Translate

Showing posts with label feminazis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminazis. Show all posts

Monday, 19 December 2016

Feminazis and their Final Solution

What is the purpose of social cohesion? To get beta males who are most men to risk and sacrifice life and limb to defend their society. The feminazification of society destroys this motivation altogether.

What are feminazis trying to achieve? Are they evil or just stupid? Why do men keep letting them get away with it? Are they hooked on some drug or hypnotised by the seductive gyrations of the slut dancing some macabre dance of death that renders them quite unable to notice or care?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren_(mythology)

The agenda of feminazis appear to be to destroy the masculinity of their own race, invite men of other races and nations to replace them, and then in turn destroy the masculinity of these newcomers.

Perhaps they will not rest until all the women of the world are sluts, all the mothers of the world are Slut Single Mothers, all of the next generation bastards and all the men of the world are Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage and patriarchy.

Surely women cannot really be so evil, you ask yourself.

There is evil everywhere under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 6:1

There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, and it lies heavy upon humankind.

Ecclesiastes 6:2

those to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that they lack nothing of all that they desire, yet God does not enable them to enjoy these things, but a stranger enjoys them. This is vanity; it is a grievous ill.

Do not ask why parasites are parasitical, for that is what they were created to be.

Perhaps these things are sent to try us.

We are being tested for our fitness to survive, and this we may now be lacking.

Feminism is dementia, then death.

Having been castrated and had his spine surgically removed by feminazis, Western Man only now wishes to be allowed to die, it seems. This is because he knows himself to be mortally sick in mind and spirit.  He is certainly too fearful and enfeebled to upset his nurses who are also the feminazis ...

Are British values feminine values? Are feminine values in fact feminine vices? Are all virtues masculine? Are all vices feminine?

 











BRITISH VALUES DEFINED BY A FEMINAZI

BRITISH VALUES IN PRACTICE


BRITISH CULTURE CAUSED BY BRITISH VALUES

BRITISH PARENTING CAUSED BY FEMINIST VALUES
  1. British values is the indispensable ingredient for British culture.  
  2. British values is a weasel word for British morality.
  3. British values is a sociological concept because the British men are too embarrassed about discussing morality, knowing they dare not discuss it in case they are accused of hate speech by a feminazi, their jobs lost and their career ended. 
  4. The British are degenerate, and the degenerate find it on the whole difficult to comprehend and define abstract philosophical ideas such as morality, much less discuss them rationally. 
  5. It was decades of unchecked feminism that produced our Idiocracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc
  6. Are British values Liberal values?
  7. Are Liberal values just policies that encourage sexual liberation?
  8. Are Liberal values feminine values?
  9. Are these feminine values really just feminine vices?
  10. Is the worst feminine vice promiscuity?
  11. Is promiscuity considered the worst feminine vice because it ultimately destroys civilisations? 
  12. Are civilisations destroyed by generations of bad parenting and progressively degenerate offspring?
  13. Are civilisations destroyed by the lowering of general standards of morality and ever lowering educational standards?
  14. Is the Culture of Victimhood a manifestation of another feminine vice?
  15. Is the elevation of victimhood a feminine strategy to prevent men from criticising the behaviour and beliefs of stupid and immoral women?
  16. Are Conservative values masculine values?
  17. Are British men who are Conservative content to let feminazis hijack the concept of British values and stuffing it full of their feminine values which are really feminine vices? 
  18. Have British men even noticed how much their women have feminazified their laws, culture and morality and progressively lowered their status until they are now nothing more than the slaves of sluts?
  19. If not, why not?
  20. Have British men been given some drug that stops them from noticing their lowly status and the high status of women who are mostly sluts?
  21. Have British been hypnotised by feminazis into not noticing what these evil women are doing to their society?
  22. Do British men know the purpose of social cohesion?
  23. The purpose of social cohesion is to protect your society, nation and civilisation from its eternal internal and external enemies by making men prepared to sacrifice life and limb to protect their nation. 
  24. How can that be done when all high status British men are not even prepared to risk their status by discussing morality and how it is linked to widespread bastardy?
  25. British men are now too frightened of each other to discuss such matters with each other frankly and rationally, and this cowardice now extends to senior male British politicians, who must resent their Prime Minister stuffing her cabinet with her mediocre female cronies while marginalising men who are obviously more talented and senior.
  26. How likely are childless atheist transgender gay men to risk life and limb to protect their society compared to a father of legitimate children who loves his wife and family?
  27. How likely are bitter divorced men to defend their estranged ex-wife and children from invaders?
  28. How likely are bitter divorced men who have had his property confiscated and deprived of his children to enjoy the idea of their ex being raped, robbed and murdered by the illegal immigrants these feminazis have so enthusiastically invited in?
  29. Is it the purpose of feminazis to destroy masculinity in order to weaken men and make them even less likely to challenge the feminazification of their society?
  30. Masculinity is a state of mind to do with knowing what their principles are and sticking to them.
  31. Feminists want to make the rules vague and confusing in order to discombobulate men. 
  32. Most men no longer know what principles are, much less what they are for.  
  33. Is the ultimate purpose of feminazis world domination?
  34. Will feminazification only stop when all women are sluts, all mothers are Slut Single Mothers, all children are bastards and all men Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage?
  35. Is feminism evil?
  36. If so, why would anyone want to swear to uphold feminist values unless they are either evil too or stupid?
  37. Should law reflect morality and if so what morality should it reflect?
  38. Is there any other kind of morality other than patriarchal morality? 
  39. The antithesis of patriarchal morality - in essence practising the human tradition of marriage and abiding by its most important rule - is no sex outside marriage. 
  40. Anything that strays from the principle of no sex outside marriage weakens social cohesion. 
  41. Anything that weakens social cohesion must be immoral.
  42. It must be immoral to weaken social cohesion by lowering standards of morality because the purpose of morality is to obtain group solidarity to protect your society, nation and civilisation from its eternal enemies. 
  43. The eternal enemies of society are sluts and socialists.  
  44. Why is feminism (also known as the religion of sluts) and socialism evil?
  45. Feminism and socialism require their adherents to ignore the truth in order to remain feminists or socialists.
  46. The undeniable truth that feminists and socialists are required to ignore is the fact that there are obvious differences between men and women and the way they think, speak and behave, and people are clearly not all equal. 
  47. Feminism and socialism requires its adherents to ignore the warning that the greatest injustice is to treat unequal things equally. 
  48. Egalitarianism -which both feminism and socialism encourage - is a denial of truth.
  49. Any ideology that requires you to deny truth will lead you into error and disaster.
  50. Will the media be discussing any of the points I raised?
  51. Will academia be discussing any of the points I raised?
  52. Will the House be discussing any of the points I raised?
  53. If they do not, does it mean that they are irredeemably corrupt and are now in effect the limbs of the matriarchy and already operated by feminazis and their running dogs?
  54. Is Justine Roberts, founder of Mumsnet and Gransnet, a feminazi?
  55. Is Ian Katz, her husband and editor of BBC Newsnight, a running dog of feminazis?
  56. Is the BBC in effect a mouthpiece of feminazis who both infest it and control it?
  57. Will UKIP leader Paul Nuttall propose the abolition of the licence fee in the UKIP manifesto of 2020?
  58. Will Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton discuss any of the above, or will he be too afraid of his wife - who will soon be his nurse - to do so?
  59. Are feminazis even more evil than neocons who also share their goal of  full spectrum global domination?  
  60. Are neocons and the CIA in effect the running dogs of feminazis?

Common decency saved Britain from falling into Fascism or Communism, according to Philip Blond. Is "common decency" sexual liberation to the extent of condoning underage sex, widespread bastardy, gay marriage, the emasculation of British men and the break-up of the family and no fault divorce as well as totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation compelling the white man to pay obeisance to all the groups protected by the matriarchy, who are now higher in status than him?

The matriarchy being female and hypergamous, consisting of white middle class feminazis, despise all men in the class below them while having successfully emasculated all them men of their own class and the class above them with feminist legislation reinforced by all the feminine tactics of argument and elevated victimhood.

Successful white men can now be easily accused of a historic sexual offence without the need to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. Indeed, the accused in such cases has to prove that he did not do it.

Any man who dares challenge the matriarchy can be easily accused. The Directrix of Public Prosecutions is a feminazi herself and so is the Justice Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Ministrix.

British society is breaking up because the Far Right cannot stand being governed by a matriarchy so contemptuous of the preferences of the very angry white beta male.  Radical Muslims cannot stand being governed by a government so clearly prioritising the preferences of the immoral woman and the Slut Single Mother who causes children to be born bastards and the children they have to be badly-parented and variously-fathered. It is really nothing to do with multiculturalism, though of course men always feel a greater hostility towards immigration than women because they feel that their interests are more directly threatened.

While of course the British must have a dominant culture, it must be a genuine that has evolved naturally and which they are all proud of, supported by the law. No one can be proud of their culture if their culture consists of nothing more than the following:

  1. The Culture of Entitlement
  2. The Culture of Excuses
  3. The Culture of Victimhood 
  4. Football culture
  5. Pub Culture
  6. Drug Culture
  7. Rape Culture ie Slut Culture (which includes the Culture of Regret Rape ie falsely accusing men of rape after regretting having had sex with them, sexting and being such a slut your ex exacts his revenge on you by posting revenge porn of you online)
Understandably, observant Jews, devout Christians and Muslims familiar with Koranic principles would know that totalitarian anti-discrimination feminazi legislation are fundamentally antithetical to their patriarchal religious principles. This proposal to make them swear to have their moral principles flouted and marginalised by an oppressive Big Sister government would only intensify the hatred of social conservatives against the feminazis now infesting British government and steel their resolve to defeat them.

Fat feminazi Louise Casey's report on social cohesion was the cause of Sajid Javid's proposal to humiliate migrants who are social conservatives by making them swear to uphold "British Values" as a condition of acquiring British citizenship. British values are in practice really no more than promoting policies of sexual liberation directly damaging to the institutions of marriage and the family. (It is of course the intention of feminists to destroy the Twin Pillars of Patriarchy.) In doing so they destroy Western civilisation, but evil feminazis now in charge of the ship of state don't care and won't be told. Imagine what English values would be like now if they were set in stone in Tudor times and all the subjects of Bloody Mary made to swear to uphold her Catholicism on pain of death, and you will see the fundamental philosophical objection against adopting this proposal. Can a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition be far behind if the matriarchy is not defenestrated before it does even more damage to society?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/18/communities-secretary-sajid-javiddrawn-british-values-loyalty/



Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Why do women get more university places?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36266753

Among white boys from disadvantaged families only about 10% will go to university - the lowest of any social or ethnic group.

Deprived boys from other ethnic backgrounds, such as black and Asian, are much more likely to go to university.

Possible reasons

  1. Deprived boys from other ethnic backgrounds benefit from positive discrimination.
  2. Girls benefit from positive discrimination in their favour and against boys.
  3. White middle class women - the feminazi class - hate men of their own race anyway, especially if they are in the class below them. Women are hypergamous and it is feminazis now who make the rules. The Feminazis of Britain
  4. The mothering of white British mothers is possibly worse than any other race or nation on earth. Worst mum in Britain and the plague of bad parenting  Fathers are sleazy and mothers are lazy: What foreign au pairs REALLY think of British parents

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

In defending Keith Vaz, we are defending the rule of law and British values

REMINDER TO FEMINAZIS

Relevant and rational considerations

  1. There is no law against hiring prostitutes.
  2. Keith Vaz at no time took a position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee that is inconsistent with the exercise of his human right to hire prostitutes.

Irrelevant and irrational considerations

  1. You hate Keith Vaz.
  2. Everyone you know hates Keith Vaz.
  3. You'd be furious if you found your husband had hired prostitutes. 
  4. You would never dream of hiring prostitutes.
  5. You don't want anyone at all to hire prostitutes. 
  6. You want to punish Keith Vaz on behalf of his wife who has decided to stand by him.


We will always need politicians prepared to defend the rule of law. Keith Vaz by refusing to resign as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Commitee is in fact using his position to defend the principle of decriminalising prostitution, which its members are already agreed upon.

What is not forbidden is allowed. It is not forbidden to hire prostitutes, even if you are an MP who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. If there is some unwritten rule that says MPs are forbidden from hiring prostitutes, why would MPs support this infringement of their own human right? They are the legislature after all. If they do not even support their own right to hire prostitutes when it is not illegal to do so, does this mean they are stupid or scared, or both?

Why are British voters being governed by MPs who are more stupid and scared than they are, and who won't even stand up for their own legal rights when those are not in question?

If Keith Vaz is ousted as Chairman, the more thoughtful voter - not very many admittedly - who is also for the decriminalisation of prostitution would be asking himself precisely this question.

If Home Affairs Committee Tory MPs try to oust him, it would be only because they are following the orders of Theresa May. Being an unprincipled woman, she will probably be unable to think beyond how angry she would be if discovered her husband had hired prostitutes, but that is not the point.

The point is that if everyone has the right to hire prostitutes then wives enraged by the thought of their husband doing so is completely irrelevant.

Mrs Keith Vaz has clearly decided to stand by her husband and it is not anyone's business to punish him on her behalf, not even our female Prime Minister, who is also a wife.

Thursday, 26 May 2016

It is possible to be a woman without being a slut, whore or feminist

The study monitored the use of the words “slut” and “whore” by UK Twitter users over three weeks from the end of April. It found that 6,500 individuals were targeted by 10,000 aggressive and misogynistic tweets in that period.

Internationally, more than 200,000 aggressive tweets using the same words were sent to 80,000 people in the same period – and according to the study, more than half of the offenders were women.

  1. Not every woman is a whore, so to call a woman a whore if she is one is not necessarily misogynistic.
  2. Not every woman is a slut, so to call a woman a slut if she is one is not necessarily misogynistic. 
  3. Surely feminists are able to accept that it is possible to be a woman without being either a whore or a slut?
  4. All feminists without exception support the right of women to have premarital sex, ie to fornicate ie be sluts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin  http://quran.com/24/2
  5. The definition of slut should be tightened up. An interesting discussion of how many sex partners a woman has to fornicate with before being called a slut can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XVgioi29I from 1:21. A matter to be decided by philosopher, perhaps. The woman in question confessed to having 50 to 60 sex partners and suggested that a slut should be a woman who has had sex with upwards of 100 men.  
  6. Is it the intention of feminazis to outlaw expressions of social conservatism? 
  7. Is it the intention of feminazis to outlaw slut-shaming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
  8. Is it the intention of feminazis to desecrate the institution of marriage which can only be supported by shaming sluts? 
  9. Is it the intention of feminazis to abolish traditional marriage, because it is the foundation of all patriarchies?
  10. If more than half of the offenders who tweeted aggressively used "whore" and "slut" were women, then why can't men use those words too? 
  11. Are feminazis suggesting that only women can use the words "slut" and "whore", but not men? 
  12. Would it be an idea to have a men's, women's and unisex section of Twitter so everyone can just say what they want within the rules of their respective groups? 
  13.  It is surely only misogynistic to say, for example, "I hate women," but why are the feminazis presuming to tell us whom we may or may not hate? That would be THOUGHTCRIME.
  14. Are feminazis trying to define misogyny as "anyone women - who are mostly sluts and whores - hate"? 
  15. The corruption of language is the corruption of thought, and the corruption of thought leads to error, evil, disaster and doom.

Thursday, 28 January 2016

Which is worse: MGTOW or Islamic State?

MGTOW = men who fuck sluts and will never marry

Sluts have turned Western men into MGTOWs and pre-MGTOWs. 

MGTOWs if they could would rather not have anything to do with women at all and have sex with sexbots instead. MGTOWs who want children would pay a surrogate. Can you imagine what the human society would be like after just two generations of this? Yep, this is the road to perdition that feminism has embarked on.




When that finishes, keep it running to learn the full horror of MGTOW.




MGTOW BAD STUFF

Sandman:

"I want to be a part of the game changer which I think will be a combination of sex doll, oculus rift and filmed pornography. So with that being said I'm starting to research into the feasibility of building my own love doll with sensors in it that allows a man to interact with it while wearing an oculus rift headset. And have the actress respond with pre-recorded video footage when you touch the doll while wearing the headset. The sensors built into the doll will connect to the software and be interactive. I believe those three elements working together would be revolutionary. My academic background is in the development of new media technologies. That's what my degree is in and I'm glad that I can finally put that to some use. Isn't it ironic that I want to use ideas taught to me by feminist professors to spread feminism are now going to be used by me to liberate men. I want to call the system "The Liberator Doll." It's not just a doll but an interactive visual, physical and auditory experience. I want to install heaters in the unit to make it feel as warm as human flesh. I want it to have vagina sleeves that are not only easy to wash and maintain but also move and stimulate you better then the real thing. Think of it like taking your car through a car wash. Except in this case it would be a cock wash. The first step to making this happen is getting Oculus rift and making some content for it."


ISLAMIC STATE BAD STUFF









I propose a middle way: making it a requirement for those contemplating marriage to agree a marriage contract to abolish no fault divorce and repealing all totalitarian thoughtcrime feminist legislation viz The Equality Act 2010. 


The children of Islamic State would mostly not be bastards, but Western nations left only with sluts mating with MGTOWs would have mostly bastards for the next generation, who will be even more bastard and slut with each subsequent generation. 

Of the following, whose long term survival is more assured?

a) a society of mostly of bastards whose parents are SSMs (Slut Single Mothers) who are serially sexually abused by a string of their unfit mother's sexually abusive boyfriends (This social phenomenon together with free online porn and the morally rotten ideology of feminsm is the reason why most people in the West think there is a paedophile under every bush.) 

or

b) a society whose parents are mostly married and whose children are mostly legitimate growing up with their married parents


MGTOW is the terminal cancer you suffer from. Islamic State are just your natural ideological enemies. You are therefore more likely to be killed by the terminal cancer you already have sooner than you are from the harm your natural enemies intend to do to you.

Saturday, 31 October 2015

Feminazis don't know the difference between a threat and an expression of opinion

Kate Smurthwaite
Hi, I’m writing an article, I’d like to talk to you, would that be possible? DM me. Kate
Oct 27

Claire Khaw
May I know what this article is about?
Oct 27

Kate Smurthwaite
People who send me abusive tweets. Any explanation as to why you do so?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
I bet every single tweeter has received an abusive tweet at one time or another if they ever tweet about politics.
Oct 28

All I can find of any tweets from me to you is at https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Antfem%20to%3ACruella1&src=typd and there are only two. I would not describe either as being "abusive".

What "abuse" do you remember receiving from me?

I am sure the worst I have ever been guilty of is saying things you disagree with. You really must get out of this "Me, me! I am a victim too" state of mind. This is not feminist liberation, it is reversion to type. Women tend to rely on their victimhood to get their way. It is another exercise of soft power.

The other kind is being so sweet and good and delicate and feminine that men just want instinctively to protect you.
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
So when you've effectively threatened me with violence?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
When have I ever threatened you with violence??

Do please tell me, in case I did ever threaten you with violence, and then, God forbid, FORGOTTEN ALL ABOUT IT. I like to think I would remember if I ever threatened you with violence and if I did actually threaten you with violence and then FORGOT ALL ABOUT IT, I need to get in touch with my memory doctor pronto!

No threats of violence in this tweet at


No threats of violence at https://twitter.com/cruella1/status/554007135978553344 either.


https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/521236074916753408

[Re Kate Smurthwaite's appearance on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m0mxh]


may be closer to your definition of violence, but expressing an opinion on a course of action one does not expect to be acted on by the government before we are both dead is not "threatening with violence"


is neither abusive nor violent.

Where and when will this article be published?
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
And you really think that tweets like calling for me to be placed in a scold's bridle are not threatening or violent?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
Yes, because it is not at all likely very likely that you are going to be put into one, is it?

For a threat of violence to count, it has to be CREDIBLE. How likely am I to change the government from what it is now to one that would put you in a scold's bridle on a scale of 1 out 100?
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
Oh so unlikely threats of violence are ok? Do you not see that these sort of messages are still abusive?
Oct 29

Claire Khaw
 If I want to say things that others may find offensive, then I would have to accept the right of others to say things that I would find offensive. In any case, the police will only act on CREDIBLE THREATS of violence. It is the price of free speech we all have to pay, my dear.

I expressed only an OPINION, not an INTENTION. I am sure you are capable of distinguishing between the two. Abuse should be defined as "You are a %$£*&." Threats should take the form of "I will do X to you."  I merely expressed an OPINION that I neither intended to act upon or expected anyone to do so.

I suggest that this is how you categorise the tweets that offend you, into (1) OPINION YOU FIND OFFENSIVE, (2) THREATS or mere (3) ABUSE.

A curse - eg "I hope your children die of cancer" - is merely an expression of OPINION.


Friday, 12 June 2015

Proof positive that male academics fear feminazis too much stand by any truth or principle

Sir Tim Hunt resigns from university role over girls comment

Re: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33090022

This story provides further evidence that we truly live in a fascist state. Even Tim Hunt's original comments were tainted by political correctness.

He first felt the need to state that he has a reputation as a 'male chauvinist', as if male scientists should feel the need to denigrate themselves before speaking honestly about women.

He then begins with 'let me tell you about my trouble with girls', indicating that he is speaking personally.

He went on, 'you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you'. Given that everything we do is instrumental to reproduction, this is eminently reasonable. But again, he was being politically correct. He implied symmetry between men and women, but in a scientific laboratory where intelligence is rated over beauty, the women are more likely to be attracted to the men, than vice versa, relative to the world at large. Universities function as highly effective 'marriage markets' for female students and staff, as academia is a good source of intelligent and reliable men.

He continued with 'when you criticise them, they cry'. Given the context, speaking as an invited speaker where his task was to engage with and entertain the audience, hyperbole is to be expected (science is dry and dull). Women are ultimately concerned about inter-personal matters, rather than the task at hand, so would be more sensitive to criticism, and it is common knowledge that women have a much higher propensity to cry than men.

He goes on, 'I'm in favour of single-sex labs'; again, this is over-egalitarian, as there is no symmetry, women working for women works less effectively than any other combination. A lab with female bosses and female underlings involves forcing women, who are used to a fairly equitable and personal social network, into the inequitability and impersonality of a hierarchy.

A statement from UCL said that his resignation 'is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.' This concisely evidences the politically correct totalitarian state of academia in the West today. Firstly, the term 'gender' (as opposed to 'sex') implies that the significant dichotomy among people is socially constructed, rather than biological: this is not science, but politically-inspired nonsense. Secondly, things that are different are not equal: to assume equality is false, whilst attempting to enforce it is totalitarian.

UCL urged a Nobel laureate to resign for speaking honestly. This is an utter disgrace. That he had no visible support evidences the reality of academics today: fascists and cowards.



  • Jon As Crowcroft nice example of godwin's law operating faster than usual
    Like · Reply · 3 · Yesterday at 14:39
  • D'Maris Coffman I work at UCL so let's be clear that my views are not that of the management. But I have a lot of time for Michael Arthur and I think I can see what happened. Hunt's position was an honorary professor, an act of co-branding given the fact that he won a Nobel Prize and is retired and living out his career on one of those Royal Academy grants. Honorary professorships (except amongst clinical faculty who have teaching obligations in exchange for theirs) are kept up as long as they're beneficial to both sides. Hunt must know this. And while I would not personally have asked him to resign over it, I am not hugely surprised they did, precisely because there wasn't much to resign.
    Like · Reply · 4 · Yesterday at 14:56 · Edited
  • D'Maris Coffman I don't understand Martin Sewell's unpacking of this, though. I can assure you that women can be far more ruthless than men, and that women who make it to the top of any field, including science, scarcely behave in the way Hunt believes. He wasn't speaking any recognisable truth so much as flattering himself that he's the object of female postdoc's fantasies. He should be so lucky. As for women crying, good grief. Men assume that women cry to manipulate men. That might be true on some occasions, but having an 8-week old infant, I can assure you people cry when they've overwhelmed. Men largely have that beaten out of them, and thus come to fear tears. But they're just tears, as the female pilot points out to the sergeant in 'Blackhawk Down'. They seem to paralyse men more than women. tongue emoticon
    Like · Reply · 2 · 21 hrs · Edited
  • Simon Newman I don't agree with most of his comments, but making him resign is disgraceful.
    Like · Reply · 20 hrs
  • Claire Khaw What is to be done to fight the feminazification of Britain?
    Like · Reply · 19 hrs
    • Hide 15 Replies
    • D'Maris Coffman If you honestly think this is an example of feminazification, then I think you probably have been reading The Daily Mail too often. We don't even know the circumstances of the resignation (did he offer it? was it solicited? was it tendered in response to a request for a fuller apology, etc?), and even if it was requested, sacking someone from an honorary post as an act of reputation management is scarcely censorship. You'd have a better argument if the Royal Society took drastic action and terminated his grant.
      Like · 19 hrs
    • Claire Khaw We know it was over what he said as a JOKE. What else could it have been?
      Like · 19 hrs
    • D'Maris Coffman Have you read the remarks? It's more like a schtick than a joke, and it gave offence in the same way Niall Ferguson's 'joke' about Keynes not carrying about the future because he was gay and didn't have kids gave offence. But at least Ferguson climbed ...See More
      Like · 1 · 19 hrs
    • D'Maris Coffman But look, I'm senior staff at UCL which is defined as Grades 9 and 10 (Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor). You might argue that 'she would say that, wouldn't she?' But I can put myself in Michael Arthur's shoes and get to a stage where I asked Hunt to...See More
      Like · 1 · 19 hrs
    • Claire Khaw For a senior scientist to resign over a joke is conclusive evidence that men have lost the plot and the feminazification of Britain is virtually complete.
      Like · 19 hrs
    • D'Maris Coffman No, it's not. For a semi-retired senior scientist to resign from an honorary position over a rambling schtick that many people found offensive is just evidence that universities are keen to manage their brands. They didn't fire him from an actual job, you know. tongue emoticon
      Like · 3 · 19 hrs
    • Claire Khaw We all know how humourless feminazis are and how spineless British men are after the feminazis have systematically removed their backbone like they were filleting fish.
      Like · 19 hrs
    • D'Maris Coffman I'm tired of having a battle of wits with the unarmed. tongue emoticon
      Like · 19 hrs
    • Claire Khaw I know it was symbolic, in just the way Napoleon snatching the crown from the Pope and crowning himself was symbolic. British men will not fight this, I know. They will just roll over to have their testicles sliced off.
      Like · 19 hrs · Edited
    • D'Maris Coffman Do you really believe that or is someone paying you to generate this stuff? Nick Di Liberto can assure you that I am very, very far from a feminazi, but your world view seems to be divided into feminazis and troglodytes. tongue emoticon Bit too Manichean for my tastes.
      Like · 3 · 19 hrs
    • Claire Khaw I do hope sensible rational women now make a point of avoiding spineless gelded British men from now on and not have anything to do with them at all except perhaps to spit in their faces. They truly are the most contemptible race of all.
      Like · 19 hrs
    • Brian McIntosh Claire Khaw, why don't you respond to the points D'Maris is making? Debate can't happen if one party effectively keeps saying the same things over and over (ie your posts) regardless of what anyone else is saying.
      Like · 1 hr · Edited
    • Claire Khaw What point would you like me to respond to?
      Like · 1 hr
    • Brian McIntosh All of them please.
      Like · 1 hr
    • Claire Khaw Name just one. None of them was a proper question, were they?
      Like · 1 hr
    • Claire Khaw

      Write a reply...
  • D'Maris Coffman I am sure Jack Lynch, who is a grown-up in academic life as in the other sort, would be glad to explain, as an ex-dean, how conversations that start from 'work with me here, and we'll find a way to spare your miserable hide' rapidly turn into 'I'm going to crucify that crazy SOB'. wink emoticon
    Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs
  • John Kelsey Some years ago as director of another MSc course I used part of my induction talk to describe the academic staff which ended "...and finally we have one member of staff who has a First-Class degree in Project Management for Construction, a PhD in Chemistry and is a qualified Barrister...and by the way guys, she's blonde." That caused great hilarity among the female students and put the men in their place if they had any doubts about female academic abilities in science (or anything else). I have another friend who did her PhD in Life Sciences at UCL and had lunch today with a group of singing friends which included an attractive UCL female academic who I would place money on to be a future Nobel Laureate in Physics. I suspect they might be offended by the stupidity of Sir Tim's remarks but in the same breath dismiss them as examples of old-fashioned male chauvinism. I am not sure whether Sir Tim had considered that some male scientists might have fallen in love with other male scientists in the lab from which his logic would lead to a suite of one-person labs. Finding lab assistants might be a problem. As D'Maris says being an Honorary Professor is not a big deal but such people are supposed to represent UCL to the outside world and clearly this is not the image that UCL wishes to project. Finally I have another longstanding female colleague who is now a UCL Professor. If Sir Tim is under the illusion that women are the weaker sex this female Professor is also an ex-sergeant who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. So perhaps it is just as well that he resigned for his own safety if nothing else.
    Like · Reply · 4 · 17 hrs
  • Claire Khaw http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/.../british...

    THE FACTS OF LIFE EXPLAINED AND UGLY TRUTHS TOLD The Scream...
    THEVOICEOFREASON-ANN.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY CLAIRE KHAW
    • Hide 29 Replies
    • D'Maris Coffman When you managed to get expelled from the BNP for your lack of political correctness, I am not sure you can expect the rest of us to take your pronouncements on this subject seriously. Just sayin'.
      Like · 17 hrs · Edited
    • D'Maris Coffman They're not your friendly feminist knitting circle. tongue emoticon
      Like · 17 hrs
    • Claire Khaw You would be surprised at how desperate for feminine approval the BNP were which allowed many female members to wield disproportionate power because of their rarity. 

      The BNP are really just pussycats afraid of their own shadow. 


      My expulsion was instigated by an unmarried mother with illegitimate and disabled offspring ostensibly for what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show. 

      http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/.../claire... has links to the transcript and recording which you can still hear.


      THE FACTS OF LIFE EXPLAINED AND UGLY TRUTHS TOLD The...
      THEVOICEOFREASON-ANN.BLOGSPOT.COM
    • Nick Di Liberto D'Maris Coffman. Who the hell are these people? I thought these looney 'war on manhood'/reverse discrimination arguments were restricted to the American libertarians and FoxNews. I think this person just trolled you to advertise his/her blog.
      Like · 2 · 16 hrs
    • D'Maris Coffman I know Martin Sewell as a special supervisor in Cambridge. Not sure where the others came from.
      Like · 16 hrs
    • Nick Di Liberto Gosh. I hope I didn't offend anyone in Cambridge. I dreamed that one day I would enjoy Trinity Burnt Cream and be carried to lecture in a palanquin driven by eunuchs. Instead, I've been ensnared in the feminazi new order! My manhood taken by some broad in a pantsuit! Save me, Sir Tim!
      Like · 2 · 15 hrs
    • Martin Sewell D'Maris, I didn't realise that I was special. smile emoticon Funnily enough, before I was the victim of a similar witch hunt, initiated by CUSU, I was being groomed for a position at your very own college.
      Like · 2 hrs
    • D'Maris Coffman Not exactly. We don't 'groom' special supervisors for positions at any college, though some go on to apply for college lectureships. You really shouldn't go around claiming otherwise. All you did was a few maths supervisions for us in a pinch.
      Like · 2 hrs
    • Martin Sewell I was a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Land Economy for 2.5 years. In total, I have worked for four departments at the University of Cambridge. I am not, and never have been, a 'special supervisor' (sic). I supervised no less than 27 students in parallel in maths and econometrics. I also worked privately for a Fellow on more than one occasion, I was taken to lunch at Newnham, and potential college roles were mentioned.
      Like · 1 hr
    • D'Maris Coffman Your only affiliation with Newnham that I know of was teaching some Paper 1 supervisions for us at the pro-pay rate (paid to special supervisors which includes some minor dining rights) in early 2012. Whatever affiliation Land Economy tried to arrange for you is another matter, but even then there was no grooming involved.
      Like · 1 hr
    • D'Maris Coffman It is true that we are so desperate for economics teaching that we regularly approach senior postdocs in appropriate faculties about doing some for us in exchange for dining rights and a few minor privileges. But don't flatter yourself.
      Like · 1 hr
    • Martin Sewell I'd sooner be judged by my science than my dining rights!
      Like · 1 hr
    • D'Maris Coffman Fair enough, but then don't claim you were a victim here. The reality is that economics teaching is hard to come by in Cambridge because the Economics Faculty tells its junior post holders not to bother becoming college fellows. So colleges, especiallywomen's colleges, have to be very broadminded about approaching a range of people: temporary lectures, senior postdocs, etc - about filling colleges roles that would normally be filled by university lecturers. It says a lot about the Economics Faculty's attitude to ugrad teaching, but not much about the esteem in which a college holds any particular candidate.tongue emoticon
      Like · 1 hr
    • Claire Khaw Is the father of your child an academic at UCL?
      Like · 1 hr
    • Martin Sewell I've never studied economics in my entire life. tongue emoticon
      Like · 1 hr
    • D'Maris Coffman No. I don't date academics at my own university as a rule. It's not good for business.
      Like · 1 hr
    • Claire Khaw How do you think your adult son will feel when he knows you have deprived him of his legitimacy and his father?
      Like · 1 hr
    • D'Maris Coffman The fact that you, as a complete stranger, would ask that question on FB is the real reason even the BNP and UKIP have decided you're toxic. It's rather unbelievable. But for what it's worth, he'll be fine. And I suspect my son has a better chance of, I dunno, going to Harvard, Cambridge, and working an investment bank than yours does. If downward social mobility is the complaint you have about single mothers.
      Like · 1 hr · Edited
    • D'Maris Coffman I should warn you, though, that I do know how to instruct solicitors. And if you libel me, or my son, or my family as a whole, in front of anything like an audience (and a few FB friends hardly qualifies), I can assure you that you'll be hearing from one. 'Slut-shaming', or whatever it is you do for a living, is all well and good, until it becomes libellous.
      Like · 1 hr
    • Claire Khaw How would I be libelling you if I only speak the truth, and only obtained my information from the horse's mouth, so to speak? 

      I mean by that yourself, of course. 


      A defence to libel would be truth, for truth justifies any defamatory statement. 

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.../2013/26/section/2/enacted

      It would be nice to have a legal definition of slut which must logically and necessarily mean a fornicatress, which is considered a mortal sin.

      I would be arguing that a virgin who fornicates for the very first time and gets herself knocked up would by definition be a slut. 

      A slut is a promiscuous woman who has sex with a sex partner or sex partners she should not have had sex with and who get her into trouble eg knocked up or having illegitimate offspring. 

      The sluttery is crystalised, so to speak, when illegitimate offspring is produced without a marriage certificate. 

      Slut behaviour is now normal and accepted in the West as is widespread bastardy. I am saying it is a bad thing but is now considered socially acceptable and am indeed campaigning for sluts to be shamed.


      (1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
      LEGISLATION.GOV.UK
    • Claire Khaw It would be interesting to see if the Pope is able to declare whether SSMs have committed a mortal sin. 

      I can imagine him ducking out of this debate, but Muslim scholars would be less afraid of feminazis than effete Catholics anxious to come to an accommodation with the international matriarchy. 


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin


      Mortal sins ((Latin) peccata mortalia) in Catholic theology are wrongful acts that condemn a person to Hell after death if...
      EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
    • Claire Khaw Under Sharia law, what you have done would make you guilty of a sexual offence attracting corporal punishment of 100 lashes for sex criminals of this nature. 

      http://quran.com/24/2


      Surat An-Nur [verse 2] - The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a...
      QURAN.COM
    • Claire Khaw It is with regret I have to inform those of you gentlemen considering the feasibility of putting feminazis like D'Maris back in their places that only state-imposed social conservatism based on Secular Koranism would be strong enough to eradicate feminazism. 

      There is no point using a spatula to move a mountain. Sadly, however, spineless men are these days too afraid of even saying the word "spade" much less "shovel" when a fleet of bulldozers is required. 

      A few of them might be moved to say "trowel" but they would only be made to resign from their posts by the feminazis.
      Like · 33 mins · Edited
    • Toby Smith What an unkind person!!
      Like · 10 mins · Edited
    • Claire Khaw Sometimes, one has to be cruel to be kind.
    • Toby Smith There's nothing kind in what you say. I, unlike you, don't have the time to debate that. Nor, do I have the words to counter what you believe to be right, and that only you can be right.
    • Claire Khaw I expect all male academics to make ambiguous and intellectually incoherent responses on this thread and I thank you very much for taking the trouble to comment and proving my point.
    • D'Maris Coffman I should apologise for losing my temper, but I guess she got up my nose.
    • Toby Smith I dropped out of college and am just a layman. One that has succeeded in life by treating others kindly and with love and respect. I have more recently believed more greatly in karma and timing of things in life........ Both of which I am certain will be proven to all
      Like · 

Swimming in verbiage

10:49 AM ​​Don't let that fraud John Vervaeke confuse with his nonsense. Islamphobe PVK will keep promoting mediocrities and exclude the...