Business woman looking serious

This is feminism

On November 16, 2012 – Dr. Warren Farrell spoke at a scheduled presentation at the University of Toronto, the name of the talk being Transforming the Boy Crisis.

It is not a secret that a now feminized education system is utterly failing boys and men. This is so well known that even feminists talk about it at length. Feminist commentator Hannah Rosin launched her own fame in 2010 by openly gloating about this, treating the increasing male marginalization with a distinct flavor of triumphalism.

In 2012, Obama, the American Feminist Head of State, announced in June “more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” The president added,

 

This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but, for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.

It remains difficult to find a reading of this statement other than the purposeful exclusion and marginalization of men.

Dr. Farrell, a former member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Women in New York, correctly identifies the trend as a problem, and addressed it at his November talk at the University of Toronto. But not without opposition. None of this is new information, even to feminists, who still doggedly continue to claim they represent and strive for equality.

However, after years of study and criticism of this ideology and its proponents – with a learned expectation of nothing except lies, slander and violence by feminists, the exhibited behavior by the self identifying feminist protesters of Dr. Farrell’s talk has been a revelation.

Obviously, Danielle Sandhu – the former president of the TSU Student Union has outed herself as a political conformist, opportunist and hate driven ideologue. After student feminists assaulted Toronto Police attending the event to protect ticket holders from assault by gender ideologues, Sandhu gave an on camera interview claiming Dr. Farrell supports, incest, rape and violence. These claims are so outlandish that they pale only in comparison to additional video of the same event. This footage shows a yet to be identified woman verbally harassing a young man, likely a student attending Dr. Farrell’s presentation.

Her words, her facial expression and her body language provide a crystal clear demonstration of the established power, privilege, sadism and deep hatred underlying modern, mainstream feminism.

 

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. You’re fucking scum. You are fucking scum. You fucking rape apologist, incest supporting, woman hating fucking scum. You’re fucking scum. Yeah, just another one.

The speaker of these extraordinary accusations turns her face upwards towards the young man being accused, and her face shows her physical pleasure and she studies the pain in her victim’s eyes. She is flanked by Toronto Police, who despite being assaulted by other attending feminists, will protect her from any harm.

She knows the man she is excoriating is none of the things she describes. Her words are not truly intended accusations. Her words are intended as a scourge. Her body flexes as she repeatedly pronounces her target “fucking scum,” punctuating her rhetoric by its cadence. Her total confidence is not bravery in the face of a malicious, violent sexual predator, it is the supreme confidence of a member of the social elite.

To hurl such abuse at individuals as vile as she is claiming would be physically dangerous – even in the immediate proximity of a phalanx of Toronto cops. She is in no danger, and it shows clearly in her posture. She is simply delighting in her power, her elevated and protected status, her conformism to popular ideology – and her ability to do harm in plain sight with no consequence.

She is her own generation’s brown shirt, and she knows it.

The man she harasses is in clear and obvious pain. In his early 20′s the violent condemnation from a superficially attractive young woman causes him pain he feels physically. This is clearly visible on his face. He is untermensch, and he knows it in his bones.

This event is not unique, of course. It is simply a recent and unusually clear exposition of the nature of the prevalent ideology of gender in our society. It is the same ideology taught in gender studies classes and funded by public money.

“You fucking rape apologist, incest supporting, woman hating fucking scum. You’re fucking scum.“

The only thing she really knows about the man she addresses with this torrent of abuse is that he is not what she claims, and that she can hurt him with impunity. She is clearly sadistic, unable and unwilling to recognize the humanity of anyone who does not slavishly and blindly agree with her own religion of hate.

In Vancouver, the same style of knowingly false rhetoric was tossed easily off by knife-armed feminist enforcers under the direction of Sasha Wiley Shaw, a politically active member of the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation.

In Wiley Shaw’s words to me: “Don’t talk to me because you hate women.” On my objection to her imputing a motive of malice to me, she immediately replied “I didn’t say anything about you.”

Except, of course, her 2 seconds earlier accusation of hatred of women, while her box-cutter armed enforcers removed posters which read in part: “You don’t hate or fear women do you? Of course not, because you are a decent human being.” This was followed by the poster’s concluding statement that “men’s rights are human rights.”

When not actually torn down, those particular posters were, in several months of postering, stencilled with a monosyllabic spray-painted rebuttal.

Wrong.

And this is feminism.

Neither Whiley Shaw, nor Danielle Sandhu, nor the yet-to-be-identified Toronto feminist delighting in her malice have any belief in their own accusatory, vicious language. It is simply the most harm they can do in public. They are limited only by their own imagination and ability, not by any concept of what is true, or by a moral compass. Their belief in right through the power of brutality, threat, censure, and the truncheons carried by Sasha Wiley Shaw’s praetorian guard are a crystal clear broadcast of the character of their ideology and goals.

Oh yeah, I know not all feminists are like that. I keep being told this, so it must be true. I just wonder, where are they, and why do I not hear them stridently denouncing this virulent conduct by their fellow ideologues?

About John Hembling (JtO)

John Hembling is Policy Director and Editor-at-Large for AVfM. John is also the founder of the American Human Rights Education Foundation, which is dedicated to the human rights of individuals through justice and compassion. As "John The Other," he is also the Sword of Damocles, dangling like the promise of death above the ideas of gender ideologues, white knights and other social diseases. JtO is FTSU personified.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Get Your Tickets for the International Men’s Conference in Detroit!

    This June in Detroit is your chance to meet nearly every leading figure in the men's rights movement. More importantly, it is your turn to take a stand for what you really believe in...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues internationally through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers are needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Those willing to step into a leadership role are also sought. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    To apply to join the AVfM Reference Wiki team or the WikiMANNia team, please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    While your’e at it, will you fucking rape apologist scum fuckity fucks please join me in protesting the renewal of VAWA so that funding to the Mary Kellet offices of the world will no longer target YOU?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-actual-facts-about-dom_b_2193904.html

    • cvar

      Holy God, those comments. I don’t even know what to say. Casual, sincere, calls to violate multiple amendments of the constitution as though they’d somehow be protected from the effects of a government unrestrained.

      I wonder if the GPS units they want men to wear will have a 6 pointed star on them too. For irony’s sake.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        So I have a woman telling me “men need to get their OWN organizations and not tear down womens”.

        My reply to her is as follows:

        So……men need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and worry about themselves….later.

        Did I understand you correctly?

        It’s Boyz against Gurlz, and boyz need to get their OWN thing going, because women certainly cant expect to give up THEIR exclusive privileges to help men.

        98% of homeless are male, 89% of suicides are male, 300 men compared to 1 woman have been exonerated by DNA testing…

        …and you’re telling me men need to get their own organizations to help themselves?

        Men’s organizations….hmmmmm. Isn’t that what they used to call “Boy’s Clubs”? “Men Only”?

        We don’t even let the Boy Scouts be just for boys, men’s “Good Old Boy” male exclusive ANYTHING have been MADE ILLEGAL and wiped from the face of the earth…

        …and now you’re making out like men are just stupid or remiss for not having their OWN exclusive “awareness” organizations?

        Please, oh please enlighten me with your lovely logic yet some more.

        I just. can’t. wait.

        • cvar

          Men do have their own things going. We strapped a bunch of dudes in a cardboard box to a giant exploding tube and shot them at the moon. I like to imagine how that conversation went down the first time. “You want to what at WHAT?!”. Then we built a giant telescope, pointed it at an apparently empty space of sky and discovered galaxies. Recently, we shot a robot at Mars and some guy jumped from outer space “because”.

          Feminists can grump and moan all they like. Men have conquered everything they’ve set their eyes on. That’s why they’re so loud. They know. When men get together and say collectively “I’m going to do this.” it gets done. Conquer all of the known world? Done, multiple times. Circumnavigate the globe? Check. Fly? Two bike mechanics did it. Enable technological wonders indistinguishable from wizardry? My phone is a handheld device with access to all the accumulated knowledge of the world, understands multiple languages, can do trigonometry and tell me my exact position on the globe. It even lets me speak to people who are thousands of miles away, in real time. (Okay, I mostly use it to play games and read comics, but it can totally do the rest of that stuff too.)

          The current protests of a batch of bigoted zealots means little in the face of the impossible. We’ve conquered the impossible many times and there is yet more to do. If feminists want to stop men from demanding dignity and respect, they’re going to need to step up their game. We did, after all, write the books on politics too.

          • rake

            That’s a beautiful thing, man.

  • mra2012

    Excellent, with the exception of the claim that these women do not actually believe the vicious accusations they toss around. They may exaggerate a little bit, but for the most part I’m pretty sure they actually feel that way. Wouldn’t the body language and tone of that woman, which you described so well, be impossible in the absence of genuine belief in her own words?

    • http://www.johntheother.com John the Other

      I think if she truly believed her own rhetoric “incest supporting, rape apologist, woman hater” she would not show such delight and pleasure to tell him, she would be sombre

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        She would be afraid of him.

        • Ken

          I think she believes it. I just don’t think she understands it. Her thoughts haven’t been formed due to experience, they have been drilled in to her throughout her life.

          I think of feminism similarly to the way I think of religion. I think that’s a fair assessment. She is very devout in her religion, just like the crusaders were.

          As far as the idea that she would be afraid or feel threatened, you have to rtemember that she is possessed of the same fanaticism that history has shown religious zealots to be capable of.

          I think she would be MORE afraid to back down than to get smacked.

      • Greyfeld

        People who believe they’re right, especially in cases of having the moral high ground, tend to delight in “educating” the ignorant masses. For some people, vilifying those who are wrong, in their eyes, is cathartic and enjoyable. It allows them to lash out and denigrate others in a way that allows them to feel superior. It gives them the ability to feel in control and powerful.

        Mind you, these people are also usually the same people who have been physically, mentally, and/or sexually abused at some point in their lives, and have never managed to find a healthy outlet for their feelings of frustration and powerlessness.

        • tallwheel

          These people really just want someone to target as “the enemy”. If they can’t find the patriarchy bogeyman in their neighborhood, they will find the closest thing they can label as such, and project all their pent up arguments onto that. They honestly want to believe that there is a group out there advocating for the oppression of women, rape, incest, and pedophilia. If there isn’t such a group, then what have all those women’s studies courses been for? They’re like hawkish politicians with no evil empire to fight – they just find a suitable target (“terrorists”, communism, etc.) and label that as such.

      • mra2012

        The delight she evinces does suggest that she is exaggerating, but I don’t think it precludes her being a true believer. Somberness makes sense if you believe those things, just not somberness in public when facing a rival; that is a time to show strength, which she does (in a disgraceful way, of course, granted).

        • James

          There’s precious few people at all who can manage to restrain their righteous desire to vilify a criminal (objective or subjective in their own eyes), especially publically.

          I guess this could be summed up as ‘haters gonna hate’.

      • Raven01

        Either somber or afraid. Uncomfortable at the very least. Not many people would be very comfortable in the presence of any person actually guilty of the things that skeevy woman accused others of. Certainly not comfortable enough to wear a shit-eating grin while insulting people.

    • blueface

      In my article, peering through the madness, I discuss this very topic.

      The woman, who wouldn’t have a clue about the man’s views on women, incest, rape or any other subject, calls the man “fucking scum”.

      What she is counting on is people who will defend her, whether it is from the man himself or JtO in an article.

      To defend her those people must bend the reality of the situation to fit the scenario where she is not evil.

      They’ll say she’s been misled, or didn’t get told the whole story, or has been so wronged herself that she is blinded by her emotions.

      Anything except the truth. In my opinion, JtO is on the money with his description. She is a person using her privilege as a protected female to bully the man into leaving the building. That is the reality of the situation.

      Does she have any facts? No. Does she know the man? No. Does she care? No.

      Does she believe it? She doesn’t have to. Just as long as she’s fooled someone into protecting her, she’ll keep getting away with it.

      • mra2012

        She has all the facts she needs to accuse him of those things; “rape-apologist”=anyone who disagrees or even hints at disagreement with a feminist’s opinion on sexuality,”woman-hater”=anyone who disagrees with anything a feminist says about any topic that concerns feminism, and this dude was there in support of someone who does those very things; ergo, he is a “rape-apologist” and “woman-hater”. So I don’t think it’s that she says those things without believing them to gain an advantage, it’s that her ideology logically commits her to those absurdities; absurdities which unfortunately have a lot of purchase and credibility in western discourse.

        • blueface

          First of all, her ideology makes her behaviour predictable but not excusable.

          Feminism is not about equality. It is about privilege. It is, above all else, about power. That is what that woman had over the man. Power.

          And she was enjoying it. And she knew her claims were untrue. That just made her more power all the more enjoyable.

          Those absurdities you mentioned have a lot of purchase because it gives nutjobs like her the power she craves.

          Does she know that the man is a good man? No. Does she know if he is a bad man? No. She doesn’t care.

          Has she consciously sat down and thought “well I know this man is probably innocent but I’ll accuse him of these things anyway?” No.

          That would require an honesty she clearly does not posess. She instinctively avoids that question in the same way I instinctively avoid snakes.

          No, she instictively knows that if she has a rational conversation with the man about why he is there, there’s a danger there might be an agreement that every body has the right to heard (free speech, etc) and that the guy is entitled to listen. No power there.

          Get right in his face and call him “fucking scum” in front of all her feminist friends: Power.

          • mra2012

            I agree that her behavior was inexcusable. I also agree that power is something sought after and reveled in by feminists, but I don’t think it’s some overarching, all-encompassing motive. Of course they seek power for its own sake, but they also seek power to facilitate the achievement of other ends. I have no doubt that miserable hussy was enjoying her freedom to harass that poor guy at will, but she was also doing it for what she perceives to be a greater good, and I don’t think that’s something we should shy away from, because it doesn’t absolve her of responsibility.

  • Shrek6

    I wouldn’t mind betting the foul mouthed screeching harridan is actually the only person there who is a lover of incest and all other depraved sexually deviant practices.

    And good on the young fella for his typically proud, respectful and strong male demeanor and behaviour. Yes, it is painful to watch an ugly bitch screaming in your face and not be able to get away from it, but he showed just how much of a man he truly is.
    I take my hat of to him.

    It’s a shame the cops didn’t have any balls to shut the rape screamer down and make her move on. But then, they are paid to let women do what they like and protect them while they are doing it.

    • Greyfeld

      Security was only there to make sure that the doors to the building weren’t blocked, and that the protesters weren’t actively interfering with Mr. Farrell’s lecture. As long as the protesters aren’t physically interfering with anything, they can legally shout their heads off as much as they’d like.

      As far as I’m aware, anyway.

      • tallwheel

        Dr. Farrell himself said in the interview afterward (on youtube) that he is fine with protesters and their right to protest. It is interfering with people’s right to attend the lecture that he has a problem with.

      • blueface

        Shouting their heads off in general is OK, but getting in a man’s face, when he is on his own and you’ve got a whole bunch of your gang with you, and calling him “fucking scum” is not a protest.

        If the man was being called “fucking scum” for any other reason , for example if he was black, jewish, muslim, or from any other group, the police would have moved in. Even if they didn’t make an arrest, they would move people on to defuse the situation.

        If it had been a man yelling at a woman, he would have been arrested before he finished the first sentence.

  • Tlaloc

    “She is clearly sadistic, unable and unwilling to recognize the humanity of anyone who does not slavishly and blindly agree with her own religion of hate.”

    I cannot agree more with this.

  • Malestrom

    No, John was right, she would not adopt such an agressive tone against an individual as dangerous as the one she is describing, not even in the presence of police. She knows full that that young man is totally harmless, which is where all her bravado comes from.

    The reason she says those things is because she knows that having those things said about you, loudly and publicly, by a woman, if you are a man, is enormously socially damaging, regardless of whether or not there is the slightest shred of truth to them.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Yes, exactly, she is the political version of the abusive female partner, slapping and kicking her boyfriend or husband precisely because she knows he will not hit back.

      • Shrek6

        In fact, I would go as far as saying that she is a good representation of the overwhelming majority of women of her generation in pretty much most or all western countries. They are overly aggressive and have toxic attitudes toward all men, including the ones they profess to love.

        • scatmaster

          In fact, I would go as far as saying that she is a good representation of the overwhelming majority of women of her generation in pretty much most or all western countries.

          With all due respect Mr. Shrek that is an understatement my brother.

          • James

            I disagree. The extreme outliers always get the most attention. What we see, what so many of these articles are about, is the very worst excesses of feminist madness and hypocrisy.

      • Sting Chameleon

        He won’t hit back because he fears retribution from the male enforcers, not due to a lack of desire.

        • Frimmel

          The last person to attempt to strike my 5’10″ and 200 pound person in anger was a 5’2″ and maybe 100 pound woman. Had another women not been standing nearby and pointed out that “She started it,” as I held her fist (after the third swing at me) so she couldn’t hit me…

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          I don’t think you’re correct. Very few men will voluntarily hit a woman, especially in public. I don’t know how much of that is cultural and how much of it is biological but it’s been shown time and time again that most men have a very strong aversion to hitting women and need to be moved to an extremely high state of agitation before they’ll do it. (A push or shove is more likely but even that would have got him pummeled here.)

          • Steve_85

            Anyone can be pushed too far. Keep needling at someone for long enough and they’ll snap. I’ve seen what happens when I snap, its not pretty, and those cops wouldn’t have been able to save her.

            There’s a reason I stay away from events like that.

        • http://22to28.wordpress.com 22to28

          Hi Sting Chameleon,

          I’m not eager to weigh into this conversation thread, as I have already said my piece and provided a link to my own website when I responded to Paul Elam’s discussion of this protest in another article, but based on your comment, I feel that I need to restate one or two things.

          I was the 20-something year old man who was verbally assaulted by the unidentified young woman in the video.

          I think that its important for me to state that there wasn’t for one instant any desire in me to respond physically to this woman’s verbal attacks.

          This is because I’m a man. It only took me a split second to size up this woman and eliminate her as a physical threat to my well-being. She was in an aggressive stance, yes, but not one that suggested that she was ready to fight me.

          Although, I think if anything, she was looking to incite me to responding physically to ensure her own victim status, obviously I can’t rule out the possibility that she could have taken a swing at me. It wasn’t something I was really worried about, though, because if she was skilled in combat and her goal was to hurt me, she would have approached me from behind, rather than from a direction that I could see her coming.

          Also, I did not fear the police. Do not get the impression that I have a great deal of faith in the police…I’ve had both negative experiences and positive experiences with the police. My most negative experience in North America was with the Toronto Police Service several years ago. So, you could say that I am pro-civility, but I acknowledge that police officers are human and sometimes make mistakes.

          On the other hand, in this particular scenario, I viewed the police as a source of safety. I’ve worked with armed retired police officers in my professional past on a daily basis in a quasi-law enforcement environment and as you can see from the video, I know exactly how to talk to police and seek the benefit from their assistance.

          I wasn’t worried about how the police would react if I smacked her upside the head, because I never considered responding physically for even one second. In this situation, I saw them only as a neutral influence on the situation and politely and respectfully requested their assistance, which they provided me the courtesy of.

          Now if the person who approached me had been larger than I, had been more threatening in their posture and I hadn’t been within a few feet of several police officers whose eyes displayed concern for and awareness of my situation, in all honesty, I might have done a little thinking about being ready to respond physically. If I had been surrounded by a group of about-to-be attackers out of the sight of people that could help and protect me, I find no shame in admitting that I may have used a physical solution to escape the situation.

          But, despite how we might feel emotionally about this video, a physical response was never something that occurred to me, because it wouldn’t have made the situation any better. And based on my contact with the other men and women who attended the lecture, I can say with certainty that I doubt any of them would have thought very seriously about responding physically to this sort of verbal attack. They were a civil group of people, and while they were clearly unnerved by the aggressive and hateful behaviour of the protestors, none were looking for a fight.

          If you watched the video and were certain that if you had been in my shoes, you would have responded violently, I’d encourage you to stay away from any protests of this kind. If you or I had slapped this woman, it would have been captured on video, a video that would have given these protestors every inch of justification that they desired.

          We are better than that. We are men. We aren’t afraid of violence, but will only use it to defend ourselves and others when we are in actual danger. Not because someone calls us mean names. I knew that when I was five and I still believe it today.

    • mra2012

      What reason would she have to fear for her safety even if he was all those things? Granted, someone with those traits might be predisposed to violence, but how would it come to pass? He doesn’t know anything about her, so how is he going to track her down? And the police being around is obviously a sufficient reason to feel safe for the time being, no matter who one is facing. Furthermore, in femi-land, “rape-apologist”=anyone who disagrees with what a feminist has to say about sexual assault, and “woman-hater”= anyone who disagrees with them on anything; in other words, not necessarily someone who is predisposed to violence.

      • Malestrom

        People are not that logical, especially women. Go to a zoo, stand 2 inches away from the bars of the lion enclosure and antagonize the biggest lion to the point it charges at you. Unless you are extremely brave you will jump back because you are wired to fear a charging lion, it doesn’t matter that you know logically you are 100% safe.

        She’s perfectly aware that guy is harmless. Furthermore, she knows that the things she said hurt him, which is why she said them, they hurt him precisely because he is not those things, if he was he wouldn’t care.

        • Kimski

          Hat’s off to the young man, for the calmness and restriction he is showing.

          If she tried that with this lion, she would be eaten in a heartbeat, bars or no bars.
          I’m just not that patient with bullies anymore.

  • rper1959

    the “yet to be identified woman verbally harassing a young man” is also physically intimidating and apparently wanting to provoke a reaction from him, so the police can step in and rescue her.

    She needs to be identified and outed for what she is, a violent abusive ideologue – and her details posted on register her dot com where they belong.

    • Shrek6

      Couldn’t agree more. And I thought the same thing. She was hoping this young man would smack her in the chops, so she could get the trophy of injury to prove her point that she was indeed facing a woman hater.

      She should be identified and publicly shamed!

      • Ben

        As much as I agree with what you and Dr. Canning are saying, I don’t think many women are capable of feeling shame as an emotion. I don’t think that the feeling of “shame” as we think of it was naturally selected in females during evolution. It would not have been an asset to group survival in females in the way that it would have been for males. I am almost certain that this woman in particular could feel no shame. Identifying her actions to the world would make those who attempted to shame her become the only recipents of derision and shaming from the general public, due to how we evolved.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      You know, it’s funny. As with Sasha Wiley, Pamela O’Shaughnessey, Christine Armstrong, the whole Swedish Crew of SCUM theatre, The Radfem members and others so far, someone almost always manages to ID these piles of human garbage so we can out them publicly.

      Consider this a shout out to the students and faculty at U of T and anyone else who might know. We want the identity of that woman. There needs to be an article here with her name in the headline and her featured picture.

      Let’s tell the world exactly who she is and see how much she likes the attention.

  • scatmaster

    If someone could freeze frame the video and enhance the picture and post it I would be happy to send it on to a friend who works in IT at U of T. Don’t know if it will help but you never know.

    Never mind here it is.

    http://i.imgur.com/e4yTx.jpg

    Tell your friends.

    How about posting it on all of your websites.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Good move scat. Please let us know if you find anything. I have saved the pic. I think it will make a great feature image on an article about her.

      • scatmaster

        Will do but I hope people will not think I will get the answer we are looking for. Hope everyone does their due diligence.

    • Ben

      Good grief I could slap the ever living shit out of that woman! (I wouldn’t actually do it, of course, but she sure makes the thought come to mind) Just look at that face as she calls that guy “fucking scum incest apologist who hates women” or whatever it was she said. I am not advocating violence but getting in a man’s face while saying those things, making that face, and provoking him is dangerous. Just saying.

      And what was the guy’s infraction? Was it merely trying to attend the show? For all she knew, he was going to watch the show and afterwards disagree with Dr. Farrell and never give it another thought. He could have been attending the show in order to challenge Dr. Farrell, for all she knew. I could be wrong, but if this was the woman’s way of confronting a stranger because he merely walked toward a door to a conference that she did not approve of, then I am embarrassed to even be a college student right now. Imagine if I acted like that at a Take Back the Night Rally and got up in women’s faces and called them whores here at Mississippi State for walking toward the door to the auditorium. Would the police protect me?

    • Roger O Thornhill

      The cream of the crop no doubt!

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        Crop with an “a”.

    • dhanu

      There’s some reverse image search services (Google reverse image search and TinEye etc) which take a photo or its URL as the search query and return related results. I tried these two for the image you linked. Some results come up in Google but I wouldn’t know if they’re relevant. If anyone wants to explore, here are the services:

      [url=http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html]Google Reverse Image Search[/url]

      [url=http://tineye.com/]TinEye[/url]

      [url=http://www.comptalks.com/top-10-reverse-image-search-engines/]A list of other reverse image search engines (came up on Bing search)[/url]

  • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

    Big talk from a little bitch. Ooooh, how much fun would it be to see her pull that shit WITHOUT the big bad boys in blue protecting her?

    Does she not see the irony? The only reason you get to shriek in a grown man’s face without getting punched is because OTHER MEN are there to protect you.

    Itchy palms, itchy palms. How do you NOT want to slap that woman?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Be careful here. We take a very dim view of violence advocacy on this site. You are close to the line.

      • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

        My sincere apologies. I’ve read around the site a bit and now understand exactly why you are careful. I have no desire to provide fodder for the cannon.

        It won’t happen again.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          Thanks for your understanding, and welcome!

          Also, as a side note, while we are careful due to the high degree of comment mining from gender ideologues, the fact remains that the policy on violence is simply because we are opposed to it.

    • scatmaster

      Understand your frustration JB but the fembots will grab onto anything even coming from someone of the same gender even if it is said in jest. Turdrelle in one of his latest screeds has brought up a statement (which was incorrectly quoted and out of context) by Farrell which was made nearly 20 years ago. They have no shame or conscience.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        It’s an obscenity isn’t it? As a researcher he reports that in surveying people involved in incest, some (mostly when it happened as between consenting adults or two teenagers) reported not having very negative feelings about it. Others reported profound damage from it. He mentions this research finding, and now for more than 20 years they quote him out of context. It’s vicious, hateful demagoguery. But it’s how guys like Futrelle make a living: spewing hate, twisting and manipulating, and feeding off the misery of others. One day maybe he’ll grow a conscience, but first he’d have to find a new source of income I suppose.

        • gwallan

          That stuff has been heaped on Farrell for too long. It needs to be pointed out that he was a full on feminist in the time from which those misquotes are lifted. He was operating to THEIR theology at the time.

        • http://22to28.wordpress.com 22to28

          Fact is, back those many years ago, he decided not even to publish his findings because he felt that they would be too disruptive.

          I know him to be a man who cares very much about a better would and is taking action to actually create one. That he would be the target of this kind of protest is an extreme embarrassment to society.

          There are really monsters out their who should be opposed. Dr. Farrell is not one of them.

    • Zarathos022

      And besides, these pricks are the ones who see no problem with violence. And who would ever want to be like them?

  • Zarathos022

    Where are the feminists who aren’t like that?

    That’s simple. They aren’t there because they don’t fucking exist.

    It’s like I said before: Sandhu, CreepyBitterBitch, the little pissants from the protest, and ANY others who deign to call themselves feminists wouldn’t know what equality was if it walked up to them, turned around, dropped trouser, and sprayed diarrhea in their smug, arrogant faces.

    If your a feminist and you come across this comment, listen the fuck up:

    You don’t give a shit about equality.

    You NEVER gave a shit about equality.

    Every fucking thing you’ve done to this point should be clear evidence of how much of a fuck you don’t give about equality.

    Your whole ideology is a misandric cyst on the ass of humanity.

    And I look forward to the day it finally gets removed.

  • Mr. J

    Kind of off topic but not really….Paid female “Addiction Counselor” kills while driving drunk….I think just the month before, another female “Addiction Counselor” had caused an injury wreck from driving drunk….Another pattern going on?????????????

  • scatmaster
    • Zarathos022

      Oh do let me guess, these dumbshits still think that the MRM is nothing more than a bunch of angry white guys right?

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        Of course. Dividing us up by race is one of the ways they marginalize, demean, and exploit. Oh, don’t forget, we’re all straight and middle aged and “bitter” because we can’t get laid or something.

        The hateful bigotry that spews out of these people never ends. Scratch hard and they’re usually racist and homophobic too, but whatever.

        • rper1959

          Despite their women’s studies “inclusivity” indoctrination they hypocritically think that the “intersectionality” of race, class, sex, sexual orientation and sexual preference only applies to women.

          • Otter

            How do they possibly reconcile the term “GENDER studies” with their shrill cry that men should stop complaining?

        • Zarathos022

          Well, in response to that particular shaming tactic I have this to say:

          In the kind of world that these bigots want us to live in there’s not much incentive to even get laid, is there?

  • Robert St. Estephe

    The boys do not do well under the operative conditioning regimen that has replaced teaching actual subjects in elementary schools. Boys do not do well under the thought-control, social engineering, stasi-designed supervision, indoctrination and censorship in the universities. Girls, on the other hand, do well under the dumbed-down system that favors ideology, opportunism, bogus history, gossip-styled discourses and dishonest use of language.

    All male students are entitled to a full refund plus damages from universities on the grounds of malpractice and civil rights violations.

    Pay up, crooks!

    • Mr. J

      Don’t forget, “high” schools too.

  • Wolverine1568

    The guy should sue her for slander and defamation of character, civilly and criminally. That was an offence under the criminal of Canada with what seems to me, a clear intent to malign his person and cause him loss and harm without fact or evidence.

  • Tawil

    The Suffragettes’ Policy of Inane Violence

    by E. Belfort Bax – 1913

    [quote] “There is another falsehood we often hear by way of condoning the infamous outrages of the suffragettes. The excuse is often offered when the illogical pointlessness of the “militant” methods of the modern suffragette are in question: “Oh! men have also done the same things: men have used violence to attain political ends!” Now the fallacy involved in this retort is plain enough.

    It may be perfectly true that men have used violence to attain their ends on occasion. But to assert this fact in the connection in question is purely irrelevant. There is violence and violence. It is absolutely false to say that men have ever adopted purposeless and inane violence as a policy. The violence of men has always had an intelligible relation to the ends they had in view, either proximate or ultimate. They pulled down Hyde Park railings in 1866. Good! But why was this? Because they wanted to hold a meeting, and found the park closed against them, the destruction of the railings being the only means of gaining access to the park. Again, the Reform Bill riots of 1831 were at least all directed against Government property and governmental persons – that is, the enemy with whom they were at war. In most cases, as at Bristol and Nottingham, there was (as in that of the Hyde Park railings) a very definite and immediate object in the violence and destruction committed – namely, the release of persons imprisoned for the part they had taken in the Reform movement, by the destruction of the gaols where they were confined. What conceivable analogy have these things with a policy of destroying private property, setting fire to tea pavilions, burning boat-builders’ stock-in-trade, destroying private houses, poisoning pet dogs, upsetting jockeys, defacing people’s correspondence, including the postal orders of the poor, mutilating books in a college library, pictures in a public gallery, etc., etc.? And all these, bien entendu, not openly and in course of a riot, but furtively, in the pursuit of a deliberately premeditated policy! Have, I ask, men ever, in the course of the world’s history, committed mean, futile and dastardly crimes such as these in pursuit of any political or public end? There can be but one answer to this question. Every reader must know that there is no analogy whatever between suffragettes’ “militancy” and the violence and crimes of which men may have been guilty. Even the Terrorist Anarchist, however wrong-headed he may be, and however much his deeds may be deemed morally reprehensible, is at least logical in his actions, in so far as the latter have always had some definite bearing on his political ends and were not mere senseless “running amuck.” The utterly disconnected, meaningless and wanton character signalising the policy of the “militant” suffragettes would of itself suffice to furnish a conclusive argument for the incapacity of the female intellect to think logically or politically, and hence against the concession to women of public powers, political, judicial or otherwise.” [end quote]

    Source book: ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ by E. Belfort Bax, Published 1913

  • Tawil

    @JTO: “Oh yeah, I know not all feminists are like that. I keep being told this, so it must be true. I just wonder, where are they, and why do I not hear them stridently denouncing this virulent conduct by their fellow ideologues?”

    Not all Suffragettes are Like That

    by E. Belfort Bax – 1913

    [quote] “It is quite true that the majority of the women agitating for the suffrage at the present day are themselves non-militants. But what is and has been their attitude towards their militant sisters? Have they ever repudiated the criminal tactics of the latter with the decision and even indignation one might reasonably have expected had they really regarded the campaign of violence and wanton outrage with strong disapprobation, not to say abhorrence? The answer must be a decided negative. At the very most they mildly rebuke the unwisdom of militant methods, blessing them, as it were, with faint blame, while, as a general rule, they will not go even so far as this, but are content, while graciously deigning to tell you that, although their own methods are not those of militancy, yet that they and the militants are alike working for the same end, notwithstanding they may differ as to the most effective methods of attaining it. The non-militant woman suffragist is always careful never to appear an anti-militant. Everyone can see that had the bulk of the so-called “peaceable and law-abiding” suffragists, to whose claims we are enjoined to give ear, honestly and resolutely set their faces against, and vigorously denounced, the criminal campaign, refusing to have anything to do with it or its authors, the campaign in question would have come to an end long ago. But no! this would not have suited the book of the “peaceable and law abiding” advocates of woman’s suffrage. Their aim has been, and is still, to run with the “militant” hare and hunt with the “peaceable and law-abiding” hounds. While themselves abstaining from any unlawful act they are perfectly willing and desirous that they and their movement shall reap all the advantages of advertisement and otherwise that may accrue from the militant policy. That the above is a true state of the case as regards the “peaceful and law-abiding” elements in the suffragist movement, which we are assured so largely outnumber the militant section, one would think must be plain to everyone, however obtuse, who has followed with attention the course of the present agitation. And yet there are fools of the male sex who consider seriously this preposterous plea of the injustice of refusing to concede the suffrage to a large number of “peaceable and law-abiding” women who are demanding it, because of the action of a small body of violent females – with whom, bien entendu, the aforesaid large body of “peaceable and law-abiding” women (while keeping themselves carefully aloof from active participation in militancy), do not pretend to conceal their sympathy! [end quote]

    Source book: ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ by E. Belfort Bax, Published 1913

  • the Tired Low Social

    i find myself in agreement with judgybitch

  • http://www.mralondon.org/ TFB

    Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that a video was shot of behaviour of these feminists described in the article. Could someone post a link to that vid please?

  • napocapo69

    brilliant

  • gwallan

    About a week ago I described a minor pile-on I experienced near our local white ribbon event.

    One of the young blokes who was threatening to beat my brains out was quite loudly insisting that “men are c..ts”, I went after him as to how or where he’d learned that. He “knew” because he’s “a man” according to him.

    Poor bastard.

    • Tawil

      Poor sorry indoctrinated bastard indeed!

    • Sting Chameleon

      I’d have decked him in a heartbeat, if someone makes such a threat against me it’s no quarter for him or her. Funny how those morons accuse the MRM of being ‘violent’, yet they use enforcers to punish those who don’t tow the line.

      • gwallan

        “I’d have decked him in a heartbeat”

        Wasn’t indicated. I was arguing that the white ribbon agenda could cause violence. He thought he was doing exactly the right thing because the white ribboners had told him so. He proved my point quite adequately. It was an instance where my proving my own case physically was manifestly inappropriate.

        Two thirds to three quarters of the victims of violence in our communities are male. Those victims are always written out of the equation, particularly by the sort of advocacy represented by the white ribbon. In essence they are canceled out against the perpetrators thus creating a null set. The violence it represents becomes invisible.

        The white ribbon agenda demands actions by men in the defense of women. There seems to have been little thought given to the potential consequences of those actions. I have every reason to believe that by rendering male on male violence invisible in their thinking they are incapable of predicting such violence as an outcome.

    • Railstar

      Surely that would just mean *he* is a c..t? Unless he seriously believes all men are identical to him.

  • andybob

    I will never forget the moment it dawned on me that the reason I could never have a logical discussion with a feminist was due to the fact that they always talked bullshit, knew they always talked bullshit, but believed it anyway.

    This is why there is disagreement among us as to whether that shrieking product of a broken home believes what she is saying. Everybody is right. She knows this man is not a violent rapist or rape apologist, but convinces herself that he is anyway.

    This ability to embrace double-think is how women like her are able to believe that they earn less than the man in the cubicle next to them, while knowing their salaries are the exactly the same.

    Makes no sense to us. In fact, it veers on the wrong side of borderline. Does it make sense to her? That depends on what you mean by ‘make sense’. If you mean validating her feelings, then, yes, it makes complete sense to her.

    Read the Jezebel article The Scatmaster linked to. The writer believes every scurilous word she’s furiously tapped onto her keyboard – she all but spontaneously combusts in her fit of pique. However, she also knows it’s all bullshit. This is why she interrupts her gloating over the political demise of “white guys” to remind us (twice in the opening paragraph) that “white guys” still hold all of the power.

    She acknowledges that “white guys” do have some legitimate problems to which she offers the following advice: they should embrace feminism and then fuck off and die – or words to that effect. That feminist charm always comes shining through.

    As Dr Canning states, she wanted to provoke a violent response from that young man. Perhaps she would be permitted to don the Holy Grail of Canadian Feminism – Creepybittergirl’s bandage – and be Patriarchy Victim of the Week. These creatures are completely deranged.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      The Jezebel article was so racist, hateful, and misandrist I was thinking about writing a front page article about it. I’m just not sure I can stomach the negative energy it would take to respond to its vitriol. There’s only so much answering to hate-spewing I can take at the moment.

      • James

        ‘Australia’s nationalistic war day’ – an entire article could be written about this single, fucking vile epithet alone.

      • andybob

        I know exactly what you mean, Mr Esmay.

        Sometimes the bile on sites like Jezebel runs so deep that the best response is a speedy exit. I took one look at the comment by the male feminist expressing his sorrowful guilt at being a straight white guy – he calls it winning the gene pool Lotto – and I knew I had to bail.

        The content of the 67 replies he received will just have to remain a mystery.

        • scatmaster

          Mr andybob you have a bigger set of cojones than me sir. I got about half way through the article and closed it having seen enough. Posted it here knowing the vitriol I had witnessed so far would be enough to get a response from the more learned (such as yourself and Dean) amongst us.

      • scatmaster

        Sorry Dean but I did post it because I figured one of the writers on AVFM with a damn sight better writing skills than I could address it. It seems that it may merit a stern rebuttal. Wish I had the skill set to do so. Alas, all I can do is recognize stupidity and hate. Especially when it smacks me right across the face.

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          Picking a fight with these feministsStalinists would be a worthy endeavor. That said, I have to monitor myself carefully ‘lest I burn out from exhaustion. As the saying goes, when you stare into the abyss, it stares back into you. I’ll continue to think about it and see if I can charge up the energy, but that doesn’t stop anyone else who wants to take up the cudgels if I don’t get to it. This hatemongering thug deserves a response.

          A little known fact about the ancient Roman military and why it was so successful: they would line up in rows several men deep. The men in the front of the line would fight, and if one fell another behind him would step forward, but in any case, after a minute or two the Centurion would blow a whistle (yes, they’ve had whistles for thousands of years) and the whole front line would step sideways and back up and the fresh line behind them would step up.

          This is what made them so successful against the barbarian hordes. Notice how there are very, very few stories of individual warrior heroes in Roman legend, but mostly just heroic Roman Generals–that’s because Roman discipline didn’t allow for much individual heroicism, but had them marching like a machine through sometimes vastly greater numbers of much less organized foes.

          There is a lesson in that. Individual heroics gets you only so much. Organization, discipline, and the willingness to step up when someone else is exhausted gets you further.

          (I’m just waiting for that to be quote-mined into an “advocacy of violence,” because that’s how these feministStalinist thugs work.)

  • RapeyBeatyGuy

    I would laugh my ass off if a group of these “activists” approached me and threatened me with weapons. (Not to belittle what happened to JtO, we just live in diff. areas)

    CCW and combat experience for the win.

    It’d be a quick wake up call for the group of pampered twits who think they are invincible in society no matter what.

    Here is a newsflash sweethearts:

    You aren’t that important and you don’t get to attack others because you over glorify your vagina.

    Get some.

    <3 A Man Who Has Gone His Own Way, Come Back And Is Prepared To FTSU

  • Brigadon

    you know, as much as I agree that creepybittercunt’s actions with the avfm posters was disgusting, I think that referring to scrapers as ‘knives’ and ‘deadly weapons’ is getting a bit out of hand. You are diluting your message by constantly referring to them when, in fact, while the idiot carrying a box cutter was, in fact, an idiot, he clearly brought them with him to scrape off posters. He never looked at the cutter, brandished it in any way, or threatened with it.

    The whole situation was atrocious, but shading the facts in this fashion to make it sound like sascha dipshit was in command of a gang of dagger-wielding thugs simply validates her and makes her look like a ‘valiant warrior maiden for social consciousness’ rather than the spoiled brat and the clueless mallrats following her around hoping some pussy accidentally drops on them that they really were.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I don’t entirely see this your way. First off it was in fact a boxcutter, not a scraper. Second, while at least one of the Stasi thugs wielding a boxcutter looked like a harmless dishrag, the fact is that, having been in numerous lifethreatening situations myself, having anyone holding an open boxcutter waving it around (which is exactly what he was doing) while talking to you is potentially dangerous no matter what their body language. This is the same way that violent women often get away with their violence, they “look harmless” so therefore they must be, right? Also, one needs to bear in mind that being alone while surrounded by a crowd of people like this? It is a very different feeling than the narrow view a camera gives you.

      What these people were doing was attempting to intimidate as well as silence. Obviously a little giddy with their own power and self-righteousness, just one wrong move by JTO, even a defensive move, could have sparked something horrible that these idiots didn’t even intend, although their intentions were obviously malicious and they were itching for an excuse to get violent, it’s in the body language of multiple participants visible even if one cocky young fuck is laughing while defending “emotional arguments” semicoherently.

      I cannot say I would have been “afraid” in that situation exactly, but only because having worked as a repo man I’ve faced worse. What I would have been is completely calm, then I would have been shaking a few hours later. That’s just how my brain works in these situations. (Testosterone: it doesn’t make men violent, it makes them calm under pressure. FYI.)

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      As you finally said, they were box cutters, not scrapers. And tell you what, Mr. Fly-in-and-tell-us-what-we-ought-to-do, the presence of a weapon changes the dynamic considerably when you are the one on the ground looking at it in the hands of a person destroying your property, rather than just dropping into a forum after the fact to tell people what they are doing wrong.

      Also, fuck you.

    • Otter

      Are you denying that you can easily kill someone with a box-cutter?

      Because you’re flat out wrong on that, buddy.

  • Booyah

    I think many of the men here have seen that look and attitude before. A woman proudly terrorizing a man because she knows that there is nothing at all he can do about it. I know I’ve been there and seen it long before I even knew there was a MRM. Reminds me of a time I ended up hiding between two sheds in my own home because I’d let the wrong woman in the house. One who became a drunken violent monster fully confident that she would be unchallenged by me or law.

    So similar really.

  • http://danipettas.com Dani Pettas

    Awesome piece.

  • Brigadon

    btw, no thanks, not into having sex with dudes.

  • UKMan

    In 2012, Obama, the American Feminist Head of State, announced in June “more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” The president added,

    This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but, for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.

    This is great news for young women – we have a similar thing happening here in the UK. As a side note, I was just wondering exactly where this glut of female graduates are going to work? Is there a world shortage of baristas?

    • Otter

      “More women as a whole now graduate from college than men… this is what Title IX is all about.”

      At least he’s being honest.

  • samdman

    Been silently hanging around A Voice for Men for about a year now and ShrinkforMen two years. Had a borderline personality disordered girlfriend for 7 years and now going through the domestic violence system as an abuser. I feel now that my assfucking was much easier to take when I didn’t know how bad I was being assfucked. Thank You Voice for Men . You have been my only means of copeing and realy truely helped me through this hard time. Pun intended.

  • Militarytruthseeker

    Im a smple person, who has had to educate people on complicated topics with various cultural and moral values. I have learned to review situations in a context that can recognize already in order to bypass preconceived notions and beleifs, to get to the root of basic issues.

    In this case i would tell my class:

    Imagine we were in the 1950s and the was a black man being harrassed by a white man. The content of the insults wouldnt matter, what would be recognized is the freedom to hate without recourse, or WITH socially approved support.

    Laws reflect our values not define them. Jim crow laws reflected values of their day. We have moved past them. However, the success of the civil rights movement has shown that small groups of people CAN change policy as a whole, and if its founded in truth then society with it.

    What feminist have done is adopt the tactics of the civil rights movement, claim minorty status, but they lack integirty. Blacks were ACTUALLY slaves.

    The main difference in the two secenarios, the one i have offered, and the one given is math. When we say the blacks are a minority, we mean, that despite their whole support behind a vebue, they could never produce the numbers to effect social change to benfit them. However, women comprise 50% of the population.

    Its clear that in both scenarios hate is the driving force. But today we arent in a place to call it hate. But your heart tells you otherwise.

  • Otter

    It’s almost as if they are drunk with power. You can see how gleefully they scream “rape supporter!” It’s as if they are pushing the anti-men hate envelope as far as possible to see what they can get away with.

  • Militarytruthseeker

    My most recent exposure to feminism in person was something ive noticed for sometime now. We were discussing the outward anger of women in venues like this.

    Then, i was basicaly told i could never understand what it means to be a feminist so my dissenting opinion was meanlingless as a man.

    Immediately followed by 15 minutes of her telling me whats wrong with men, as a victim authority.

    Then it hit me! They can understand us, but we can never understand them unless of course we repeat what they say in a deeper voice.

    It may be pointless to keep pointing out what would happen if a man did this yelling and posturing (I certainly have pointed this out), i think we all know the answer. But this problem infects almost every public venue we have. Its a clear one sided conversation that likely wont change until women become victims of their own fate. Dont mistake me for a naysayer, im far from it.

    I have optimism that feminist are IN FACT their own worst enemy. More and more women are seeing “their” men being victimized and targetd and as a result having to deal with the consquences in the second order. I feel certain that for everyman they yell at, like in the video, theres a girlfriend or wife out there that just lost her stomach for the “message”. I would also add, that most men who dont care eitherway probably havent been exposed to this via the family courts or other infected venues.

    Feminism is like tesicular cancer in this way. Man we really like our testicles but its scary to see the cancer. So ill just ignore it until it hurts. When it hurts, men step up. Men are taught they dont have testicle cancer until it hurts. If it doesnt hurt your just not a man.

    Now, they have accepted our young men as nothing more than disposable targets, and focused their efforts on their education ealry on. (remember the 90s? Good grief what girly men) Will it make a difference when their daughters get hosed and become unemployable and undatable/marriable because they only know how to hate men? Or, is it/that too late?

    One things for sure, IF that guy at the lecture DID disagree with the lecture, good luck with having him on team stalin.

    No truth, no mercy.

  • mra2012

    That the protesters could chant “This is what men’s right’s looks like” without batting an eye demonstrates so well the tyrannical character of feminism. “This” was clearly referring to the police presence and brimming chaos, yet we can say with certainty that the group solely responsible for it was them, the feminists. There wouldn’t have been a police presence were it not for them blocking the entrance to the event and mercilessly harassing everyone who was trying to get in. So what accounts for them making such an absurd claim? Well, did you notice what I had to assume in order to claim that the feminists were responsible for the police presence and chaos? I had to assume that Warren Farrell has a right to free speech and those who wished to see him talk had a right to attend. But to the feminists, this is nonsense; Farrell had no right to speak out in opposition to them, and the attendees had no right to hear him. Looked at this way, Farrell and the attendees were in fact responsible for the police presence and brimming chaos: he had the gall to SPEAK, and they had the gall to THINK he had something interesting to say.

  • rper1959