The Men’s Rights subreddit is a gift that keeps on giving!
In response to a woman pledging her support to the Men’s Rights movement, someone calling himself Nephilim_Hunter offers his thanks:
Because men have been relegated to a what of a what now?
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Just wanted to make sure I understood that you really, actually did just say that.
Oh, by the way,I’m starting a new feature here at Man Boobz. It’s called: Random Pictures of Boards of Directors.
Here’s a picture of the board of directors of Wal-Mart:
Oh, and here’s the board of directors for GE:
And here’s the board of directors of Duke Energy:
Oh, and the board of directors at Dynasty Financial Partners:
And these fellas are the board of directors at The Rea Magnet Wire Company:
And, while we’re at it, here’s the board of directors of Man Boobz:
That’s a much more catchy title. Who the hell is John Carter to the person on the street? But no, men aged 18-45 who go see a movie with “Princess” in the title are 17% more likely than average to have their manlybits shrivel up and drop off in the middle of the night. Trufax!
… I love your work. I should probably go tell you that on your website 🙂
lauralot found a video about Meller’s life story. XD And the source for the one claim is “psychic investigator” the sort of source Meller and NWO love.
Dear DKM:
I found a very special doll just for you!
Robert the Doll! I saw him when I was in Key West last year! I spoke politely to him and he did not curse me. He is, however, a very unsettling doll.
That’s a much more catchy title. Who the hell is John Carter to the person on the street? But no, men aged 18-45 who go see a movie with “Princess” in the title are 17% more likely than average to have their manlybits shrivel up and drop off in the middle of the night. Trufax!
The title was going to be “John Carter of Mars,” but Disney changed it because “Mars Needs Moms” was a big flop and they decided moviegoers didn’t want to see movies with “Mars” in the title.
There are people who are paid far, far more money than you or I to make decisions like this.
I think the reason Mars Needs Moms was a flop was because it was a shitty movie.
When I was little my mom would send me to the store sometimes to buy French bread. LOOK AT ALL THE POWER I HAD CHILDREN RAN THE FAMILY
Disney changed it because “Mars Needs Moms” was a big flop and they decided moviegoers didn’t want to see movies with “Mars” in the title.
Wow. That’s all.
I have to admit that I read and watched “The Princess Bride” several years later than I could have because of title-bigotry.
It was my tragic loss, and I shall not repeat my mistake.
A lot of people had title-bigotry against The Princess Diaries, too, which is sad, because they were great books.
Don’t… don’t get me started on the movie though.
just to be clear: most men aren’t a part of any boardroom. like… 99.99%
Neither are women, Nick. And that does not address the statement those pictures were an answer to. The dood said men don’t have decision making power. In what sphere?
Thanks, Nick. Until you said that, I totally thought there was a 3 billion person boardroom out there.
“[N]onwhites, much less females(of any race) are protected even from well justified criticism”
What this person does not get, and will never get, let’s face it, or they would know by now… it’s the grouping of the groups together and saying X does Y, so Z.
They claim this is also done with men, it is not.
The only thing even remotely close is within the critique of blind spots a demographic can have due to societal privilege. Even then, there are plenty of white men that get the blind spot, privilege thing. So that’s not that either.
Tell you what, Disney: You pay me half what you pay these guys, and I’ll make better decisions than they do because I do not fear that bros will stay away from my movies in droves.
You will all notice that I included the word “inherit” in my post. Women live (on average) 8-10 years longer than men do. This doesn’t even include the largely invisible, mostly tacit methods of manipulation and brainwashing that women are taught to do, from early childhood, in the art of dominating men.
This is only a matter of sitcom humor for millions of ordinary people, but it can have enormous impact among the uppermost 1%, where women are decisive in the decisionmaking of which industries are to thrive and which are due for “reconstruction” or “relocation”, which women go to university and who goes into the fostercare/ ‘welfare’/prison systems, whose banks get bailouts and whose don’t, and so on…
For a small and rather superficial overview of this, you may find an book from 40 years ago, The Manipulated Man, written by Ester Vilar at the beginning of so-called women’s libertation, to be helpful and thought provoking. If not, just keep eyes and ears open, and remember that the same people who babble about “White men running everything” are the same media/academic/ bureaucratic jokers who lie about EVERYTHING else anyway!
The likelihood that these so-called Powerful men photographed above, are all marionette puppets dominated by the women in their lives should be at least considered in an article purporting to show the distribution of power along gender lines.
The fact is that it is often much easier and more convienient for women to rule from “behind the scenes” rather than expose themselves to the stresses, controversies, and rivalries that constitute top level positions in a modern economy and society.
Meller: And you have what proof that women are inheriting vast quantities of wealth?
Because wealthy people… don’t pass money on through direct inheritance. They use trusts, and pass-throughs and in-life gifts (I have friends who are getting 20,000 a year from their parents, so the parents won’t have to worry about 1: living so long their kids don’t get the best benefit of the parent being well-off, and 2: because they own enough property (their father inherited his from his parents, and his uncle) that they will trip the estate tax limit.
They have also put their assets in trust, so as to avoid some of the aspects of the estate tax. Not because they hate taxes: but because they are Quakers, and don’t want that much of their money going to pay for armies and wars.
The likelihood that these so-called Powerful men photographed above, are all marionette puppets dominated by the women in their lives should be at least considered in an article purporting to show the distribution of power along gender lines.
The likelihood they are all pop-people who were grown in vats should be considered too; as well as them being raging communists who want to do away all ideas of freedom.
Both are just as likely as your hypothesis. The latter perhaps a bit more. Because the idea that Ken Lay was being dominated by his wife, and she as the “power behind the throne” at Enron (feel free to choose any other company you’d like to name… IBM, MIcrosoft, General Electric, Monsanto, DuPont), is laughable.
They have to answer to shareholders (not as much as they should), so “wifey wants it” ain’t gonna wash when the subpoenas come.
This doesn’t even include the largely invisible, mostly tacit methods of manipulation and brainwashing that women are taught to do, from early childhood, in the art of dominating men.
This is what’s known as a “paranoid fantasy”.
The likelihood that these so-called Powerful men photographed above, are all marionette puppets dominated by the women in their lives should be at least considered in an article purporting to show the distribution of power along gender lines.
No, it really shouldn’t be considered, because it is, again, an absurd, misogynistic, paranoid fantasy.
@Dracula: If you take NWO and DKM”s absurd, misogynistic, paranoid fantasties away, they’ll have nuthin!
*thinks about it*
**encourages you to take them away, ahahahahah*
WHAT tacit methods of manipulation?
I was assigned female at birth and SHOULD have gotten all that indoctrination. But I didn’t. I am hilariously, notoriously bad at subtext. When I say “does my ass look fat in these jeans?” I mean “does my ass look fat in these jeans?” I once had a conversation about how much I want roses, with my girlfriend, on Valentine’s Day, and didn’t realize until she bought roses that apparently I was hinting that I wanted roses. I couldn’t manipulate someone if I tried, and no one has ever taught me how.
I assure you, when they separated the genders during sex ed, all the girls got was a video about periods.
Seconding Ozy here.
Unless DKM means the fact that many of us have learned strategies for dealing with people that have power over us. You know, showing the utmost respect for them and their concerns, putting our best foot forward, not sharing things that could get us in trouble. Things we try to do to make up for the fact that we don’t have male/white/class/able/heterosexual/fill-in-the-blank privilege.
Pecunium et al…March 13, 2012 @ 3:34pm–
I never said, or even implied, “direct inheritance” in their long-term estate management, Pecunium. I’m not a CPA or a trust attorney, –neither, I suspect, are you–but even I know that income tax laws, “gift taxes” and other loopholes make it necessary for multi-billionaires to resort to all sorts of obscure machinations, usually involving marriage and trust arrangements, to pass on their wealth untouched. Women play, as mothers, wives, and sometimes even daughters or daughters-in-law, considerable roles in this.
Not that it really matters, since at least 1913, both government and “private” corporations are funded from the same source, and these maneuverings mean nothing more than transferring cash (or debt) from one holder to another, with CONTROL remaining essentially with the original owners. Needless to say, the “managers”, whether members of Congress or the Courts, the Boards of directors, or trustees of major Churches or “nonprofits”, are still selected by these kleptocrats (or their widows) with advice and recommendation (as needed) by top level attorneys and accountants.
Have you ever wondered why, from Andrew Carnegie and George Perkins to the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, and (after Henry Ford I ‘s death) the Fords, and now Soros and Warren Buffet, are enthusiastic advocates of central banking, extensive business regulation, and the income tax? It doesn’t matter much if your property is handled from your “left” pocket, or your “right” one, does it?
Even if their money (in small amounts, just a few billion $$$ every generation) goes to the “government”, who do you think owns the legislatures and courts who supervise the disbusements?
Occasionally, for appearances, they may have a few families (usually from the midwest or the South), usually, for the most part, safely away from the bi-coastal centers of power, e.g. Mellon, Dupont, Forbes, Olin, and now, I suppose, the Koch brothers, put on a show supporting “free enterprise” or so-called “traditional American values” as part of a dog-and-pony show staged for the noisemedia (again headquartered, and owned from, New York and Hollywood) to fool the sheeple into once again believing that “government” is protecting “the people” against the criminal oligarchy which is, and has been, robbing us blind for well over a century!
Where is my “proof”? I don’t know, but I suppose that a few (hundred) books, written from both hard left and hard right antiestablishment perspectives, have helped to explain this in more detail than we have time for here. Start with, e.g. Ferdinand Lundberg, Antony C. Sutton, Carroll Quigley, G.William Domhoff, Murray Rothbard (his Wall Street and American Foreign Policy and America’s Great Depression–especially documenting largely unknown connections between J.P.Morgan and the Bank of England–are gems), and the Ron Carnow biographical studies of Rockefeller, Ford, Morgan, and the rest of the criminal element in our society. These will do for starters…
Happy exploring!
“They have to answer to shareholders…”
Not when they, or their wife’s family, or their trusts, owns the majority of common shares, they don’t! Besides, there are so many avenues for an unscrupulous management to get around shareholder scrutiny (restrictions against ‘Insider trading’ or short selling, being only two of the most obvious) that at least since 1932, the year that Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means published The Modern Corporation and Private Property, explored this dichotomy between “ownership” and “control”, the notion of shareholder control, or management accountability, is about as reliable as the similar notion that “the government belongs to the sheeple” when we are “allowed” to vote every so often for a candidate pre-selected and pre-approved by the corporate criminal class! The “personhood” status of corporations also acts as a line of defence by selected management against bumptious or critical shareholders, when the Corporation is legally obligated, regardless of social or ethical considerations, to seek monetary profit for its owners, at all costs.
Lotsa Luck, suckers!!
Power, ladies, if it means anything at all, is the ability to get what you want, often over considerable opposition. The “poor little me” routine is one, and only one, classic feminine gambit through which women gain power, or at least great influence, over the men in their lives.
You personally may not find it to your liking, but many women will, when they want something that the man in their life can provide, indeed pursue their fulfillment through what may be called “the flattery and helplessness act”. Other acts involve more unpleasant methods such as whining, bitchiness, and nagging, which modern women like yourself are probably better at, as well as the “egalitarian argument” option, the “if men can do it, why can’t I”, which we have heard so much about since the 1920s–when women got the vote–and even more since the 1970s, when every major center of activity, from the Civil Service, to the Schools and Churches (whatever is left of them), to the Armed Forces and Law enforcement services (Lord help us!) are now infested with, if not dominated by women.
The POWER to affect these changes had to come from somewhere, and from someone, so women are as good a source of suspects as any. Don’t you agree?
Lauralot–March12, 2012 @ 6:12pm:
I am absolutely NOT interested in your bizarre choice of doll! A doll should be a “little lady lovely”; a visual impression of all that is feminine, desirable, cute, and adorable in womanhood. Same thing with a photograph/painting, or a figurine. Your “doll” is the stuff of which nightmares are made of.
Give it to one of your feminist goofy girlfriends!
The above photos of these supposedly “powerful” white men, who comprise less than .00001% of White people collectively, and, in any event, are nothing but “uncle Tom Whites” who betray their fellow Europeans at the drop of a hat, or for thirty pieces of paper (not even silver,here), are evidence of White political, economic, or male-gender empowerment, HOW???
Once again, look at who may be ridiculed, criticized, or attacked with impunity. Nobody would, for instance, show a bunch of influential Africans (starting,of course, with the current occupant of the Oval Office) as proof that blacks dominate American society, still less ridicule and publicly demean them at every chance (e.g. “stupid black men running the country”) courtesy of Michael Moore during Bush II’s Presidency.Even attempts to portray O’bomber as a “monkey” was denounced as racist!
Care to look back to George Bush II, Dan Quayle, or even Reagan, for example? White men were certainly respected by media and academic elites weren’t they? Even a certain W.J. Clinton faced the music when his public (mis)behavior affected the first Feminist! Compared with Martin Luther King, however,President Clinton was a eunuch, and yet when was the last time one heard of the sainted one’s adulteries, which were indulged in by a supposed ‘man of G-d” no less! Even if these particular Whitemen–and their families–accrued some advantage from this, this would have little or no meaning for 99.999% of everyone else!
White Men having power in contemporary America (still less in Europe) as white men? An arguable–VERY arguable–assertion. Analyse ruling class/power elite dynamics along the lines of the pertinent political, economic, and sociological conflicts and rivalries in the evolution or decay of human societies, but leave any race/ gender/ religion pishposh in the politically correct feminist/marxoid wastebasket where it belongs!