I can do anything better than you!
Ever since the death of Mr. Robert Rodale, the man who founded Men's Health Magazine and subsequent takeover of Rodale Press by his wife and daughters, one of whom majored in women's studies, the quality of this particular magazine has steadily declined. But the biggest problem isn't the increasing amount of misinformation inside the magazine, much of which is grossly outdated or just plain wrong. No, the real problem is that the magazine is now run by a family of feminist New York women and the handful of 'men' whom they hire.
Here are some excerpts from this September's issue. I think they speak for themselves, but naturally I'm going to comment because I feel like it.
Page 18 From The Editor : editor David Zinczenko writes, "7 million people have lost their jobs in the current recession ... 80 percent of the jobs lost belong to men. ... When it comes to handling changes, the best people for men to learn from are the women in their lives."
Learn from the women? Learn to be more like women? Men should learn to be more like women, because the differences in sexes of those laid off is a result of men not being good enough, smart enough, or liked?
Later in his full-page affront to men he says, "it's women who know best."
Now, come on, this is the advice that Men's Health has to offer to men?
No, seriously, this is Men's Health magazine. Believe me, I checked and rechecked several times just to be sure. This all sounds so familiar, so deja vu. Where have I heard this argument before? Oh yes, my mom's old copies of Ms!
Page 20 The Gender Judge "Women are outperforming men in the workplace."
This claim is quoted from Janet S. Hyde, a feminist psychologist from the University of Wisconsin. She gives no stats to support this claim, nor does she direct us to any research or facts of any kind. Apparently she feels that the idea that men are inferior is a given and needs no facts to support it. And shockingly, Men's Health agrees.
Janet Hyde - circa 1980 maybe?
actual goofy photo from Men's Health
Putting her sexist statement aside, let's get to the more important question of What the fuck is a feminist psychologist doing being quoted in Men's Health magazine in the first place? You sure as hell won't see Glenn Sacks or any other men's rights advocates being quoted in Women's Health.
Of course, Men's Health didn't actually mention that Janet S. Hyde is a professor of feminist psychology when they quoted her. They also didn't mention she is a women's studies professor, a fairly significant omission.
No, they simply listed her as a psychologist, a respected expert, someone we are supposed to trust. And seeing as we are reading Men's Health, you would think we could. But you would be wrong.
Now getting back to her statement that women are outperforming men in the workplace, what is this blanket statement of male inferiority based on? If women are outperforming men in the workplace, what have feminists been complaining about all this time? Under capitalism, without socialist interference like affirmative action, or now in the UK, "positive discrimination", all business would choose women over men willingly and without the U.S. Government forcing them to do so.
More importantly, though, what is this statement doing in Men's Health magazine in the first place? What is wrong in corporate America that major publications such as this, or the Wall Street Journal to name another, where the subscribers are known to be over 80 percent male, don't see what might be wrong with shoving male-bashing down the throats of the male readers? Why are Janet Hyde's female-supremacy theories not simply being limited to the pink pages of Ms magazine, where sexist male-bashing and feminist chest-beating is expected and even desired by those who buy it? How have our nation's corporate leaders come to be so short-sighted and incompetent in such large numbers?
Oh, I know I'm talking specifically about Men's Health magazine here, but anyone who has been paying attention has surely noticed that this lack of competent leadership is a nationwide phenomenon in the United States. It reminds me of the British Empire, just before it fell. Or Rome, for that matter. Nero Obama, see how easily that rolls off the tongue?
Page 28 On The Minds of Men - a poll asks "Would classes that are gender-segregated improve education?"
The use of the term "Gender" when what is actually being referred to is biological sex is a purely femingst trend, pushed through colleges and universities and especially law schools to satisfy the lesbians who deny the existence of any sex differences, just as Janet S. Hyde does in one of her books. Medical professsionals* (see note) don't use the term "gender" because it's vague and incorrect. Men don't do it because it's bullshit. A boy dressed as a girl and presenting himself as such is of the female gender, and feminists insist we all must call him "she". But his sex has not changed and calling him "she" is a lie. Men know this. Men don't use ambiguous bullshit terms when there are better, more accurate terms available. Men don't like vague, feel-good, bullshit, Oprafied double-talk. And up until recently, Men's Health Magazine didn't use the term "gender" in its pages in place of "sex".
Gender - Chris Crocker has none
* page 25 of the Journal of the ADA Style Guide (which is based on the AMA Manual of Style), you will find clearly stated:
“gender vs sex: gender refers to the psychological/societal aspects of being male or female, sex specifically to the physical aspects. Do not interchange.”
Page 38 Not in the Office - "... They surveyed more then 1200 women and men about workplace sexual behaviors ..."
Quick quiz for all native English-speaking people, especially in the United States - who says "women and men" instead of the more free-flowing "men and women"? Who can you think of right off the top of your head that speaks this way? Do men speak this way? Do women who aren't man-hating, predominantly lesbian, feminists speak this way? Or is it only misandric feminist professors and the men who kiss their asses (Obama) who ever, ever say "women and men" and "she or he" and "lesbians and gays" even though it is awkward, artificial, and intentionally sexist?
Yes, in America we always put the shorter word first. It's for the sake of convenience, not a partriarchal conspiracy to "keep the woman down". For example, we say "men and women", but "ladies and gentlemen" and for 100 years no one thought anything of it. What flows is what we'll use, no matter who says otherwise. But to female-supremacists this is unacceptable. Women and lesbians must always be first. Men are an accident, er, afterthought.
Once again I have to remind you that this is printed in Men's Health, not Women's Health. In fact, having read several issues of Women's Health, I have to say that to some extent it is less misandric than Men's Health. Not always, but often enough that it surprised me considering the same Rodale family of women control both.
Page 130 - the featured article
"In the modern workplace, the best way for a man to succeed might be for him to think like a woman"
So I picked the magazine up off the floor where it had somehow landed and I went to the article that promises to teach us inferior males how to be women in the workplace and thus get ahead.
Here are some excerpts. See if you might consider this odd for a men's magazine to say:
"sometimes it might work better to not act like such a guy ... Or at least that it might make sense to be a stealth guy, cleverly disguised by day as a mild-mannered, semirational member of the community? In the modern workplace, the best way for a man to succeed might actually be to suppress his caveman and try to think like a woman instead."
Disguised as semirational? Suppress his "caveman"? Those Geico commercials featuring cavemen who get offended are starting to make sense all of a sudden. This castrated momma's boy thinks men are hysterical cavemen. Except himself, of course.
Ah, but he goes on:
"Four out of five jobs lost in the current recession belonged to men. (It's been dubbed the "he-cession.") Male-dominated construction and manufacturing sectors are taking the hardest hits.
Even in white-collar industries, men often look more expendable than women. "Women work a little harder," says one male boss in market research. ... And (the author throws this feminist propaganda in from out of left field) they're frequently paid less."
"Says one male boss" whom he singled out from all the others who didn't say this and thus weren't quoted in his article. Men in management are notorious ass-kisssers when it comes to political correctness. And nothing could be more politically correct than to say that men are inferior to women on the job, or anywhere.
And what about that last claim, that women are frequently paid less than men for the same work and with the same qualifications? Not according to research conducted by anyone other than feminists, feminist research being the only research in which no documentation of any kind is required. Actually, in I.T. and engineering women have been paid on average 20 percent MORE than men for the same work and with the same qualifications for the past 20 years. And in some fields, such as sales engineer, women make up to 43 percent more for the same work. It's a direct result of low supply vs government-mandated demand. It's also sex-discrimination, but it's the OK kind because it's sex-discrimination against men.
The author continues:
"The political zeitgeist also favors women. One business magazine (never specifically named) recently offered a predictable list of ideal qualities for a chief financial officer, and then added, "Oh, yes, and the company might be better off if it chooses a woman."
You can't get much more blatantly sexist than that. "Just hire a woman and you'll be better off." But here in the United States, this is the norm. Some people don't even recognize what they're seeing as sexism anymore as long as the target group is male.
The castration continues:
"And in financially struggling Icland, the women who run one of that nation's only investment firms still turning a profit recently blamed the country's economic collapse on "typical" aggressive, indiscriminate, high-risk, "male" behavior."
What a coincidence, the feminazis in the press here in the US did the same. But when the market was screaming upward in the years from 1988 to 2000, not once did any of these women, or anyone at all, credit those same men and their "aggressive ... high-risk, male behavior" for making everyone rich. Funny how it always works that way.
Clearly the author of this article, much like Janet Hyde, has never heard of the EEOC or Federal Government mandates that women be hired and promoted above males of any race, and that in times of layoff, women must be maintained on the employment roles, but men can be let go entirely, leaving not a single one, if a company so decides. In other words, the US Government mandates by law that women do better than men in the workplace, even if a non-merit-based push is required. Men, on the other hand, may be openly and blatantly discriminated against both in hiring and in promotions. But all of this has somehow escaped the notice of the author of this article as well as the rest of the "men" at Men's Health Magazine.
Now, at this point I put down the magazine and went to the phone to call Men's Health Magazine and cancel my subscription. I have tried writing to them off and on for years only to watch a once-useful magazine for men steadily transform into a women's studies textbook for indoctrinating fatherless boys and gay men who simply want to smell nice and lose weight. I dialed the number and was connected with an automated phone system. The voice, of course, was female. I was transferred to 4 different automated phone voices, all females, until they finally told me I had to call back on Monday, apparently to talk to more automated female voices before I could finally cancel and request my money back from my recent renewal.
Welcome to Men's Health, you pig!
No comments:
Post a Comment