Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Videos

New book hits Amazon debating if “Men Are Obsolete”

Strong independent women have published the transcript of a Toronto feminist event in a new book called Are Men Obsolete? Women on the panel insult and berate men as if they are little children or sitcom caricatures.

Published

on

0 Views

Here we go again.  Strong independent women who got together in Toronto at the end of 2013 for a public pow wow on the usefulness of men, have now published the transcript of the event in a new book called Are Men Obsolete?  I know I will be ordering my copy right away, along with the Twilight Forever: Complete Saga Box Set and The CB-6000 Male Chastity Device.

The messed up part about publishing a forum transcript on men’s utility and their place in society, from a conference attended by no men and a panel featuring no men, is the sheer balls on some of these women to actually tell attendees what men need and want.

The UK Telegraph’s Theo Merz reports:

Supporting the motion [of men being obsolete] was Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist and author of Are Men Necessary?, and Hanna Rosin, who wrote the social study The End of Men. Arguing against the motion was the feminist academic Camille Paglia and The Times’s Caitlin Moran.

So it’s an intentionally provocative title, and while you can only imagine the outcry a book called “Are Women Obsolete?” would cause, I don’t feel we all have to be ready to leap to offence just because a minority of feminists are. It’s also jarring to have four women discussing the role of men in the modern world, but let’s come prepared to accept the truth from whoever tells it.

The problem is in the manner of the telling; in the hen-party humour, the resignation as they speak of the Lessons Men Must Learn. All of the speakers claim they want to help “obsolete” man adapt to the changes in his environment, but who are they trying to convince with this?

Theo Merz must be a red pill journalist for sure.  He is spot on by pointing out that women worldwide would conjure up a shit storm if a conference were held called “Are Women Obsolete?”  The entire conference and book speak volumes as to how clueless these ladies are. They suffer from a severe case of solipsism, and are clearly unable to see the world around them for what it is, not for how they wish it to be.

Needless to say, these women’s studies graduates on the panel continue to insult and berate men as if we are little children or sitcom caricatures…

Fortunately Rosin, Dowd’s teammate, has made some unilateral decisions about how men can remain relevant enough to survive in the modern world. “We don’t want to castrate men [Cheers – ed]. We don’t want to turn them into eunuchs. We don’t even want to feminise them that much. We just want to keep whatever we love about manhood and adjust the parts that are holding men back.”

Later she addresses the men in the audience directly: “You are allowed to preserve the parts of manhood that you love and value – whether that is craftsmanship, or macho-ness, or eating nachos and playing video games.”

There is, I admit, a poetic justice in female public intellectuals telling men what they can and can’t be after centuries of educated men doing the same to women. But it doesn’t seem much like progress.

So here is a thought, since Ms. Rosin is telling us men what we can keep about manhood and what we should do away with, how about we do the same, and express our desire as men to women, to preserve feminine values and traditional gender roles.  So Ms. Rosin while you are telling men how to act and behave, take a 10 minute break from your whining and go make me a sandwich.

The entire women’s movement was based on equality between the sexes and now that this has been achieved (and then some) people like Rosin and Dowd are so drunk with power that they must enslave and shame men in order to subliminally segregate society between bourgeoisie females and the proletariat males.

Here is a scenario for Rosin, Dowd and all her disciples to consider. How about 5% of all men go on strike for one day.  One fucking day, 5% of men, would be all that is needed for the entire world of things we need, not want, but need (energy, raw materials, distribution) to grind the cushy life of women like this to an absolute halt. We are talking a social collapse like nothing ever scene, the minute men follow Rosin and Dowd’s advice and just make themselves useless.

Luckily their were cooler heads and more rationale ladies on the panel to bring some logic to the table.

The issues raised in the book do need to be discussed. The economy is changing in a way which seems to value ‘female skills’ over traditionally male ones; as Rosin points out, in every part of America, young single women have a higher median income than young single men. And I’ve seen first hand the problems that pressure to live up to traditional models of masculinity can cause, whether it’s in men who are returning from war, or have been sexually assaulted, or have mental health issues.

Moran, opposed to the motion, makes the point that this is not a zero-sum game; women don’t ‘win’ if they decide men are surplus to requirements. “We can’t keep having arguments about men versus women: this is what screws us up…We’re in this together.” Which is of course true, though there’s a certain irony in the fact she came to an all-female discussion of male obsolescence to get this across.

Moran sums it up well, we are in this together.  We were made to compliment one another, not suppress each other.  It is this acceptance of each sex’s strengths and weaknesses that will provide the way forward.  Women everywhere need to tell “intellectuals” like Rosin and Dowd to get lost.  If we treat men as invisible working drones with no value other than to benefit a woman’s “sex and the city” life style, then men will begin to lose motivation and simply check out. It’s already happening at alarming rates and all of society will suffer because of feminist greed, hate and misandry.

Men thrive on motivation and the female partner is the greatest motivator in human history. The minute the female partner shits on her male peer, then the chains of production break down and we are all screwed.

References:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10869557/Are-men-obsolete-in-the-modern-world.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Are-Men-Obsolete-Caitlin-Moran-ebook/dp/B00K2X02SU/ref%3Dsr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401457113&sr=1-1&keywords=are+men+obsolete

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
3 Comments

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
askgiveooopatldrredpillvideos Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
redpillvideos
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Are Men Are Obsolete? According to a new book, men are disposable. #redpill truth is needed. http://t.co/2U6fAxzGFI

ooopatldr
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Are Men Are Obsolete? According to a new book, men are disposable. #redpill truth is needed. http://t.co/2U6fAxzGFI

askgive
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Are Men Are Obsolete? According to a new book, men are disposable. #redpill truth is needed. http://t.co/2U6fAxzGFI

Latest

Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Adrian Cohen via Creators.com:


Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Paul Craig Roberts: The Disintegration of Western Society

Feminists brought this madness onto themselves.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:


Radical feminists are now being banned by Twitter not because they hate men, which is perfectly OK as far as Twitter is concerned, but because they object to “transwomen.”

What is a “transwoman?” As far as I can understand, a “transwoman” is a male with a penis who declares himself to be a women and demands his right to use women’s toilette facilities along with the women who are using them.

The feminist, Meghan Murphy, twittered a statement and a question:

“Men are not women.”

“How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?”

Twitter described this as “hateful conduct” and banned Meghan Murphy. https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/

There you have it. Yesterday it was feminists who were exercising their special society-bestowed privileges to censor. Today it is the feminists who are being censored. As this insanity of “Western Civilization” continues, tomorrow it will be the transwomen who are censored and banned.

What precisely is afoot?

My readers, who have partially and some wholly escaped from The Matrix, understand that this is the further fragmentation of American society. Identity Politics has set men, women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and white people against one another. Identity Politics is the essence of the Democratic Party and the American liberal/progressive/left. Now, with the creation of “new” but otherwise nonexistent “genders,” although they are honored as real by the controlled whores who masquerade as a “Western media,” we witness radical feminists being silenced by men pretending to be women.

I sympathize with Meghan Murphy, but she brought this on herself and on the rest of us by accepting Identity Politics. Identity Politics gave Meghan a justification for hating men even, as she failed to realize, it provided the basis for moving her into the exploitative class that must be censored.

Where does this end?

It has already gone far enough that the American population is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule. “The American people” are no longer a reality but a mythical creature like the unicorn.

The film, The Matrix, is the greatest film of out lifetime. Why? Because it shows that there are two realities. A real one of which only a few people are aware, and a virtual one in which eveyone else lives.

In the United States today, and throughout “Western Brainwashed Civilization,” only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible. Everything that every Western government and “news” organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.

The ability to control people’s understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US “weapons of mass destruction;” that Assad “used chemical weapons” against “his own people;” that Libya’s Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia “invaded Ukraine;” that Trump and Putin stole the presidential election from Hillary.

The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex’s annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex.

Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system, precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.

Is Thomas Jefferson Alive and Well In Paris?

If this report is correct, pray the revolt spreads to the US.

https://www.infowars.com/video-french-police-remove-helmets-in-solidarity-with-yellow-vest-protesters/

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Google Employees debated burying conservative media in search

Google engineer Scott Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

The Daily Caller

Published

on

Via The Daily Caller


  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

WATCH:

Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.

“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.

“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.

Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”

Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.

Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.

Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending