ARE WOMEN KICK-ASS, OR DO THEY NEED A KICK IN THE ASS?

By James Jackson

(I understand that some women will use the above title to accuse me of promoting domestic abuse, but that would just prove my point about how super-sensitive feminists will twist anything into an accusation against men. Obviously, I mean "kick in the ass" metaphorically.)

A major hypocrisy of women is that they see themselves as both kick-ass and victimized simultaneously. They hypocritically highlight one aspect or the other depending on the situation, either demanding respect or sympathy, whichever benefits them the most. This results in their demand for power while, at the same time, relinquishing all responsibility. Or as Stanley Baldwin put it, "Power without responsibility---the prerogative of the harlot."

Women often complain about men-only and men's events or activities, while, at the same time, demanding women-only and women's activities. This hypocrisy is always extreme and women are blind to it. It has gotten so bad that men's activities are rare, while women's events are everywhere. I have measured this in the past, and I did it again for 2016 in my local community. I counted 224 events for and about women and 6 for and about men. Activities for women included a weekly ladies night at a local bar, 12 charity benefits for women including 6 events for a women's shelter, 13 special clinics or classes for girls including a Girls Go Tech Workshop, 3 bridal fairs, 5 lectures on women's health including "Understanding Menopause," 18 movies or plays focusing on women as women including a women's film festival, 23 outdoor activities just for women and girls including Girls On the Run and Women's Mountain Bike Club, 11 book reviews or author lectures of women's books including a reading of Poems of Motherhood two days before Father's Day, weekly women's jazz bands (the bands all seemed to have female vocalists and male instrumentalists) sponsored by a local bar, 8 lectures on various women's topics including "Women as Political Change Agents," 6 ladies-night-outs including a Mother's day event, 12 courses for women including "Women in Leadership" and "Feminine Energy 101," 7 events for women artists or musicians including the "Just Women" art exhibit, and 2 events with male strippers. (Female strippers would never be allowed.) Although not counted in this list but still significant, the mayor passed out her Mayor's Arts Awards to 7 women and 2 men. The men's events included 2 benefits for homeless men, a Father's Day car show, an artist's exhibit on fatherhood, a Movember beard competition, and finally, a clinic for middle school boys interested in the medical field at a local public community college, which I am sure was started only to balance out a clinic for middle school girls interested in science and math at the same public community college. All this attention on women is further proof that the world revolves around women, and that men are second class humans, at best.

Women often justify their demands of equality of outcomes by using the ideas of "loss of potential" and "diversity." They say that women must be 50% of all participants in all activities, otherwise, we risk sacrificing half of the potential for progress. We lose half of the perspectives, half of the talent, half of the potential unless women participate fully. Then how does one explain the previous paragraph? How can women exclude men so often? I guess arguments of "diversity" and "potential" do not apply to men. Apparently women do not need men or diversity in their activities to reach full potential. Apparently men add nothing to human potential for progress. Women are constantly demanding women-only activities and that we focus on women. I have pointed out countless groups and activities in these articles that are by and for only women. The list includes movies, government agencies, legislation, college groups, charities, community organizations, instructional classes, sports, music, lectures, hospitals and clinics, etc., etc., etc. Sometimes I wonder if women know what "hypocrisy" means, and that it is bad.

Another example of this is women-only co-working spaces which seem to be all the rage. [1] You know the same women who participate in these spaces would explode if men tried to have men-only co-working spaces.

Also, consider Ellevest, the very self-indulgent investment company just for women. How could one possibly justify an investment company that refuses to take half of the population's money? Well, because women are so self-centered and self-indulgent. A company that plays to women's selfishness, distinctness, victimhood, and superiority can expect to land many accounts. But just imagine what would happen to an investment company that limited employees and clients to only men.

Here is another example: gender groups at Arizona State University. I did a google search of "women's groups" at ASU. One website [2] listed 38 groups including sororities, sports clubs, AAUW, Assn for Women in Science, Society of Women Engineers, Society for Women in Science, Women in Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy Graduate Women’s Association, Women in Science and Engineering, Feminist Organization at ASU, Graduate Women in Business, Graduate Women's Assn., American Business Women's Assn., National Association of Women MBA’s, Network of Enlightened Women, New Sexual Revolution, Nzinga Sisterhood Circle, Pinkk, V-Day at ASU, Woman as Hero, Women Beyond Borders, Women Law Students’ Association, and Women’s Coalition. That's six groups in science and four groups in business. Another website listed 14 groups with only two groups common to both sites, bringing the number to at least 50. The second website [3] listed groups including Asian-American Women's Association, Hard Candy Zine, Her Campus ASU, I Am That Girl, Miss Academic ASU Pageant, Partners in Empowerment, Society for Women in STEM, Women In Aviation, Women in Film, Women Veterans Club, Womyn's Coalition, and Zaria. A google search for "men's groups" at ASU came up with zilch, nada, nothing, a big goose egg. But further investigation revealed that a few fraternities and men's sports clubs exist----but of course, these did not rate a hit in a google search of "men's groups." Why is this extreme difference between women's and men's groups not a violation of Title IX? This seems far worse than any difference in sports teams which IS a violation of Title IX. On top of this add a Women's Center and Women's Studies courses which often teach hatred of men. Why are women so hypocritical?

TED talks also exhibit this self-indulgence toward women and feminism. A quick look at the website [4] will reveal many talks focused on women and/or feminism but few about men. My local TED had an event recently of 10 talks, 8 by women, and 6 with strong female or feminist subject matter. None were about men.

Another example: Howlround, a theater non-profit, has promoted "Jubilee 2020," in which theaters pledge not to produce any plays written by straight white men during 2020. [5] Supposedly, this is to promote diversity and inclusiveness. But, as usual, diversity and inclusiveness does not include straight white males. The premise seems to be: let's stop sexism, racism, and sexual orientationism by being sexist, racist, and sexual orientationist. The bias of Howlround seems to be completely misplaced. The quality of the show is what is important. The gender of the playwright should not matter. Competing on a level playing field is kick-ass, but eliminating half of the competition is not. And as I said in "Sexist Asteroids," most theater productions these days seem to be aimed at women, even though many of the plays and musicals are written by men. Seventy theater companies have signed the pledge. Many of these companies receive federal grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. It is forbidden for groups receiving federal funds to discriminate. Let us hope the NEA stops giving to those theater companies that have signed the pledge. [6]

So much of feminism focuses on women, gays, and diversity. This is just a sinister and sneaky way to discriminate against straight white males.

A big claim to fame for ObamaCare was that insurance companies could not charge women more than men, even though women spend about twice as much on healthcare as men. This is fine. After all, the purpose of insurance is for everyone in a large group to chip in a little so that unlucky individuals in the group don't bear the cost of disastrous financial calamities. It is fine that men and women chip in the same amount. So why doesn't this principle apply to other insurance payments? Why do men pay more for car insurance and life insurance? The vast majority of the time a couple is in a car, the man is the driver. So men, who must chauffeur women around, must also pay extra for the privilege. Men pay 38% more for life insurance. [7] So men, who not only die five years earlier than women, must also pay extra for the privilege.

A man in Barrington, Rhode Island, wrote a letter to the editor claiming that women over 20 should not wear yoga pants. [8] He stated that the pants were too sexual, comparing them to a man wearing a speedo to the grocery. He implied that older women's bodies were too big for the skin-tight pants. A large backlash (pardon the pun) ensued. Women wrote him threatening emails, including death threats. A "yoga pants parade" walked down his street. People criticized his letter as being misogynistic, degrading, and sexist. Women said that they could wear anything they wanted.

Another example of this came to us from Olympic gymnast, Ali Raisman, who appeared in the recent Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Many people complained of the highly sexual nature of her layout, which they felt was inappropriate for a role model for girls. Her layout was made up of four pictures, one in which her breasts were covered with only narrow webbing, one in which she was naked except for a near G-string swimsuit bottom, and all showed her with her legs spread wide open. (Fellow Olympian Simone Biles also appeared similarly in this swimsuit issue.) Raisman responded by saying, "I can express myself in any way that I want. But that doesn't give anyone the right to judge me....It really made me realize women do not have to be modest in order to be respected." [43] So, women are allowed to do anything they want, and we are not allowed to criticize.

A similar hubbub occurred when United Airlines refused to allow two teenage girls on a flight because they were wearing leggings. [9] People cried sexism and misogyny and threatened United with taking their business elsewhere. But the rules of United clearly state that yoga pants and leggings are not acceptable for employee-pass travelers. And to see just how ridiculous women are being about this situation, one woman complained that the girls' father was allowed to board even though he was wearing shorts that came two to three inches above his knee. She felt this was a blatant double standard. What a stupid comparison! First of all, skin exposure is not the problem with leggings and yoga pants---it's their tightness, i.e., CAMEL TOE AND DEFINED BUTT CRACKS! If dad were wearing tight biking shorts, then there was sexism, but he was probably wearing loose-fitting cargo shorts, which are not sexual. And nobody thinks men's hairy knees are sexual. So, please make your comparisons apples to apples. I'm sure a woman wearing baggy shorts or a dress two to three inches above the knee would have been allowed on the plane. And I'm sure a man wearing yoga pants would not have been allowed on. United's policy is not sexist. Women's reactions are.

I'm sure some women will argue that I'm comparing apples and oranges by equating men and women in yoga pants. These women will argue that men are far more sexual (and disgusting) in yoga pants than women are. They will argue that a man's genital bulge in yoga pants is much bigger than a woman's genital bulge in yoga pants, and therefore, one shouldn't compare the two. But I would say this argument is bogus because women have sexual bulges on their chests that are just as big, if not bigger than men's genital bulges, yet there are no restrictions on how tight women's tops can be. Some tops are so tight that nipple bumps can be seen. It is even worse that this, since many women do not completely cover their breasts with their tight tops---or loose tops, for that matter. So women complaining about the sexual dress of men face a losing battle. Women's outfits are far more sexual than men's. Men don't wear yoga pants. Maybe a few men should to help point out women's hypocrisy.

Women's reactions in these cases are just one more example of women's entitlement and hypocrisy. Restrictions against men's sexual expression are accepted, if not demanded, e.g., not allowing men to wear speedos or yoga pants at the grocery, or restricting men from telling sexual jokes, or not allowing a man to comment on a woman's appearance. But don't you dare try to tell women that they can't be sexual. Sexuality is women's power base and we are not allowed to diminish it in any way. Don't you dare try to tell women what they can or cannot wear. That's misogyny! Of course, this is really just extreme hypocrisy. More and more, male sexuality is considered disgusting, if not criminal, these days, while we aren't allowed to even criticize female sexuality. Why is that?

Why is anything that does not go women's way immediately labeled "misogyny?" How is holding women to a modicum of decorum an example of hatred of women? These days, most everything can be twisted into "misogyny."

Here's another example. Women accused Donald Trump of being a misogynist, of hating women, after he revealed that he grabbed women by the pussy. Try these thought experiments. If Trump were gay and grabbed men in the genitals, would anyone accuse him of hating men, of being a misandrist? Of course, not. He might be accused of loving men too much. If a woman grabbed men in the genitals, would anyone accuse her of hating men? If a woman grabbed women in the genitals, would anyone accuse her of hating women? Of course, not. But almost any behavior by men must be considered misogyny by women. Women have to be victims. Perennial victims can't be kick-ass.

All through the 2016 Presidential campaign, the Clinton campaign and many news reports focused on the supposed misogyny of candidate Trump. The Clinton campaign even produced several TV ads exploiting Trump's language toward women. But Trump was not sexist. He was just as mean and obnoxious toward men, which was rarely mentioned and never explored in detail. Here are some of the words and phrases that Trump used during the campaign toward men: a clown, SAD, crazy, wacko, a disaster, clueless, weak, pathetic, a total embarrassment, phony, a basket case, big loser, puppet, miserable, lying, choker, a world class LIAR, lowlife, cheater, nasty, fraud, reckless, the ultimate hypocrite, greatly dishonest, Goldman Sachs owns him, dumb mouthpiece, dummy, bought and paid for by lobbyists, total failure, total dud, lowly, Lightweight, truly weird, spoiled brat without a properly funtioning brain, take an IQ test, a total joke, DISGRACE, little, Mr. Meltdown, disloyal, totally controlled, lazy, not smart, not very bright, stupid, racist, crude dope, ridiculous, insane, terrible, horrible, incompetent, perv, sleazebag, inept, foul mouthed, failed, awkward and goofy, totally ineffective, dumb as a rock, irrelevant, very dumb, mental basketcase, a real nut job, one of the dumbest, grubby, big failure, a major sleaze and buffoon, uncomfortable looking, sleepy eyes, bombed, know nothing, underachieving, dopey, even dumber, a fool, a mess, hater and racist, totally biased, third rate talent, hopeless, deadpan, BORING, broken down, dopey clown, inferiority complex, total disaster, dummy dope, low-class slob, nasty guy, flunky, sick, unfair, moron, sweats and shakes, a zero, con man, totally conflicted, and goofball. [10]

Trump was just as, if not more, mean and offensive toward men as he was toward women. But, apparently, calling men names is acceptable, while it is not acceptable to call women names. This is the real sexism of the election. Apparently, calling women names is misogyny, while calling men names is just normal, because, I guess, men deserve to be called names. This hypocrisy by Clinton and women during the campaign and the continual sexist focus on women and the ignoring of men by the media probably caused a backlash which helped elect the totally unqualified and dangerous Donald Trump to the Presidency.

How effective was the Clinton campaign in its pandering to women? Clinton lost men by 12 points (53% for Trump and 41% for Clinton) and won women by 12 points (54% for Clinton to 42% for Trump.) [11] Minority women must have had a large effect on these statistics since white women went for Trump by 10 points (53% to 43%,) and white women without a college degree went for Trump by 28 points (62% to 34%.) [12] How could a man who was supposedly very sexist towards women and even admitted sexually assaulting them, how could he have won so many women's votes? I suppose the answer is complex. But I believe that women did not fall for the sexual assault hysteria currently being promoted by feminists. Or maybe women did not buy the requirement that all women must vote for women just because they are women, also promoted by feminists. Perhaps women were even attracted to Trump by his admission that he sexually assaulted women because this added to Trump's alpha-male persona. Possibly the strongest explanation is that the election was more about class than gender. Whatever the reasons, women just did not fall for the constant females-as-victims scenario offered by Clinton and feminists. [13]

Another possible explanation for Clinton's loss promoted by feminists is pure gender bias. They claim people did not vote for her because she was a woman. Researchers investigated this possibility by putting together an experiment in which audiences viewed mock debates where a man adopted Clinton's mannerisms and style. [14] The researchers assumed that a man with Clinton's style would be acceptable to audience members, thereby confirming sexism. But the researchers got fooled. These audiences hated Clinton's style on a man just as much as they hated her style on her. Gender bias was not the cause of Clinton's loss. One female audience member wanted to punch the male version of Hillary because of his constant smiling. I criticized this constant smiling by women and Hillary in "McKinney to Minions." Maybe now, women will stop this irritating affectation.

Let's look at the "women's marches" occurring the day after Inauguration Day. This phenomenon was another example of the women-as-victim meme promoted by feminists. As I have said, a lot of women voted for Trump, a lot of men voted against Trump, and Trump was just as mean to men as he was to women during the campaign. But women have to assume that they are always victims and men never are. So they put together the "women's marches" to resist and complain about Trump, as if the Trump Administration was going to deliberately discriminate against women and benefit men. I've got news. Eliminating health care will kill just as many men as women. Ignoring climate change will cause just as many men to suffer as women. If he starts a war, more men than women will die. But women must always demand more value, more worth, and more attention than men. This is sexist as hell. Oddly, one of the purposes of the marches was to unify. If you want to unify, don't exclude half of the population by calling them "women's marches." Call them "peoples' marches." Yes, I know men were welcome to join in, but only if they agreed that women are more valuable than men. To make the point even clearer, my local march was called the "Womxn's March." ("Women" has often been spelled "womyn" in the past by feminists, but I guess that implies men with their y chromosome, so now it's "womxn" to imply all female. Just how does one pronounce "womxn?") The men-hating organizers of my local march could not even allow "men" to appear in the title, so they came up with "mxn" instead. All of this makes their "Love Trumps Hate" signs all the more hypocritical and ironic. Sad.

One final comment on the Clinton campaign. Sexist Clinton misquoted Maya Angelou to single out men. A famous quote of Angelou's is “When someone shows you who they are believe THEM; the first time.” (Emphasis added.) Clinton changed it to "When someone shows you who they are believe HIM; the first time."

While on the subject of politics, feminists often brag of women's superior nature. Supposedly, women are more moral, cooperative, competent and efficient than those evil men now occupying most governmental positions. Feminists often claim that government, business, and the world in general, would run much better if women ran things. [15] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg exemplifies this attitude. When asked how many women on the Court would be enough, she answered "nine." Of course, there are good women and there are bad men. But there are also bad women and good men. So these broad generalizations that women are superior to men are just pure sexist, feminist fantasy. There haven't been a whole lot of women leaders, but we can learn from some of them. For example, President Park Geun-hye of South Korea was impeached after she helped a female friend and advisor extort millions of dollars from South Korean businesses. President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached officially for breaking budgetary laws, but unofficially for being inept, corrupt, and causing multiple crises. [16] Cristina Kirchner, former President of Argentina, is still dealing with several corruption charges. Former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia, received a sentence of five years for embezzling money from an orphanage. (Update: I must add Liz Truss, who was forced to resign after only 6 weeks as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.) Megan Barry, mayor of Nashville, pled guilty to felony theft after admitting to an affair with a police officer on her security detail. Mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, resigned and pled guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion charges in a corruption scandal. Supreme Court candidates Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood both had problems with hiring illegal immigrants for domestic help. Baird also forgot to pay taxes. Senate candidate and witch, Christine O'Donnell, was unfamiliar with the First Amendment, had numerous financial problems, and thought scientists had produced mice with human brains. President Trump’s nominated senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council, Monica Crowley, was found to have committed plagiarism 50 times in one of her books. In a list like this, one cannot leave out the half-Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. In business, Elizabeth Holmes, a much-ballyhooed young whiz-kid genius and founder of Theranos, was caught doctoring research and ignoring quality-control testing that showed that her blood testing machines did not work, all to the detriment of stockholders and patients. [17] Also, Carly Fiorina failed as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Miki Agrawal, CEO of Thinx, is being sued for sexual harassment. [18] Carrie Tolstedt was considered a role model for women in banking, but then it came to light that she was largely responsible for the recent Wells Fargo banking scandal. [19] Insider trader Martha Stewart lied to the FBI. Olympian Marion Jones lied about taking steroids. In a huge moral failure Carolyn Bryant Donham has admitted that she lied in the case that resulted in the lynching of Emmett Till. [20] It appears women are just as corrupt, inept, dishonest, and immoral as men. Not very kick-ass.

Take, for example, Lisa Fierstein. She is the ex-wife of Andrew Puzder, who is CEO of Carl's Jr. and former Labor Secretary nominee. During their divorce 30 years ago, she accused Puzder of battering her so severely that she sustained “bruises and contusions to the chest, back, shoulders and neck” and “two ruptured discs and two bulging discs." [21] She later appeared on a segment of the Oprah Show about "High-Class Battered Women" where she said she lost everything in the divorce. She also said powerful men know how to hit women so no marks show---they do not hit in the face. This is odd, because in her divorce petition, she declared that Puzder hit her violently "about the face." Eight months after the Oprah Show, she recanted her accusations against Puzder, saying that the accusations were used to gain leverage against Puzder during the divorce. In regards to the Oprah Show, she said she "became caught up in the notion of a free trip to Chicago and being a champion of women and women's issues." Why does it seem so often that being a champion of women involves lying about men? I don't suppose we will see any perjury charges against Fierstein or disciplinary actions against the lawyer who counseled her to file false abuse charges.

Joe Biden said [22] that he would like to take Donald Trump "behind the gym," implying that he wanted to beat him up. This is an odd thing for the father of the Violence Against Women Act to say. But it is just one more example of the discrimination against and demeaning of men. Violence is forbidden against women, but it appears to be perfectly acceptable against men. We value women, but men apparently are worthless and deserve to be beaten, even by a supposedly non-violent and female-friendly Vice President.

Another example of this occurred when Seattle Seahawk Richard Sherman blocked a field goal and ran into Buffalo Bills' kicker Dan Carpenter after Sherman obviously had jumped offside. Carpenter's wife tweeted that Sherman should be castrated since he "can't control his own rage." [23] With a comment like that, perhaps Carpenter's wife is the person who cannot control her rage. Sherman gave a reasonable explanation for running into Carpenter. [24] If Sherman had stopped and Carpenter had kicked the field goal, the Bills could have declined the offside and taken the 3 points. Besides, once Sherman had blocked the kick, there was no foul for running into Carpenter. But Carpenter's wife assumed that men are such sub-human rage-filled creatures that we must try to eliminate their manhood in order to make them more human, or make them more like superior women. This is a common attitude these days. Oddly, the focus of complaints against her tweet were of its racist nature, not of its outrageous violence and blatant sexism. It appears that no one would have been concerned with the tweet if Sherman had been white. Apparently, violence, sexism and sexual mutilation against men are acceptable. After she was criticized, Kaela Carpenter said that her tweet was just a joke. Even if true, I'm not sure that makes this situation any less offensive.

A similar example of hatred of men occurred during the 2/9/17 "Late Show." During a skit in which Stephen Colbert pretended to be in a confessional, Colbert said this, "I think women look great in stiletto heels, but if I were a woman and a man asked me to wear them, I would murder him with my shoes." This was an edgy joke, possibly in poor taste. But what happened after the joke was worse. The women in the audience burst into thunderous screaming, laughing and applause. There is such hatred for men in our society that the murder of men is hilarious. Imagine if the genders were reversed. Imagine Melissa McCarthy saying "I think men look great in a tie, but if I were a man and a woman asked me to wear one, I would strangle her with the tie." I'm sure men, as well as women, would be shocked into silence. But, of course, this gender-reversed joke would never be allowed on network television.

I have noted that women often receive a lower standard as far as achievement goes. Recent movies give us more examples of this. Most great chess players are male. But if a good female chess player comes along, we have to make a movie about her---The Queen of Katwe. Most workers on Wall Street are male. But if some female Wall Street workers appear, we have to make a movie about them and their problems---Equity. Most engineers at NASA are male. But if we find some women who helped put people into space, we have to make a movie about them---Hidden Figures. All eagle hunters in Mongolia are male, but when a girl wants to try it, we must make a movie about her---The Eagle Huntress. And there is usually a demonization of men in these movies. It is also another example that the world revolves around women.

I noted earlier that most action movies now include kick-ass women in major roles. A recent example of this is Rogue One. Of course, these movies are fiction, so I guess the movie makers can do whatever sells tickets. It seems that news reporters and editors also go out of their way to include stories of kick-ass women to help sell their articles and TV spots, even if they have to make up these stories---remember Jessica Lynch? But how realistic is this? How often do they find a real kick-ass woman? I remember a recent news video [25] that showed a man risking his life to climb onto a sinking car in a flood, ripping open the convertible top, pulling out a woman, and saving her life. What was the first thing she said when she got her head above water? "Get my dog!" She demanded that the man save her dog still in the car! Wow! Just a wee bit entitled, don't you think? Why couldn't she save her dog? Apparently the woman's life and the dog's life were worth more than the man's. (He did save the dog.) I also remember two other news reports, one of a house fire, and the other of a car crashing into a ravine, where women from a safe distance away, yelled at men to help the people in trouble. With so many people videoing emergencies with their smart phones now, it is still rare to see women jumping in to help. It always seems to be men risking their lives, something which they get little credit for. Another example of this involves men covering women to protect them during some of the recent mass shootings. This includes a stranger who protected a woman at the Fort Lauderdale airport [26] and 4 men who died protecting their girlfriends at the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting. [27] Like the woman with the dog, women expect men to risk their measly little lives to save the apparently very worthy lives of women.

Another example of this valuing women and devaluing men occurs in literature and movies when the dishonoring or murder of a woman leads to the deaths of many, many men. Movies with this theme include all five of the Death Wish movies, all three Taken movies, Braveheart, Unforgiven, and recently, The Revenant. But this theme is not new. After all, The Trojan War was fought to retrieve one stolen woman. So, the lives of many, many men are not worth the honor or life of one woman. It is not just men's lives that are at stake, but it is also acceptable for many men to suffer horribly. Men risking death and pain to protect women may have had an evolutionary benefit for the survival of the human species, but now, in a supposedly civilized world where men and women are equal, it is sexist and anachronistic. Men should not be the expendable gender any longer.

In "Hating Men is Mainstream" I noted that feminists and women have used many words and phrases to belittle and demean men----words like "manspreading," "mansplaining," "rape culture," "toxic masculinity," and "the patriarchy." I would like to add another word to the list: "bromance." Apparently, men are not allowed to even have male friends or buddies now for fear of being made fun of with this insult. A few years ago the insult directed at male friends was "male bonding." Women must have a constant stream of ways to belittle men. And no man is immune from this attack. At the end of the Obama administration, Obama and Joe Biden were constantly accused of having a bromance, even by mainstream news organizations. Trump and Putin also received this demeaning moniker. The word implies a gay relationship. Women get upset if they are accused of being lesbians just because they have female friends. Can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel being referred to as "lady lovers" by mainstream news organizations? But this kind of insult is okay if against men. Name-calling is bullying, and it is not kick-ass.

There is a lot more to feminists discouraging male friendship than just insults. There has been constant denigration of male friendship by feminists for the last 40 years. They say men hanging out with their buddies is selfish. These men should be at home helping their wives with the kids, not wasting time and money at the bar or at sports, etc. Feminists even say that men getting together is a manifestation of the patriarchy subjugating women. This feminist guilt-trip has largely been successful. Men do not have male friends anymore and rely heavily on their wives for all social contact.

This was a topic on a recent "On Point" program on NPR---“Middle-Aged Men Need More Friends” from March 23, 2017----and that this is negatively affecting their health. "On Point" regularly examines gender issues, but only from a feminist perspective and with female guests. So I was curious how the show would handle this topic. Unsurprisingly, the show was rather negative toward men. Some women objected to the show's focus on men, complaining that busy women can also have friendship issues. (We are not allowed to focus on men, only women.) Lonely men were called losers and too lazy to make an effort. (More name-calling.) One woman implied that men were whining and needed to buck up. (Society needs to help women with their problems, but men need to fix everything by themselves or they are unmanly.) Another woman complained that this was "another way we expect women to do the emotional work for men." (Again, we are not allowed to help men, only women.) Like in everything else, women were portrayed as being superior to men at friendships. Women were even portrayed as the good wives encouraging their husbands to get together more often with their buddies. (This hides the fact that women took men's friends away from them in the first place.) It was stated that women can talk for hours with friends on the phone, while men are more likely to hang with friends while doing activities. (But as I mentioned earlier, feminists have killed most men's groups and activities.) No one dared to mention that feminism and women were largely responsible for men giving up their friends. An immigrant to America called in to say that this is an American problem. He said that he gets together with his friends from the old country daily. But he needs to make an appointment a week ahead to get together with his American friends. I'm betting he came from a country with few feminists.

Another example of disrespect for men involves the constant demeaning of men's genitals. It seems that dick jokes, ball jokes, and other degrading references to men's genitals are everywhere. I decided to count the number of times I came upon a demeaning reference to men's genitals for a one week period. For the sake of comparison, I also counted jokes about female genitals. The week included the Super Bowl and went from 12:01 Sunday morning to 11:59 Saturday night. The final counts were men--60, women--5. The count for men included TV shows, ads for TV shows, TV commercials, a movie, and one blues song, "Cialis Before I See Alice," which contained the lyric "little Jimmy has already come and gone." TV commercials that played multiple times were counted each time. Colonel Sanders put gold on his tenders in a KFC ad. A new girl was checking out Jamie's name-your-price-tool in a Progressive ad. A "Baywatch" ad made fun of a guy wearing a speedo. An ad for "Saturday Night Live" referred to Schweaty Balls. An ad for the TV show "Superior Donuts" referred to a man's genitals as "that's not a coin purse." In a chemistry experiment Bill Nye the Science Guy made a joke about a pinchcock. In an episode of "The Big Bang Theory," Penny declared a difference between Sheldon and Albert Einstein by saying that she never wanted to kick Einstein in the nuts. Four examples occurred on "The Daily Show," including Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders covering up their boners during a debate. "Last Man Standing" had three examples, including painting a weiner on a moose statue. The weekday late night shows had 12 examples including showing Donald Trump in a robe ala Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, a manikin of Trump with no genitals, and Trump needing to know the postage rates so that he could mail Congressman Chaffetz's balls back. SNL had six occurrences including Sean Spicer offering to take out his balls to make it easier for reporters to kick them. A "South Park" episode explored cock magic. "TOSH" had three examples and "Two Broke Girls" had ten, including giving a mime a crotch-punch. For the women, SNL and "TOSH" each had one occurrence, and "Two Broke Girls" had three, including a pink bed that looked like a vagina. Obviously, there was a severe qualitative as well as quantitative difference concerning genital jokes between men and women. And once again, demeaning words for men's genitals like "dick," "cock," and "balls" were explicitly said while words for women's privates like "cunt" were avoided or bleeped. Not only does this survey show a great societal disrespect for men, but it also shows that sexual violence against men is funny.

The Super Bowl is arguably the sports highlight of the year for many men. However, the ads during the 2017 Super Bowl were not exactly kind to men. An Aflac ad showed a female surgeon doing very inappropriate things to a man under anesthesia. An ad for Ford showed many people---most all were men---getting stuck in embarrassing situations. An ad for Mr Clean told women that their love for men depended on whether the men could clean. An ad for the movie Ghosts in the Shell, showed a cartoon version of Scarlett Johansson in tights beating the crap out of men. Audi produced a ridiculous ad reprising the myth that women make less money than men for the same work. (Of course, Audi is also the brand that brought us emission controls designed to fool emission testing, adding to our air pollution.) I won't be buying an Audi any time soon. And most ironically, after all the trouble the NFL has been in concerning domestic violence, an ad for the TV show "Empire" showed Cookie beating Lucious with a bat. Men cannot even get respect in a huge sports event. We must always pander to women.

Speaking of men getting hit with bats, have you noticed the Geico TV ad of the Swiss cuckoo clock [28] with scenes of a woman churning butter and two men sawing a log? The clock also has a scene of a woman hitting a man over the head with a bat? It's just another quaint example of domestic violence against men being funny. And acceptable. Can you imagine the uproar if the genders were reversed?

I have complained before that feminists consider that all sexual infractions are rape and that rape is considered to be as bad as murder. Here is more evidence to show that feminists are instituting this nonsense into law. California recently passed legislation [29] eliminating the statute of limitations for felony sex crimes. The only other crime that is generally allowed to be prosecuted without time restrictions is murder, the severest crime of violence with permanent results. Also, murder victims are unable to report the crime and have no control over when it is discovered. This makes it understandable that there are no time limits for murder. But sex crime victims can report immediately. Why do they get unlimited time to report? It becomes very difficult to defend oneself after long periods of time. Physical evidence and memories deteriorate. This is one more example of equating rape with murder.

I've discussed how feminists have broadened the definition of rape to outrageous extremes. Here is another example. [30] A man in Switzerland was convicted of rape for secretly slipping off a condom during consensual sex. Of course, what the guy did was not nice, but rape? This is just one more example of the current ridiculousness of any and all sexual infractions against women must be considered rape, no matter how small. Apparently, this would also be considered rape in England. This raises the question: would a woman be charged with rape for the comparable situation of poking holes in her boyfriend's condoms or not taking her birth control pills? Of course, not. And he would be forced to pay child support for at least 18 years. Feminist misandry is now part of many laws.

I have given examples of how women have demanded that all sexual violations be treated harshly by the legal system. The purpose of this is to sustain women's sexual power and to punish men. Sexual offenders are treated more harshly than other criminals. For example, they must sign up on sexual registries for the rest of their lives and reside away from schools. They are also often forced to remain in prison after they have served their sentences. [31] The justification for these injustices is that sexual offenders supposedly have higher recidivism rates than other criminals, as high as 80 percent. But this is false according to a New York Times article. [32] This 80 percent statistic first appeared in an article in the somewhat tabloidy Psychology Today by authors who gave no evidence for this very high number and whose counseling program would have profited from such a high number. Of course, feminists latched onto this exaggeration and repeated it over and over until it was widely believed. But the evidence says something different. As the New York Times article explains, a Department of Justice report found that the recidivism rate for sex offenders to be 5.3 percent after three years and 27 percent after twenty years. Other studies put the number between 1.7 percent and 5.7 percent for durations of three to ten years. How many men have spent extra time behind bars and other restrictions to their lives due to these feminist lies?

These are all examples of how women and feminists demand that women are to be treated specially by the legal system, and that any violations against women are treated severely. Here is another example: Alleged rape victims in England will now have the option of pre-recording their court testimony. [33] The purpose of this appears to be to make it easier to convict men, and to lessen trauma experienced by victims. But some legal experts also feel that it will make it more difficult for innocent men to defend themselves. But, of course, we do not care about men, innocent or not. Facing one's accuser and live examinations in front of juries date back to the Romans and English common law and have long been cherished safeguards in legal systems to help prevent wrongful convictions. In the U.S., it is stated in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. But feminists do not care about things like these. We must treat women in special ways. This new wrinkle in the justice system seems to be an extension of the policy which allows child victims to pre-record their testimony. Even though women insist that they are adults and that they are not to be treated like children, here is one more situation where they demand it. As Lord Chesterfield put it, "Women are only children of larger growth." Kick-ass women seem to be quite rare.

Another distortion by feminists is that any man may be a rapist. This has clearly been used to smear all men and produce fear of all men in all women. Of course, we cannot predict who will rape with perfect accuracy, but we can narrow the profile to some degree. Rapists and sexual abusers, for the most part, come from the subset of humans called criminals. One study found that 5.6% of men incarcerated for sexual assault were arrested again for sexual assault within 5 years of release. [34] But this same study found that 54.5% of these men incarcerated for sexual assault were arrested for something else within 5 years of release, including 15.5% for assault, 13% for drugs, 7.2% for car theft, and 6% for fraud. This makes some sense. Men who show no respect for law or property or other persons are more likely than law-abiding, respectful men to be rapists. So, yes, technically any man (or woman, for that matter) can be a rapist, but women have little to fear from men who show empathy and respect for others and have no criminal record.

When the Trump administration instituted it's Muslim ban on January 27th, the country saw countless demonstrations at airports and other places. Thousands of demonstrators claimed that the ban was unconstitutional because it singled out people due to their religion. Oddly, years and years of unconstitutional bias against male refugees raised no such concern. Again, discrimination against men is apparently okay. For years the State Department has discouraged the immigration from the Middle East of single men, while welcoming single women. This is also official policy in Canada. [35] The lame, even if it were true, justification for this is the idea that women are not terrorists. Of course, this idea is false since we have seen many women involved in terroristic activities. But the discrimination against men continues with no one demonstrating at airports against this unconstitutional bias.

The hypocrisy of feminists became quite clear in a recent article concerning a girl who wanted to join the Boy Scouts. [36] She argued that she wanted the prestige and accomplishment of becoming an Eagle Scout. Of course, Girl Scouts have a comparable Gold Award with just as much prestige and achievement. Even though the Boy Scouts do offer some coed programs, and even though the Girl Scouts do not allow boys, the National Organization of Women still wants the Boy Scouts to become completely coed. Apparently, NOW has no objection to the Girl Scouts remaining completely girls-only. The hypocrisy is thick.

Another example like this occurred at Sydney University in Australia. [37] The Veterinary School offered a scholarship in which only men could apply. Of course, feminists had a cow. Even though 90% of the program is expected to be female, and even though the university also offers women-only scholarships for programs where women are underrepresented, and even though most universities these days are about a third more women than men, still women complained about a male-only scholarship. The justification, uh, I mean, rationalization for this hypocrisy put forth by the school's women's officer was "affirmative action should only apply to people who have structural barriers to receiving an education," i.e., women. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

This edition's Title IX fiasco comes to us from Amherst College. [38] In February, 2012, the girlfriend of Sophomore "John" was out of town, so John partied with his girlfriend's roommate, "Sandra." She dragged the very drunk John back to her dorm room and performed oral sex on him. John was blackout drunk and does not recall much from the evening. We have heard that a drunk person cannot give consent for sex---at least, for female drunks. Oddly, being blackout drunk and male does not seem to violate Amherst's rules on giving consent for sex. Almost two years later, a victim's advocate convinced Sandra that she had been raped. The advocate said that John had admitted to her that he was guilty---a statement which later was found to lack credibility. The advocate actually filed the paperwork with Amherst for Sandra, which accused John of sexual assault. Oddly, John was told that he could find a person to accompany him through Amherst's sexual assault process, but that this person could not "advocate." Sandra's story changed during the process. At first she said the oral sex was non-consensual throughout, but later said it started out consensually but became non-consensual during a break. She also said that she did not text anyone immediately after, which was false. She said she asked (by texting) a guy friend to come over immediately after because she was confused and did not want to be alone. An investigator gathered evidence concerning the incident and performed interviews. Her report left out much pertinent evidence, including that Sandra had sex with her guy friend later that night. John was expelled and given 7 days to appeal. But he was unable to gather evidence since he was forced off of campus. A campus-wide notice explained that an unidentified man had been expelled and was not allowed on campus. But since Sandra's advocate had broken confidentiality and talked to many people about the case, most everyone knew that the man was John. John later hired a lawyer. He identified the man Sandra had sex with later that night, who confirmed that Sandra was not traumatized. John also discovered text messages in which Sandra indicated that she initiated "something bad" and did something stupid with John, was not an "innocent bystander," and that her only concern or dread was that her roommate would find out. She even texted that John was too drunk to participate in a coverup lie. With this and other evidence showing that Sandra had lied and that John was the real victim, Amherst refused to reopen the case. A judge also refused to force Sandra to supply texts and other documents because it might traumatize her. Title IX is supposed to combat sex discrimination, but it appears feminists are using Title IX to discriminate against men.

John Villasenor, a professor at UCLA, tried to quantify the unfairness of using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in Title IX sexual assault cases in colleges. [39] The stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard strives for a 90% assurance of someone's guilt, while the "preponderance of the evidence" standard only goes a hair over 50% assurance of someone's guilt. Villasenor used research that indicated 4% of people convicted of murder using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard were innocent. Using this, other research, and probability models, Villasenor estimated that we can expect that one-third of men convicted in campus tribunals using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard would be innocent. Actually, since these tribunals do not use many of the due process procedures found in murder trials, the estimate of the number of false convictions in campus Title IX tribunals should probably be even higher than one-third.

Is there anything that can be done to reduce the bias against men in our legal system that all of these examples point to? I would recommend that we pass the Equal Rights Amendment. As it stands now, women use their supposed victimization and men's chivalry to inject these double standards into the law and the culture generally. Passage of the ERA will not change this. Women will continue to demand special treatment and men will continue to give it to them. But, at least, the ERA would make it easier to fight against this duplicity and hypocrisy in the courts. It is time for men to join women in the fight to pass the ERA for the benefit of all. I bet there are many feminists who will not care for that.

In the infamous Rolling Stone article, "Rape On Campus," Jackie Coakley charged several members of a University of Virginia fraternity of raping her. It was later discovered that her accusations were completely false, and that she had fabricated the gang rape to garner sympathy and attention from a man she was romantically interested in. It appears Coakley is not the only woman to use this tactic to gain attention from a love interest. In order to get attention from a perspective lover, Nikki Yovino of Sacred Heart University accused two football players of raping her so that "it would make him angry and sympathetic to her.” [40] What is most disturbing about this tactic is that it is strong evidence of my complaint that many women are complete cowards when it comes to initiating relationships. These women would rather risk sending men to prison than to walk up to a guy and risk the rejection involved in asking him out. Granted, Coakley and Yovino are extreme cases. But many women refuse to initiate which leads to much dysfunction in our society. Women's use of their sexual power and their unwillingness to perform any initiation contributes to such things as stalking, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. The feminist response to this is to put all of the blame on men instead of promoting equality between the sexes and demanding that women perform half of all initiation. Apparently, kick-ass women are not strong enough to do even that.

One last quick comment concerning the Rolling Stone article. Feminists demand that we believe the women who claim that they have been sexually assaulted. Well, that is what Rolling Stone did. How did that turn out?

In "Sexist Asteroids" I noted 4 examples of the duplicitous treatment of men and women having nervous breakdowns on airplanes. Men are named by the media, arrested, and punished. Women are not named in the media and they are given psychological help. Another example has occurred. [41] A United pilot boarded her flight on February 11th in civilian clothes. She then went on a bizarre rant about her clothes, her divorce, and politicians. Her unstable behavior caused twenty passengers to walk off the plane. She was removed from the plane and another pilot was called in to fly the route. I read at least 4 articles on this story and she was not named in any of them. A United spokesman said that the company would speak to her about the incident. No arrest. No prosecution. No punishment. And women complain about how sexist the world is against them.

As part of CNN's series on comedy, the network recently broadcast the program "Women are Funnier." Even though the title is not explicit, the meaning is clear from the context in the program that CNN means, not that women are funnier than most dung beetles, but that women are funnier than men. This, of course, is ridiculous in the context that most standup comedians are male, most comic movie actors and directors are male, most joke writers are male, more men enter joke contests, most class clowns are boys, etc. Of course, there are funny women, but there is a very good reason why men are generally funnier than women: sexual selection. Women are looking for intelligent men who will be more able to support the women and their children. Humor is a sign of intelligence. Men, on the other hand, are not looking so much for intelligence in women. They are looking more for good health in women who will be able to have more children with them. Beauty is a sign of good health in women. So it is no surprise that, in large part, women are looking for humorous men, while men are looking for beautiful women. So it is no surprise that more women than men in singles ads are beautiful and looking for partners with a sense of humor, while more men than women in singles ads claim to have a sense of humor and are looking for beautiful mates. So it is no surprise that men work on being funny and women work on being beautiful. I suppose women could be as funny as men if they worked as hard on being funny as men do, just as I believe that men could be just as pretty as women if they spackled and pasted themselves and wore spanx and got cosmetic surgery to the same degree that women do. Women have the potential to be funny, just as men have the potential to be pretty. But that is just potential. The reality is that men are funnier than women and women are prettier than men.

So why did CNN, which is under attack for being fake news by President Trump, lie and say that women are funnier than men? That sure sounds fake to me. Well, as I have said before, women control all advertising media, so CNN cannot offend women or it risks losing sponsors. But there is more to it than that. In these days of extreme feminism and women's "empowerment," men are not allowed to be better than women at anything. It appears women's egos are so fragile that they and the media cannot admit that men are better at anything. And this phenomenon is not exclusive to CNN. Other media have the same problem. I found several articles on this subject that presented research that found that men are funnier than women, but these articles had to somehow spin the results to nullify this conclusion. [42] For example, these articles explained that men are funnier but only by a tiny bit, or that men being funnier is more stereotype than truth due to men's boasting, or that men enjoy men's humor more than women do, or that sexism does not allow us to laugh at women's jokes, or that male humor is sexist, or that men's humor is testosterone-driven aggression. Also, several articles confused the issue by looking at studies that show more that women appreciate humor as much or more than men rather than presenting studies that show women actually are funnier than men.

In the end, i.e., at the end of the CNN program, comic Patton Oswalt summed up the patronizing nature of the whole show toward women by saying, "The fact that it’s 2016 and ‘women in comedy’ is still a topic is so embarrassing.”

Do you think CNN will ever have a program that says that men are prettier than women?

[1] http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/09/feminists-man-clubs-sexist-woman-clubs-awesome-sauce/

[2] http://wc.asu.edu/resources/Women%27s%20Groups%20at%20ASU

[3] http://asu.orgsync.com/search

[4] https://www.ted.com/talks

[5] http://howlround.com/the-jubilee

[6] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445613/theater-group-bars-straight-white-men-receives-federal-grants

[7] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-men-get-socked-on-life-insurance-premiums/

[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/24/the-skin-tight-surprise-300-women-delivered-to-man-who-disparaged-yoga-pants/

[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/03/26/two-girls-barred-from-united-flight-for-wearing-leggings/?utm_term=.ec96c1a35866

[10] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0

[11] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

[12] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

[13] For more on this, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/12/05/how-to-make-feminism-great-again/?utm_term=.4d2c8d2fc57b

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/clinton-trump-gender-swap-play-her-opponent

[15] A good example of this kind of attitude can be found in Micheal Moore's movie Where to Invade Next

[16] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/31/dilma-rousseff-impeachment-brazil-what-you-need-to-know

[17] http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-companyand-his-family-1479335963

[18] http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/03/thinx-employee-accuses-miki-agrawal-of-sexual-harassment.html

[19} http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-hard-fall-of-wells-fargos-carrie-tolstedt/

[20] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/emmett-till-lynching-carolyn-bryant-donham.html?_r=0

[21] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/puzder-oprah-winfrey-labor-235030

[22] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/biden-trump-comments/92541160/

[23] http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/11/09/buffalo-bills-dan-carpenter-wife-responds-castration-tweet

[24] http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/richard-sherman-apology-dan-carpenters-wife-castration-tweet/story?id=43432026

[25] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IhqE8IIzUA

[26] http://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/rochester-man-protects-florida-woman-in-ft-lauderdale-airport-shooting/637114655

[27] http://abcnews.go.com/US/women-survived-theater-shooting-grieve-hero-boyfriends/story?id=16840623

[28] https://www.geico.com/more/geico-community/commercials/oddly-appropriate-segues/

[29] http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/23/calif-expands-rape-statute-of-limitation

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/24/ending-rape-statutes-of-limitations

[30] https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/man-convicted-of-rape-after-removing-condom-during-sex-without-consent

[31] http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/12/scotus.sex.offender.law/

[32] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-repeat-sex-offenders.html?_r=0

[33] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4328472/Rape-victims-allowed-pre-recorded-evidence.html#ixzz4cec4edw1

[34] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf

[35] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men

[36] http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/Boy-Scouts-Renewed-Push-Let-Girls-Join-413313073.html#ixzz4YgoXmwx3

[37] https://heatst.com/culture-wars/sydney-university-accused-of-sexism-for-offering-preference-to-men-for-veterinary-scholarship/

[38] http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/31/amherst-student-expelled-for-sexual-misc

[39] http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/17/how-title-ix-sexual-assault-injustice-op

[40] http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Police-Football-players-falsely-accused-of-rape-10950934.php

[41] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/11/emotional-pilot-removed-from-sfo-bound-flight-after-bizarre-rant/

[42] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-candy/201111/are-men-funnier-women

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-503927/Revealed-Why-men-naturally-funnier-women.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/men-are-funnier-than-women-study_n_1022475.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/features/2014/the_humor_code/are_men_funnier_than_women_sorry_christopher_hitchens_they_re_not.html

http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/are-men-funnier-women-what-research-says

http://jezebel.com/5914084/hey-men-im-funnier-than-you

[43] https://gma.yahoo.com/aly-raisman-topless-photo-shoot-women-not-modest-154906105--abc-news-celebrities.html#