accommodation for fathers needs to be negotiated and agreed between men and women before we will see an end to abortion wars.
Bob your starting to sound like a liberal, keep up the good work.
Note to anonymous:
If you read Bob's introduction paragraph at the top of "The World According To Bob," you will notice that Bob is a cyber Libertarian.
A few years ago in my home state legislation was introduced that would require the consent of the father before an abortion could be performed. It was shot down immediately because it was not equal. It gave the father control over the woman's body and could force her to carry out the pregnancy against her will, which is not equal and was not legal. How can it be made equal?
I just did a google search for abortion and father's consent. It pulled up a 2009 case in Ohio where lawmakers tried to ensure that the father had to agree to an abortion. I don't think it became law though.
This has a 2009 imprint, but still covers the topic of paternal consent for abortion: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/proposed_ohio_law_would_require_biological_fathers_consent_before_an_abortion/
or: http://tinyurl.com/7k6g46d
"An Ohio state legislator has introduced a bill that requires written permission from an unborn baby’s biological father before an abortion."
Note to anonymous:
I was not aware of the proposed step toward equality for fathers and mothers that was tried in Ohio. Obviously the femiNazi screamed like stuck sows and got it stopped. The concept of equal rights is nowhere to be found in feminist doctrine. Only females should have rights because only females are female.
There will not be peace about abortion until feminists agree to negotiate with men and find a way to share decisions about OUR children.
"There will not be peace about abortion until feminists agree to negotiate with men and find a way to share decisions about OUR children."
I'm Anonymous December 22, 2011 2:52 PM. I wasn't aware of the Ohio legislation either. But if it failed, it was probably because it _did_ give the biological father control over the woman's body. I think that would be declared unconstitutional as long as abortion is legal. But I can't think of a solution, either if he wants her to abort and she doesn't, or if he doesn't want her to and she does. I'm still stumped. But thank you to those who posted links to the Ohio story. They were quite interesting.
With modern ultrasound we can detect the gender of the fetus. If it is female and the father wants it aborted, he should be allowed to order an abortion. Comments?
Your ideas on man controlling a woman's body are years out of date. I do agree the man should not control a woman's body, unless she has agreed to it in a legal marriage.
The solution well over 25 years old is to give a man paper abortion rights. Just as a woman has months to terminate her baby after realizing she is pregnant, so should a man have the same number of months to renounce paternity with all its responsibilities, AFTER REALIZING HE HAS SIRED A CHILD, NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE IT HAPPENED.
It is solely his decision whether to renounce parental duties and responsibilities. No one can control his body by forcing him to work for years to send money to any woman.
At present the dearies who insist no one has the right to control their bodies have no problem at all passing laws which control men's bodies.
Anonymous age 69
Note to anonymous:
That proposal for a so-called "paper abortion" has never been acceptable to men because it abdicates our natural right to share in all decisions about OUR child. There will never be peace in the war over abortions until and unless the feminists negotiate a compromise that shares rights with men. The current rights only for females is not a compromise and only demonstrates how far from "equality" is feminist truth. If we can't negotiate a compromise, abortions will again be banned, but at least that will be equal rights.
Age 69 is right.
"Gender equality is not possible." Angry Harry.
In the case of unplanned pregnancy, there is no possible equality.
Scenario One: Dick and Jane are seeing each other, and contraception fails. (It's rare, but happens.) Jane thinks abortion is murder and doesn't want to have one. Dick does NOT want to be a father. Either Dick's wishes prevail or Jane's. Either way, it's Jane's body that will either undergo pregnancy or abortion. With the option of Choice For Men (C4M) Dick can at least avoid 18 years of economic slavery. But it's still Jane who will face the physical consequences.
No gender equality is possible here.
Scenario Two: Same unplanned pregnancy. Dick thinks abortion is murder and doesn't want Jane to have one. Jane does NOT want to be pregnant, and wants to abortion. Either Dick's wishes prevail or Jane's. Either way, it's Jane's body that will either undergo pregnancy or abortion. It's still Jane who will face the physical consequences.
No gender equality is possible here. It isn't fair, but it is biology. They get pregnant. We don't.
The smart thing to do is have a real discussion about what would happen if unplanned pregnancy occurs with your wife or girlfriend. If you don't see eye to eye, rethink the relationship. And work to make C4M the law.
Note to anonymous:
If you start with the premise that "equality is not possible" then you are doomed to fail before you begin. If you begin with the circular reasoning that females have all the legal rights because only females are female, then you have negated any possible negotiation of equal rights before you begin.
There will never be peace in the abortion wars until feminists are willing to negotiate actual equal rights to decide about OUR children.
OK. If equality happens, what is the outcome of Scenario One or Scenario Two?
Note to anonymous:
There are many possible solutions that could be negotiated once you give up the feminist assertion that all legal power belongs to females.
Could you give some examples? This is interesting.
Note to anonymous:
Bob is not going to specify what decision is good or bad except that equal rights need to be a primary outcome. Total female domination of our families is unacceptable as a long term solution.
Anonymous December 22, 2011 2:52 PM here again. I appreciate the discussion that has gone on and agree that complete female control is not desirable. Except in cases of rape of course, when only the victim's wishes should be heeded. But I am still at a loss as to how complete equality can be achieved, especially in the situations described by Anon December 26, 2011 10:02 AM. If the man wants one thing and the woman wants the opposite, how can both be equally accommodated?
If the man wants one thing and the woman wants the opposite, how can both be equally accommodated?
They can't. Use your head. There is no possible equal accommodation in this case. Either he gets his way or she does. In a perfect world they could reach a compromise, but the world is not perfect and life is not fair.
If abortion is outlawed millions of men will be stuck for child support for kids they didn't want and millions of women will be forced to have babies they can't support. The welfare state will expand and countless lives will be destroyed.
Use contraception, don't depend on her to do it by herself. If you don't ever want children get snipped. If you do want kids, make dead certain that she does too, and talk about the timing of it. Don't play roulette with your life.
Note to anonymous:
A decision rule that always gives power to the female and takes all power away from fathers is NOT equal rights by any stretch. We will not have peace in the abortion wars until and unless feminists give up their irrational demands for total control of OUR families, and agree to negotiate shared power with fathers.
OWS is an absolute zoo...it has just become a a platform for discontent left-wing radicals of all stripes...there isno purpose and no organization an no coherent purpose to the movement...so typical of the left. Anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment even when they are the establishment...ridiculous.
18 yrs economic slavery for a man....supporting a kid he didn't want. That's an understandable reaction, but remember the other side.
A child brought into this world should not have to suffer as an "unwanted economic burden." Rubbing that in, reminding him/her he should have been aborted, is child abuse.
Ideally the child should be adopted into a loving family who desperately wanted kids but couldn't have them. Catholic agencies, Women's HELP Centers, can advise and they are helpful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/africa/somalia-faces-alarming-rise-in-rapes-of-women-and-girls.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
Sickening. What makes men become less than animals?
Note to anonymous:
Your comment about men being "less than animals" is very offensive misandry. Shame on you.
Females have always chosen to be the spoils of war. By being the spoils of war instead of warriors females 1. survive the war, and 2. obtain genes of stronger men for their children. Thus being spoils of war is a strong evolutionary success for the female and her family.
For the men who are the warriors, if they survive the war they produce more children by claiming the females of the losers. That provides an evolutionary benefit for the strongest men and helps to ensure the survival of the species.
Men might be victors in wars but if they have a moral conscience, they don't rape/subjugate women in conquered territories. Even if they forced those women to "marry" them at gunpoint, it wouldn't result in a healthy, trusting family environment.
Brute force and violence don't make for a strong gene pool, unless strength is measured in caveman terms.
Note to anonymous:
In contrast, the local men were killed. Women survive the war by breeding with the victors. Always have. Always will. Libtard idiots like NY Times ignore the thousands of men who were killed and whine about a few women who survived. Very misplaced sympathy.
How much does NOW pay you to write this misandrist tripe? You slander the MRM every time you post drivel like this. You reinforce every ugly, bigoted stereotype about men that they've been spreading for the last half-century. You are an albatross for every MRA in the country.
Note to anonymous: (December 29, 2011 1:39 PM -- deleted)
You and your mangina friends can pound sand.
Note to anonymous (December 29, 2011 2:37 PM -- deleted)
As long as you manginas keep kissing the feminist's arses, men will never claw back our place in society.
what are these ass holes going to do when they have to support them selves?
It's about damn time: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/fbi-scraps-long-standing-definition-rape-include-men-victims-article-1.1001900
For the record, no laws will be changed by the new rape definition. It affects only the statistics, but it is still a long-overdue acknowledgement that men and boys are also brutalized. It shouldn't have taken until the 21st century for this to happen. What happened at Penn State, if true, was rape, not merely "sexual assault." Better late than never, I suppose, but it's still overdue. Perhaps the new, more nuanced and inclusive, definition will help raise awareness and reduce the stigma of having been raped. Male victims have been even less willing to come forward than female victims; this needs to change.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57354078/men-can-be-rape-victims-new-govt-policy-says/
Basically the same story as posted above.
Angry man's emotions take over; he shoots ex-wife and mother-in-law in a hospital:
http://news.yahoo.com/man-charged-murder-2-ga-hospital-shootings-215541789.html
Note to anonymous:
He was right. They were sorry.
The shooter was right. He too will be sorry, as he rots in prison. Not worth the deadly tantrum.
Back up a few posts. "Females have always chosen to be the spoils of war." Since when do people choose to be victims of war crimes, and since when is being a victim beneficial?
Note to anonymous:
Females chose not to participate in the fighting of wars. Females choose to remain as "non-combatants" and survive by fucking the victors. "You and you fight and I'll fuck the victor" is a VERY old female strategy. In a war, the loser dies, and the female fucks the victor. Its always been that way in most species including humans.
I have a question that I can't find an answer to. A couple of weeks ago here there was a good discussion about abortion, so this is why I'm asking my question on this forum.
In nationwide, and some global, polls, a majority of women are pro-abortion, but a majority of men are anti-abortion.
Leaving aside any religious objections which are shared by both sexes (and for the record I am an atheist), why does the odd gender gap exist? Since women are the only ones who can give new life, why do they favor abortion? I do not understand. Can others help shed light on this?
Note to anonymous:
Feminists have shouted about "Equal rights!" as a mantra for more than a century, but their abortion demands demonstrate their blatant lie. Bob has observed on numerous occasions that there are no "equal" rights, or any rights for men or fathers at all in "A woman's right to choose." The feminist position is a 100% power grab that demands total and exclusive rights for females at the exclusion of any rights for fathers.
There will not be peace in the ongoing abortion wars unless and until feminists are willing to end their demands for total power over OUR children and negotiate shared power and equal rights with fathers. The gender gap exists because current feminist law is sexist misandry which denies the equal rights of fathers to decide about OUR children.
Perry's out.
Who do you support for the nomination?
What do you think about this:
http://tinyurl.com/7p2rwqt
"...the Talmud, the basis for Jewish law, offers a perhaps surprising answer: It places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men."
IOW, how women dress is irrelevant; it is up to us to control ourselves.
Note to anonymous:
Its all about "controlling men." Misandry is very old and very common.
"Misandry is very old and very common."
No argument on that fact, but I don't see how it applies to this article. I don't know anything about Jewish law, but how is expecting men to control our own thoughts and actions misandrous? It's refreshing to see something that doesn't assume that men are just slobbering animals without the capacity for self-control. If anything, this seems pro-men.
Note to anonymous:
The article assumes that men are by nature bad, and have to be controlled. Its classic misandry.
All religious law assumes that humans are bad and must be controlled. Religion is the worst idea humans ever came up with.
At least the Jews seem to think that men are human and can control ourselves. The Muslims apparently think that we are such vicious animals that the sight of a square inch of female flesh will drive us into a frenzy.
This article is the first I've heard of this. I live in a southern state with few Jews and I don't know any personally. But at least they don't hate men like the Muslims do.
Note to anonymous:
The assertion that men are bad and must be controlled is inherent in monotheism. It is not true of "ALL" religions.
But about abortion they always point out that in the end the woman will either have to bear an abortion or a pregnancy, and I'm left flat-footed. Can you help me put forth an argument that bests that? I can't think of a way to make it equal, but there has to be one. TIA.
Yeah,no problem. A woman carries the child for 9 months while the man has to support the child for 18+ years. Now ask them "is 9 months of her life worth more than 18 years of his?" Also keep in mind that if the woman is going to become a mother it is the woman's decision. Also if a man becomes a father it is the woman's decision. Which means that she can decide for three people what their lives are going to be like. He has no imput. That is the reality of the situation.
Anonymous December 23, 2011 9:28 AM,
Roe vs. Wade threw the man's right to decide out the window yet no one has a problem with that outside the MRC aka men's rights community.
When did men ever have the right to decide?
This is a quotation from William Archer III, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs under Pres. George H. W. Bush:
"When it became possible for women to buy contraceptives on their own, men lost their manhood."
"men lost their manhood."
Well that makes no sense. The Pill is the best thing that ever happened for men. Women put out like mad when they didn't have to worry about getting pregnant and then men could get laid a lot more often and didn't have to worry about paternity suits.
"IOW, how women dress is irrelevant; it is up to us to control ourselves."
But is it really irrelevant? Do even the women really think it is? Sexual desire isn't something that men conjure up by themselves, it's more like an instinct and something that they do deny themselves notwithstanding the rabid rape culture claims of feminists.
"but how is expecting men to control our own thoughts and actions misandrous? "
You have women's groups crying about how subtle sexism undermines women's self-esteem and achievements, and yet we are to believe that men should be able to control their sexual thoughts, products of arguably the strongest drive of sexually reproducing organisms, despite women trying their best to undermine their resolve?
It's one thing not to notice a fool, it's another thing to stop him from shoving his face in yours.
"Since women are the only ones who can give new life"
huh, where are you getting this notion from?
"For lower-education working men, however, it has been all negative."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/krugman-money-and-morals.html?ref=opinion&gwh=D0C67D62A60255C17645D7E24DB4FB2A
When I am ordered to work for 18 or more years and send the wages to a woman while receiving no benefits, my body is being controlled. Why is it okay for you to tell me it is okay to control my body, but not the body of a woman? Oh, I forgot, women are all goddesses, right? And, men are naturally intended to be slaves for women.
By the way, though feminazis use rape as a sort of shield, I have seen stats which show most women who become pregnant via rape do not kill the baby. So, stop using rape as a defense for unlimited rights by women for abortion.
Several years ago, my son-in-law wanted a vasectomy. He was forced to have his wife sign a permission slip to get the vasectomy. So, his body was being controlled by his wife, but a woman can kill a man's baby without his permission.
Also, saying she has to raise the baby for 18 years is another hoax. The vast majority of fathers would accept custody, and raise the child without help from anyone. Women prefer to kill the baby rather than him have it. Another lie and hoax.
Also, reality shows that paternal custody would drastically reduce child abuse. Even Oprah admitted the sexual abuse she experienced stopped dead the minute her father got custody.
OJ is a major bonehead, for sure. But, he did a good job of raising his daughters.
Anonymous age 69
Hey anonymous Age 69 if you dont mind my asking in what state or country was it that your son in law had to have his wife sign because he wanted a vasectomy? I had a vasectomy back in 2001 in New Jersey but was not required to have it co signed by my wife. I find that outrageous.
if they erradicated males, who would women fuck?
Amarillo, Texas and men in other places have had the same experience.
Anonymous age 70
Lets Blow the Femtard Cuntslabs to oblivion with a tactical NUKE stupid fucking carpet munchers they are Munching each others carpet all day and Gillards I wish fish flaps would keel over and take a LONG DIRT NAP she reeks of Cuntcrabs and Destroys everything the cunt muffler touches.
Stupid fucking Congresscunts
Post a Comment
<< Home