Entitled line-cutters

What's with these women who try to cut in front of you at the store and then get all mad when you call them out?

Today I was waiting to buy a snack (the lady in front of me was taking forever).  As I was waiting there patiently I noticed another lady who got there after me waving a dollar bill in the air so that the cashier would help her (she didn't feel like waiting in line). When I noticed the cashier was going to skip me in order to ring up the other lady first, I chimed up and said I was next. The cashier apologized, but the lady left the store in a huff (without making a purchase).

That's happened a few times to me. Another time I was at a store buying bread. A lady tried to cut in front of me by drifting next to me in line in order to rush the cash register at the last minute. I told her I was there first and that she needed to get behind me. She responded by saying that I was "acting like a woman" (she said it in spanish; she was hispanic). Funny that she used that as an insult. That just shows that even women don't like female behavior!

What bunch of losers. Their sense of entitlement is ridiculous. If a man did that to a woman, it would be called a "microaggression" and the man would be called a "sexist pig" by the politically correct feminazi idiots. But we're talking about women here.

And it's not like they were the princess types either (in both these cases they were overweight middle-aged women). Life sucks sometimes. It sucks even harder when you let yourself go.

A day without a bitch: March 08, 2017

Seems like women can’t come up with their own ideas so they steal other people’s ideas.  The original was “A day without a Mexican”, the purpose being to show that Mexicans contribute to the economy more than is generally thought.

Or for example, after the movie “Kings of Comedy” came out, the womynz couldn’t leave it alone and had to come out with “Queens of Comedy” (however, to be fair, hispanic males had their own copycat moment and came out with the “LATIN Kings of Comedy”).

But, back to the copycat supplanter and main topic of this post:

First of all, most people ARE aware that women are important in the economy. I don’t think anyone with half a brain is under the delusion that women could just disappear from the workforce without anyone noticing.  Believe me, we notice.  We compete for jobs with you.  We see you putting on make-up while driving next to us on the way to work.  We feel it when you take maternity leave and the rest of us (men and single women) have to take up the slack.  Believe us, we know you [women] are an integral part of the economy.  Not sure what you are trying to prove here.

Second of all, it was mentioned on NPR, the Seattle Times, and other news outlets that it was also going to be a boycott of business “except for female AND MINORITY-OWNED business”.

Not only is that attitude messed up, it’s downright racist.

Imagine if South Africa, a black-ruled country where whites (male and female) are routinely harassed, decided to have a “day without whites”, where protesters would only support “white-owned businesses”?  The entire world would scream “racist boers! Apartheid supporters!” etc.  So I find it hypocritical that the same would not be said of this women’s protest.

Not to mention that the people who came up with this idea and who are supporting this protest are WHITE WOMEN.  Women whose father was white, a father who worked to put food on the table, who helped put them through school.  And this is how women show their gratitude?  That is pretty effed-up.

It also doesn’t make sense that they would support men of color (race and gender are two entirely different issues).  But feminazis don’t make sense so I’m not even going to try to understand their “reasoning”.  They hate men of color, too.  But I guess these feminists don’t want to appear “racist”.

Third of all:  It must be nice to just be able to not show up for work.  Unfortunately, many of us (women AND MEN) don’t have that luxury.  We aren’t all privileged upper middle class feminist prudes living off alimony.

Will female doctors and nurses not show up for work?  What if there is a medical emergency?  “Sorry, but your leg had to be amputated because we didn’t have enough medical personnel”.  Will female police officers not show up for work?  “Sorry, we couldn’t respond to that rape in progress – we were short on manpower, err, person power that day.”  Female electricians?  “Sorry but we wont’ be able to fix your internet until tomorrow” (now THAT would give these feminazi internet warriors a heart attack).

Of course the silver lining in all this is that men who show up for work won’t have to put up with women’s endless chatter and water cooler gossip, won’t have to put up with the haughty disdainful looks they get from women who walk past them in the hallways, and won’t have to walk on eggshells or watch their every little word or gesture lest they get reported to Human Resources for inadvertently offending women’s sensibilities.  For at least 1 day, some work can get done in peace.

For these reasons and others, this publicity stunt known as “day without a woman” is a stupid, asinine idea.  And idea created by hateful societal trolls.  Have fun tomorrow, losers.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/day-without-a-woman-protest-sparks-debate-on-white-privilege/

http://fortune.com/2017/03/06/day-without-a-woman-strike-march-8/

 (that last objective is going to be a tough one!! LOL)

Valentines Day SUCKS

Yes it's true.  It's not true for all people, but for a lot of people.  Valentine's Day sucks major ass.


Even if you are married or have a boyfriend/girlfriend - if your significant other has lost interest in you or takes you for granted, then it sucks.  Talk about an awkward date (full of uncomfortable silences or meaningless conversations).

If you are in this predicament, it's almost easier being single: no games, no pretending to have a good time, no pretending to be happy, no money wasted on overpriced food or unnecessary presents.  No jumping through a bunch of hoops trying to impress somebody who is already suppose to love you.

Love and romance should be an everyday thing, not a once a year thing.  If it's not, then Valentine's day is not going to make up for all of the other 364 crappy days.

What women REALLY want for valentine's day: a day without a man.

With this sort of attitude, valentine's day will continue to suck.  So happy Valentine's day, everyone!

2 moms are worse than none

December 2016:  Two Milwaukee women, 44-year old Etter Hughes and 47-year old Mary Martinez, have been arrested and charged in connection to the death of a 7-year old boy.

The 7-year old boy, Trevion Winningham, was starved and beaten to death.

According to hospital officials, there were ‘significant signs of trauma’ on the boy’s body, and the boy had ‘suffered severe physical abuse’.  They also noted the boy had suffered from severe malnutrition, and that the abuse and neglect resulted in his death.

When Hughes brought Winningham to the hospital, she had another boy with her, a 9-year old (whose name has not been released).  The 9-year old boy also showed signs of life-threatening malnutrition and severe physical abuse.

A third boy (Hughes’ son) was interviewed by authorities.  Hughes’ son said he had witnessed Mary Martinez abusing both Winningham and the 9-year old boy multiple times, using her hands and shoes.  He also said both boys had lost weight over the past 3 weeks.

Hughes claimed that she woke up on the morning of November 29 to find Winningham “unresponsive”, and said that Martinez did not want to call 911 or take Winningham to the hospital, but instead told Hughes to “take him [Winningham] to the woods and drop him off”.

Hughes eventually took Winningham to the hospital, accompanied by the 9-year old boy.  When asked about the bruises on both Winningham and the 9-year old, she blamed both boys, claiming it was from the two boys hurting each other.

Police also interviewed Martinez’s adult son.  He said he had seen both boys (Winningham and the 9-year old) tied up behind the couch, and that it was Hughes who had tied them up.

Police interviewed the 9-year old.  According to him, Martinez would strike him and Winningham with extension cords, belts, and shoes, and that they were not allowed to eat.  When Martinez allowed the other children to eat, she would tell them they can’t have any food.

(the article does not say how many children were living with Martinez and Hughes at the time).

So there you have it.  If women ran the world.  I can guarantee you that if both Hughes and Martinez had penises, they would most likely have raped these children.  Bunch of sickos.

If it were up to feminists these sorts of stories would never make the light of day.  Fortunately, not everyone is a feminist.

_______________________________

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/12/05/two-milwaukee-women-charged-in-torture-brutal-death-7-year-old-boy/

She Bore, then she killed

August 2016 - Sheborah Thomas, a mother of 3 from Houston, Texas, killed 2 of her children (5 and 7 years old) by drowning them in the bathtub.  She then placed the bodies under her neighbor’s house.  Her oldest child is safe with the father.

Thomas at first tried to bury the bodies, but found it “too difficult”.

(call me crazy, but to me that would be the easy part of this whole tragedy.  I would think killing 2 innocent little kids would be the hard part.  But that’s just me)

The puzzling thing about this is incident is that the kids seemed fine; there were no signs of abuse and they seemed well taken care of (they went to childcare and had regular dental visits).  Not sure why the mother snapped all of a sudden.

People of course will try to make excuses for her (stress, money, etc).  Sorry, but that’s no excuse to kill people.  If it had been a man who did this to his kids, there would be no such sympathy from the public, especially the feminazis.

_______________________

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/15/houston-woman-charged-with-capital-murder-after-allegedly-drowning-her-two-children-hiding-bodies-under-neighbors-house/

Tough Luck

I made the mistake of picking up a Vogue magazine that was lying around (one of the taglines listed on the cover caught my eye):

Good Mood or Good Sex: Do Women have to choose?

This was on the bottom right hand corner of the July 2013 issue of (american) Vogue Magazine. The article it was describing was titled "Tough Love", written by Elizabeth Weil.

Full disclosure: I did not get all the way through the article; after the first couple of pages I just couldn’t take it anymore; it was so nauseating and it started to make me upset.

The article was about American (or western) women taking anti-depressants, and how anti-depressants were killing their libido.

I started to read the description of some of the women interviewed and what they had to say.

From the little I read, it seemed most of these women were from the upper middle class.  They have everything: A career (or a husband that provides for them), a nice home, material goods, a comfortable lifestyle, a loving husband, children (in some cases), etc.  Absolutely nothing in their life to be stressed or depressed about (other than the usual stress of working, commuting, raising kids, etc – what most people, including men, also have to deal with).

One of interviewees claimed her husband was physically attractive, supportive, a good father, etc; basically, a good catch.  She claimed she loved her husband but that she would rather sit on a cactus (or something to that effect) than sleep with him.

WTF?!

So she would rather be tortured (because sitting on a cactus IS torture) than share intimacy with the man whom she promised to love and cherish for the rest of her life, a man who supports and is there for her?  REALLY?!

These aren’t women living in war zones or who are living below the poverty line.  They are well-to-do women who have everything women want (or so they say).  And they are STILL depressed?  They still feel the need to take anti-depressants? (which affect their libodo)?

What a bunch of selfish, evil, cunts.

Also, I don’t mean to sound callous, but technically women don’t have to be “in the mood” to have sex with their husbands.  Libido is actually more important for men because they aren’t able to perform (i.e. “get it up”) without it.  Women don’t have this problem.  In fact, many of them humor their husbands and have sex with them even though they may not be as into it all the time.  While this is not an ideal situation (it’s much better if the woman is also into it), you can still have sex.

The article by Ms. Weil just points out how self-centered women are.  They can “have it all” and still find something to complain about.

Men may not always want to take the trash out or mow the lawn, but they do it anyway (especially if their wives ask them to).  They don’t’ say that they would rather sit on a cactus.  I realize the two scenarios are not exactly the same, but I’m just making a point.

My god – how women have fallen.  They have gone from loving us to despising us and seeing us as just another inconvenience in their lives.  Or maybe they’ve always felt like that.  I’ll never know.

This is what awaits young men who want to start dating seriously and get married:  Frigid prudes who will withhold sex from them one day, after they’ve been trapped into a relationship.

It doesn’t matter how good of a husband you try to be, it doesn’t matter how good of a father you are to the children, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, it doesn’t matter if you support her in her career, it doesn’t matter how many chores you do around the house, or how many diapers you change, or how often you cook dinner or clean up the kitchen, or how much you spend on furniture or on gifts, it doesn’t matter how many trips or vacations you take, at the end of the day it will never be enough for her and she will be depressed or stressed and will not want to have sex with you.

It’s always “I’m too tired” or “I have a headache”, or “I’m depressed”, etc.  Always something.  I wonder how women would feel if anytime they wanted to have a deep conversation, her significant other would cut her off with the same excuses over and over.  I’ll bet the women would be pissed.  But only women are allowed to be mad at their husbands.  Husbands who are snubbed by their wives are expected to just take it. In silence.  Stoically.

Sex.  It doesn’t even have to take much time or effort on her part, and it means the world to her man, but even that is too much to ask of her.

And then everyone wonders why half of all marriages end in divorce, or why some men (who are otherwise considered “good” men) are driven into the arms of another woman.

Nasty bitches.  They’ll withhold sex from their husband for years, but as soon as they get a divorce, they’ll have a one-night stand with the first guy they meet at a bar after being newly single.  Gross.

There was a stupid post on some dumb blog trying to make excuses for women on meds:

http://honestmom.com/2013/07/11/why-im-in-vogue-magazine-this-month-and-hoping-no-one-in-my-family-reads-it/ 

I would honestly like to know why these women are taking these meds in the first place, when by all appearances they don't have to (as "feminism" gave them everything they ever wanted).  But rather than asking WHY these women are taking these drugs, she argues that "the medical community needs to solve the low-libido problem" (when in fact, it is WOMEN who need to look at themselves and why they feel the need to be pill poppers, which the medical community is only too happy to oblige).  Stupid ass-backwards logic from these women, but they are too blind and stupid to see it.  After all, feminism has taught them that women can do no wrong, and that if they have a problem, it means that someone else is causing it.  It's never women's fault - it's always the fault of somebody else.

Tea Leoni: She's played prudes on-screen, and she's probably one off-screen as well.

Women like these are the reason why this web log exists.  They were the catalyst for this web log.  The article by Ms. Weil just confirmed what I already knew but was afraid to accept.

It was difficult at first.  Years of conditioning by feminism is hard to shake off.  In the past, if some guy criticized women, I just assumed they were a sexist pig.  And while it doesn’t mean they weren’t, I now know I can’t assume that anymore.  Some women actually are jerks and deserve to be criticized.

Growing up I was told that if I just did this, or just did that, and respected women, that women would respond in kind, or that they would “like” me.  I was told that women respond favorably and positively to a “good man”, as opposed to a jerk.

LOL.  Sounds naïve, and I guess it was, but I was young and didn’t know any better.  Now I know.  Decades later.  So I finally decided to write a web log about this topic, since this stuff can’t really be talked about in public because you’ll be accused of being a misogynist, but more importantly, your livelihood and your family’s well-being could be adversely affected.  That’s how our politically-correct society functions now.  There is no free speech anymore (even if it’s the truth).

I know not all women are like this.  This is not a blog about all women.  Just SOME women.

Speaking of women I like: I would like to pay my respects to Carrie Fisher.  I don’t know what her politics were, and I don’t care (I’m assuming she identified as a feminist, though).  I am a huge Star Wars fan, and Princess Leia is one of my favorite characters.  Unlike the character “Rey” from the new star wars movie (the force awakens), Princess Leia never struck me as a token female character.  She was just a great character that happened to be female.  That’s how it should be.

R.I.P. Carrie.  We love you very much.  My condolences to your family.