Trolly Takedown – Anita makes a fool of herself over StarWars

A couple of years ago, Anita pissed me off. She commented on StarWars. Although my opinion of some of the actors (cough – Mark Hamill – cough) have changed, the original trilogy was some of my favourite movies as a kid. I grew up when George Lucas produced the first three films and seeing a sword-wielding knight fighting the forces of evil with the magic of the ‘force’ has always had an impact on me. In fact, one of my ideas, which I am calling Tales from the Three Cities, has a superhero who was initially inspired by the Jedi, though he went through many, many edits over the original conception. When Anita first reviewed The Force Awakens, I was pissed. She said, why is there always a revolving history between the fight for good and evil. Anita doesn’t understand storytelling at all. She doesn’t understand the power of myth and legends, where good opposes evil. I thought, if she doesn’t understand there is a dark side, she might be a part of that ‘dark side’ of tyranny that forces people to be something or else, like feminists insist we must be feminist or else we don’t care about women or women’s issues.

Last week she put out yet another ‘StarWars’ video, and this time it was how sexist StarWars is. Yeah, StarWars is sexist, and you need to point it all out.

Here’s the full video.

First, I know the attempts at humour. It’s so cringy that I couldn’t help but laugh at Anita. She seems one of those hapless baboons that hopes you find what they do funny. I kind of weep that her video passes for creativity in 2017 (Hey SJWs, your current year argument is just as useful to us). It’s just a non-government funded propaganda piece that wants to instil how sexist and racist StarWars is. I wonder if that is why, despite the video being up on YouTube for five days, it only has 13k views to it, and I know at least 3 are mine, to watch it first, then to formulate my arguments against it second, and meme mining as the third part of the process.

Yeah, so nothing major here. While Anita acknowledged that Leia Organa (Princess Leia) plays a huge part of the original trilogy, she is still bitter about the ‘Bikini’ thing. She is so hung up with the ‘male gaze’, despite the fact gay men check each other out just as much as heterosexual men check out women, and lesbians check out women.

In one paragraph and one example, we can thoroughly debunk the ‘Male Gaze’. First, we see that women can ‘sexually objectify’ both men and women as much as any man does, Hillary Clinton is a prime example of this, but men are primed to be sexually enticed by visuals, while others the right whisper can drive them wild. In fact, what really drives my gears is hearing those dirty little things that gets me going more than the visuals now. We’re oversaturated the market with visuals of sexy women now, with everything from Victoria’s Secret to Pornhub that I find the right thing said in the right voice is 10x sexier than any visual now. But hey, I’m a writer and that might just be my fancy.

Her next argument is the whole – only three other women talked in the original trilogy for a total of 1 minute and 2 seconds, other than Leia Organa. Well, first you are assuming R2D2’s gender. Sorry. . . I had to do that.

Second, of the 1 minute and 2 seconds of entirely secondary characters, and you do understand what a secondary role is right, you only played a total of 18 seconds of that dialogue in a 5-minute video. You took away from those women’s agency by shortening their clips. (Okay, okay, I’ll give Anita the benefit of the doubt, fair use requires her to keep those clips short.)

And then you go on and on about how the vast majority of people in the StarWars films are men and not women. If the movies were called Star Journey, where 5-6 friends were travelling the stars in a galaxy far, far away, I would go – yeah, it should be around 50-50 in representation, because that’s called an adventure. My adventure webcomic that I am creating will have your perfect gender balance Anita, two male heroes and two female heroes, and each will be critical in certain parts of the story, and the two women will have many conversations that are not about men so that it will pass the Bechtel test.

But complaining about the gender ratio about a war film is wrong. In most war rooms, the majority of people making the decisions and relaying those orders are going to be men, because men are the primary protectors of our culture. Men will use their bodies to fight for a culture’s way of life to protect the future generation, and it’s a biological trait that men should engage in because it helps us grow as people, instead of being selfish and self-absorbed, which I would assume you would consider ‘toxic masculinity’. I consider war the perfect way for a man to express his best self because he is protecting his fellow soldiers, his country and those he cares about, that self-sacrifice is the greatest love a man can show, that he is willing to give his life for his friends.

So going on about your stupid argument, for every 39 men in StarWars, there is only one woman of note is just ridiculous. Thirty-nine men are practising the most enlightened way a man can be, to protect his friends and those he cares about and for freedom, and you complain that this is sexist. With the number of deaths in all the films, it is pretty much the epitome of reality, despite the force and being in a different galaxy, because 97.7 percent of all combat deaths are men.

As you said, it was never about gaming, it was always about social justice, vindicating every one of your critics, your new war against Hollywood is just as ridiculous. That is why only 13k have watched your video. You’re a forgotten fool of an era that no longer needs a con artist. Your lack of credibility is why your funding drives are 30k, instead of 200k now. Nobody cares, and you’re just an idiot that people keep track of to see what the fuck you have to say now.

Well, all I have to say, Anita, may Kek be with you on your journey, because the force is weak with your video.

Thanks for reading and have a great day guys.

If you like my blog, make sure you keep track of all my projects through my social media accounts Minds.com and Twitter.

And the more people who share these blogs on Twitter and other social media accounts the better my readership is, so please use those share buttons at the bottom of this blog. Afterall, Anita’s discredited piece of shit got 24 retweets and 76 likes on Twitter, share my stuff guys!

Make sure you bookmark my front page to keep on top of the stories I write or follow me through your email, link to the side, and WordPress will send you an email when I publish my next blog.

Advertisements

​Trolly’s Week in Review – 15/10/2017 – Men in 2017

One of the most important things I learned in the past seven years is how important having a partner means to me. I live for The Purple Horse. She is at the centre of every decision I make. When I have a terrible day, she is there to hold me and tell me that I am the best. She is my help as I live on Earth. I wouldn’t be here today, writing this blog if it wasn’t for her. Someone wrote in a book that it is not good for a man to be alone. Later, another person said there would be a day where people would be engaged in unnatural affections. Whether it is a sex robot, or watching copious amounts of porn, or having children from artificial wombs, MGTOW is focusing on ‘solutions’ to the ‘woman problem’. It shows the epitome of delving into strange affections and where that can take us.

These things do not offend me, or worry me because I know all these things must happen. I know that Marxism needs to raise its head one last time for the people to destroy it once and for all in a single hour. Let Marxist professors try to radicalise their students into their repugnant religion, for the blind lead the blind in the world of academia. Let the women referee men’s behaviour, making men feel like they there is something defective about them, or leading men to raise up against this foolishness. Men are not ‘defective women’. Let men seek lifelong friendships and living arrangements with each other in ‘bromances’, men they can sit back, drink a few beers, talk about how shitty their lives are, people who they can joke about ‘objectifying’ some new hot starlet on TV or movies. More men and making this choice according to a new study from the University of Bedfordshire in Britain.

From Rise of the bromance is bad for women, could become ‘genuine lifestyle relationship’: study

‘What happens if these bromantic relationships really take off… Women actually just become the sexual fulfillers of men and nothing else. That’s the worrying aspect’

Well, I have to say that Feminism did this. When it took what is natural, like the affection and attraction men and women have for each other, which is best suited to creating a stable, functional home for a husband and wife and their children, feminism messed around with it with the ‘sexual revolution’, leading men to choose something more stable to grow more. Eventually, men would say, if you can’t live with them, but you can’t live without them, you find a way to live without them. Men are very rational and can look at women with a utilitarian purpose – like sexual fulfillers, while renting a place with their best friends, all working at their jobs, coming home to play some Halo or Call of Duty, and eating some Pizza. It’s 2017, and no man is really homophobic anymore, and even gay jokes are water off a duck’s back. Who cares anymore? If women want to be left alone to become the next ‘kick-ass CEO’ of a Fortune 500 company, then men will leave her to her own devices. We’re not going to stand in her way.

So women are now worried that men are more likely to seek other men than to live under the thumb of a woman who finds their behaviour ‘problematic’, who doesn’t want to commit, because she wants to have her career, and fight against the ‘wage gap’. That’s why they are worried about sex robots. I’m not for robots myself. It is completely unnatural. Our affections and attractions, as I stated above, is to have a natural relationship. Men and Women who have families have the most fulfilling lives. Having children is a sign of optimism because you are saying the world is going to be better when you have a child, and pessimistic adults have fewer children. And men in despair will choose porn or sex robots over leaping in faith and being in a relationship.

The rise of the intimate “bromance” as a new form of friendship has liberated young men from the stifling bigotries of homophobia, but it imperils young women who are increasingly regarded as little more than targets of sexual attraction, according to new sociological research.

The bromance may not be the progressive expression of enlightened masculinity, as it is sometimes described and portrayed in movies, said Adam White of the University of Bedfordshire in Britain.

Fuck your ‘progressivism’ and your fucking cultural Marxism. Your ‘progressivism’ has done this. When the Duluth Model treats every man as the only abuser in a relationship when it’s really a 60/40 split – both men and women in relationships will initiate abuse on each other, but it is always the man who gets arrested, and Title IX is indiscriminately ruining young men’s lives, with every false rape allegation against them, in Star Chamber like vengence scenarios, Is it a wonder why men will enter a ‘bromance’, living with their best friends, kicking back and enjoying their lives, instead of the constant worry of a woman destroying his life. If I didn’t know that truth that men need women so we can bring the best out of each other, I would undoubtedly live that comfortable lifestyle. A more laborious life makes strong people though, so fuck them.

So now the progressives are finding, whatever men do is problematic. If men live with women, he might abuse her physically or sexually, because the Duluth model says men are monsters. If men live with other men, that is also bad for women, because men find it easier to be around other men than they find it to be with women, and women will only be around to ‘sexually gratify’ men. Make up your damn minds, you Cultural Marxists. The only consistency of either statement is you don’t like things men do.

Rather, it may be a regressive development, with especially worrying results for women. His research, based on interviews with male undergraduate students, concluded that men saw their female romantic partners as judgmental, and as “the primary regulators of their behaviour.” This led to a generalised disdain for women, and a view of romance in which men feel they are “constantly posturing and self-monitoring, not only to achieve desired heterosexual sex but to prevent relationship destruction.”

Geez, guys don’t want to cuck themselves so much that they feel like they can’t be themselves to keep a relationship going. It’s almost like men have to be ‘completely self-aware’ just to maintain a relationship because women are tyrants over the men’s behaviours. Considering this is out of a university, I wonder how many of these ‘girlfriends’ are gender studies students, learning all about toxic whiteness and masculinity, and when a guy steps over that ‘line’, they are completely fucked over because he’s ‘abusive’ to her.

A key theme of the bromance, on the other hand, was the freedom to express themselves without judgment and to engage in emotional intimacy without fear.

The rise of the bromance “is very, very good for men,” White said. It offers young men the opportunity for, as the research found, “elevated emotional stability, enhanced emotional disclosure, social fulfilment and better conflict resolution, compared to the emotional lives they shared with girlfriends.”

When it comes down to it, it looks like the best way men can fight depression, suicide, and so many other problems is just hanging out with other men, and even living with them. Men can’t always be ‘micromanaged’ by judgmental partners and expect to be healthy. It sounds like the good ol’ clans system. Men worked with each other on a personal level, not in an 8*8 cube.

This study could be reimagined to say that women need to work on themselves more, because if men find men better to live with, the problem is not men, but women. It seems these ‘girlfriends’ are not self-reflective, realizing they are putting stress on their men so much, that their men are more willing to hang out with the bros than spend time with them. If women want to have men spend more time with them, they need to start to be more of a supportive girlfriend than a referee over their behaviour. As Pavlov proved, animals in any activity that has a reward is going to learn how to navigate that much faster than an animal in an activity that is punishment based. If women have become ‘judgmental’ and hanging with the bros is fun, what do you think men will chose, based upon Pavlov’s findings?

This study just concludes that the dynamics between men and women are so fucked up in the west, that men find hanging out with dudes so much more socially satisfying than living with a woman. And if the ‘progressives’ don’t like it, they can take a long walk off a short pier. You made that bed, go lie in it. This is your grand ‘Feminist’ Utopia. It was so successful in creating a wedge between men and women that men don’t even want to live with women.

Thanks for reading guys, and have a great day!

Don’t forget You can to follow me on Twitter, Minds and Tumblr, and share my content there as well. Bookmarking my front page and visiting it daily it helps me.

The share buttons at the bottom of the blog to help other people find my blog, and it is fantastic to see someone share my blog on social media.

Trolly News Update – July 14th, 2017 – Bill 1032 is a Men’s Rights Bill, and the ACLU is lying about it.

A couple of days ago, I read the most outrageous headline. According to CNN, the American Civil Liberties Union were suing Arkansas, saying their 4 new bills pertaining to Abortion forced women who were raped to ask for their rapists’ permission to get an abortion. When people heard about this horrible news, they immediately sided with women, no woman should have to ask a rapist permission to have an abortion, and no rapist should be able to prevent her. I would agree with that, what woman should have to ask permission to get an abortion if she were raped. The whole 5 women out of 1000 women who get abortions because of rape or incest shouldn’t have to ask for abortions for men who raped them.

But does the law really say that? Sure the ACLU, which will be very feminist, is going to virtue signal saying that Bill 1032 is a horrible bill that is going to trample over a woman’s rights. And because certain clauses didn’t outright say it excluded rapists, they had their way to shout from the roof tops. When I heard of the law, I thought, as long as they put in the clause, excluding rapists, this law seems like a Men’s rights bill. Any man who is willing to take care of a child that is biologically his should be able to put forth an injunction and raise the child, even if he is a single father. While the law doesn’t outright say that any man who is biologically the father can do this, it says men married to women. I hope this would include common law marriage, where a man and woman who have been living together for the minimum amount of time can do this.

So, what does the law say? Let me show you.

Bill 1032, the women must ask a rapist if she can have abortion bill.

 20-16-1803.  Ban on dismemberment abortion.

(a) A person shall not purposely perform or attempt to perform a dismemberment abortion and thereby kill an unborn child unless it is necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the pregnant woman.

(b)(1) A person who is accused of violating subsection (a) of this section may seek a hearing before the Arkansas State Medical Board regarding whether the dismemberment abortion was necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the pregnant woman.

(2) The findings of the board are admissible in any court proceedings under this subchapter.

(3) Upon a motion by the person who is accused of violating subsection (a) of this section, a court shall delay the beginning of a trial for no more than thirty (30) days to permit a hearing under subdivision (b)(1) of this section.

This is basically saying, if a woman needs this kind of abortion because of serious health complications, they are excluded from this. But what about rape victims. Will rapists have a legal right to tell women not to have an abortion, according to this law? Well, let’s find out who is liable for the next portion of this bill.

 (c) The following individuals are excluded from liability under this subchapter: abortion;

(1) A woman who receives or attempts to receive a dismemberment

(2) A nurse, technician, secretary, receptionist, or other employee or agent who is not a physician but acts at the direction of a physician; and

(3) A pharmacist or other individual who is not a physician but who fills a prescription or provides instruments or materials used in a dismemberment abortion to the physician or at the direction of the physician.

(d) This subchapter does not prohibit an abortion by any other method for any reason, including rape or incest.

Look at (d) a woman can get any other kind of abortion, and specifically, it doesn’t prevent an abortion for the reasons of rape and incest. This shows the ACLU is completely lying. Women can get an abortion in Arkansas if they are raped, no questions asked. Anybody who says otherwise, any new story that says otherwise is lying to you and is completely fake news.

Now, let’s see how this law protects men’s parental rights as a father.

20-16-1804.  Civil remedies — Attorney’s fees.

(a)(1) A cause of action for injunctive relief against a person who has purposely violated this subchapter may be maintained by:

(A) The woman who receives or attempted to receive a dismemberment abortion in violation of this subchapter;

(B) A person who is the spouse, parent, or legal guardian of the woman who receives or attempted to receive a dismemberment abortion in violation of this subchapter; or

(C) A current or former licensed healthcare provider of the woman who receives or attempted to receive a dismemberment abortion in violation of this subchapter.

(2) The injunction shall prevent the abortion provider from performing or attempting to perform further dismemberment abortions in violation of this subchapter.

Now, here’s the part that the ACLU doesn’t really like. Any spouse, parent, or legal guardian has rights in this law to prevent a woman having this kind of abortion. And because it doesn’t specifically say – that if one of those raped the woman. They are saying, people involved in incest and rape have legal power because of this law, and so I checked a little more to see if they are right.

As a men’s rights advocate, I am applauding this.

For the longest time, if a woman wants to get an abortion, but her partner wants to be a father, she had the power. In Arkansas, they are giving him the ability to place an injunction against this. This isn’t about rapists at all, this is about trying to take away rights from men because this law gives up the right to say, if you don’t want to take care of the child, I will!

So, does a rapist have the ability to prevent a woman from having even that kind of abortion?

(2) Civil damages shall not be awarded to a plaintiff if the  pregnancy resulted from the criminal conduct of the plaintiff.

Geez, what is the only criminal activity in which a plaintiff can cause a pregnancy? I guess a rapist doesn’t have much of a legal leg to stand on. He can’t sue or do anything if a woman who is raped decides to have an abortion. She doesn’t have to ask permission to have an abortion because he can’t say no to it. He doesn’t have the ability to say – no bitch, you must have my child. . .

It even gets worse for a rapist.

(2) If judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous and brought in bad faith, the court shall also render judgment for a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.

(3) A reasonable attorney’s fee shall not be assessed against the woman who received a dismemberment abortion.

What court in the world is going to not think a rapist suing a woman who got an abortion using this law isn’t bad faith? Can you think of one? Everybody and I mean everybody would be demanding that Judge being disbarred if he or she decided with a rapist.

And the rapist would have to pay for the woman’s legal fees, without any limit. I’d say he would be pretty screwed by this law. But the ACLU is saying otherwise. Any and all coverage of this bill is just fake news. If it sounds too horrible to be true, it is guys.

Stay sceptical, and let’s fight for men’s rights by fighting for this law.

 

Trolly Daily News, June 30th, 2017 – The War on Men Pt. 4, Parental Rights

The court system is biased when it comes to child custody.  In Canada, 79.3 percent of children are exclusively under a mother only custody situation. Men have to fight tooth and nail to be able to see their children, sometimes spending 1000s of dollars because of selfish women who want to be vindictive. Hell has no fury like a woman spurned so some women will do anything to prevent fathers from seeing their kids as the final insult to her ex-husband or lover.

Child custody may be one of the reasons so many men probably end up committing suicide, which is almost four times higher than women in western countries. If you have no chance to see your children, I can see a man putting a bullet in his brain, because he has lost all hope in seeing his children. I would hate to live under that situation. But with the push of men’s rights things are changing. In Canada, 12.8 percent of child custody situations, is shared physical custody. And as a result, feminists are pissed again.

From  Agony of being a 50/50 mum: Women once held the upper hand in custody battles. Now fathers are winning EQUAL access… and mothers are struggling to cope

In this article, mothers who have 50/50 custody are complaining that the kids are going to their fathers for some of the time, saying they do not know how to live, because their kids are not with them, even if the kids are only gone for the weekend. They don’t know how to act. The article never looks at the other side of the coin at all. No fathers were ever interviewed. Their perspectives are completely ignored, because of the wiminz are complaining again.

That is what first struck me about this article. Nothing from a man’s perspective, how he is so thankful for actually having time spent with his children. This women-centric attitude is devastating men in so many different ways when it comes to parental rights for men in the world. Women are almost always chosen for sole custody almost everywhere in the first world, and fathers have to fight just to see their children.

Now, let’s look at some of the blatant sexism found in this article, shall we?

Every mother lives for those small, joyful moments when her child masters something new – a book once too challenging, the telling of a joke previously stumbled over, a food devoured that had formerly been rejected.

For it’s in the gentle minutiae of a little one’s life that you really see their budding personality grow.

Do you see how this is completely exclusionary? What about fathers missing seeing those things. Do fathers never have pride seeing their children doing those things. Imagine the over 80% of fathers who never see many of these firsts, because the children’s mother never allows them to see their children to see their fathers.

I lived in a single mother household, and my only father figure was my grandfather, who was gone 6 months of the year because he went to Florida with his wife every September. I have seen the characteristics of a child growing up without a father, and I recognise many personality flaws of mine that correspond to not having a father. That is why I am going to be with my fiancé no matter what. When we have kids, like  @BrownBear, I am going to make sure they have a dad.

And check out how they use multi-media in this story. It’s showing a caring and loving mother, with her kids.

How dare those selfish fathers to ask for their kids for the weekend. She is literally suffering from being without her kids, leaving them with her police officer ex-husband. We should totally trample over his rights to see his kids because she has hurt feelings. I can’t imagine being a police officer is an easy job, seeing his kids may be his one hope in life. I can make it through seeing the shit of humanity this week, I get to see my kids.

But that isn’t the story we should think about, she’s traumatised every weekend because she has to give their dad his right to see his kids and spend time with them. This story is so biased against men, it is ridiculous. The only pictures you see in the article, 6 of them, are all women. I show 5 of them. And of course, the blonde is featured the most. I think the photographer or photo editor had a bit of a crush.

Men are shit upon when it comes to fatherhood. We almost never have a chance to see our children because of biased court systems and angry women. If you don’t like being without your children, imagine how the father’s feelings for the amount of time they don’t get to see their kids. I say this is probably one of the major causes of male suicide being almost 4 times higher than women.

When I said I would go to Australia to see my father, he was excited, because he never thought he could see his children ever. It was a great vacation, and I will always remember it. I saw how my life could have been, compared to my life without him. It’s time for men to be honoured in this world because fathers are needed. Let this man who was raised in a single mother household shout this, I needed my father!

If you like this blog, feel free to sub to me, and give me a big thumbs up.

Don’t forget to share this blog on social media and on your minds channel.

Thanks for reading, and have a great day.