Gillette says it is “shifting the spotlight from social issues” after an ad about “toxic masculinity” caused a customer backlash.

Comment: Oops. A big lesson there for Gillette. Alienate your customers by buying into a cynical ad/marketing drive geared towards feminist bullshit then this is the result.

-------------------

News.com.au

Razor brand Gillette says it is “shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes” after an ad delving into “toxic masculinity” caused a customer backlash.

The new ad, which launched last week, stars Australian firefighter and personal trainer Ben Ziekenheiner. “I’ve been a firefighter for 19 years,” Mr Ziekenheiner says in the ad.

“People sometimes ask if it’s scary. It can be, but like anyone who has a job to do, you prepare — not just in terms of your equipment but also mentally and physically.”

The ad spruiks the brand’s SkinGuard range, highlighting the issue of sensitive skin for men who shave every day — including firefighters, who are required to be clean-shaven as it enables a proper seal for their breathing mask.

“We have a very clear strategy when it comes to how we authentically connect with our consumers,” said Manu Airan, associate brand director for Gillette Australia and New Zealand.

“We will continue to talk about what is important to Gillette and that is representing men at their best and helping men do their best. That is not changing. We will continue to do that and demonstrate it in different ways.”

Parent company P&G last month took a nearly $12 billion ($US8 billion) writedown in the value of the 118-year-old shaving business it purchased in 2005 for $84 billion ($US57 billion).

While the company blamed the writedown primarily on a strengthening US dollar, it said the non-cash impairment charge was also due to increased competition and a shrinking market for razors as men shave less frequently.

Mr Airan said while shaving frequency had been reducing, “for us it’s an opportunity”. “Despite shaving frequency decreasing our sales have increased (thanks to) the innovation we are bringing to consumers’ unmet needs,” he said.

Conservative critics were quick to connect the writedown to the brand’s recent push into progressive social issues, which rival Schick has pointedly mocked with a series of lighthearted ads taglined “The Man I Am”.

Read more

Music Business The Twisted Meaning of Miley Cyrus’ “Mother’s Daughter”

Comment: The state of the music industry today: saturated in the occult black magick and dripping with feminist, gender fluid ideology.

---------------------------

Vigilant Citizen

In “Mother’s Daughter”, Miley Cyrus sings that “she’s nasty, she’s evil” while claiming that she’s “feminist AF”. Here’s a look at the twisted meaning behind this bizarre video.

 

Miley Cyrus is what I call a “barometer artist”. That’s because her act invariably mirrors whatever agenda needs to be pushed by mass media at that particular moment. Indeed, Miley never had her own sound, her own image or her own message. Her entire act was always dictated by her handlers ever since she was a child playing the role of Hannah Montana.

Appropriately enough, Miley recently appeared in an episode of Black Mirror where she played the role of a mind-controlled pop star who has absolutely no control over her career and her message. While her character (named Ashley O) keeps talking about “empowerment” to her fans, she’s actually a heavily medicated slave who does as she’s told by her handlers.

Only a few weeks after the release of that Black Mirror episode, Miley Cyrus unleashes upon the world Mother’s Daughter – an NSFW music video loaded with a bunch of calculated messages aimed a young people. Indeed, the video is essentially an infomercial sponsored by powerful groups, lobbies, and think tanks to propagate specific social messages.

Read more

Paul Joseph Watson - MADWORLD

Paul Joseph Watson

Journey further into the nightmare of modernity. 

SUBSCRIBE STAR: https://www.subscribestar.com/paul-jo... 

SUMMIT NEWS: http://summit.news/newsletter 

https://paypal.me/donatepjw

Taylor Swift just proved feminism's harm on millennials

Suzanne Venker
Washington Examiner

Taylor Swift just proved my point. My last post was about feminism's harmful influence on millennials; and less than 24 hours later, a friend sent me this USA Today article that highlights an interview Taylor Swift gave on a promotional tour in which a German reporter asks Swift if she has children or family on her mind since she turns 30 this year.

A quick caveat: I feel compelled to write that this question shouldn't be asked of any woman, as it's no one's business but hers. However, such probing questions by the media are inevitable at that level of fame. Swift is entitled to dodge the question, which she did. But her reason for not answering it speaks volumes: "I really do not think men are asked that question when they turn 30, so I'm not going to answer that now."

Here's a newsflash for Swift and other young women who didn't get the memo: No one asks men that same question because men don't have a biological clock. Women do.

I know you've grown up believing since the day you were born that men and women are, or should be, sexual equals and should thus be treated as identical beings. But sexual equality is a bogus mission (which you will see in time if you ever do have children, for it is then that sex differences become glaringly obvious) because it's inextricably tethered to a progressive political movement that has no basis in reality.

After my last post, I got an lot of email. One was was from a man who chastised me for suggesting millennial women have been bamboozled by feminism. I can't think of any greater proof that women have, in fact, been bamboozled by feminism than this latest comment by Swift.

Women of her generation - and mine, quite frankly (I'm a Generation Xer) - were taught that America is an oppressive patriarchy and that men and marriage (and children) hold women back from being their true selves. But a technological revolution, along with social media, upped the ante for millennials, who were raised to be entitled and self-involved. (The title of Swift's new single, "Me!", makes this abundantly clear.) They were also told that uncommitted sex can be harmless fun, that marriage is optional even if you want kids, and that divorce is inevitable for many women because men are Neanderthals.

To wit, over Memorial Day weekend, my husband loved the guacamole someone brought to the party and suggested I get the recipe and make it - at which point his 34-year-old niece (whom I love dearly) said, "You can make it yourself, you know, Bill." That's exactly what I mean when I said we've underestimated feminism's influence on young women. Such knee-jerk assumptions about marital roles loom large. They see sexual inequality everywhere, even where none exists. 

Read more

Indoctrinated Feminism? Candace Owens Shares Why She Doesn’t Support Modern Day Feminism

Collective Evolution

Feminism is a movement that works towards creating equality between sexes and women’s rights. Though I fully support equality and all to have freedom and rights, I believe that aspects of this movement have created separation amongst us, stemming from over-identifying with gender.

If we look at gender issues, particularly women’s issues, we’ve seen massive amounts of inequality throughout history. For example, look at all of our founding ‘fathers’ of science, quantum physics, engineering, psychology, etc. Gender inequality exists within every field of academia. Many ‘groundbreaking’ discoveries have been attributed to men, and solely to men. Many have been stolen from women, simply because they were women, and many discoveries made by women have gone completely unacknowledged by academia. The wage gap is another example of inequality, but more on that later.

One of my favourite examples women in history is Rachel Carson, a major player in the environmental movement today. Carson sparked the entire movement in the 1960s with her book Silent Spring. She is a writer, biologist, environmentalist and ecologist. The book documented the dangers of pesticides and herbicides, something that we are still trying to create awareness about today. I wrote an article a few years ago regarding ‘female revolutionaries’ you won’t hear about in history class if you’d like to see some more examples.

It is my hope that one day we will have a book that details all revolutionary minds, regardless of their gender, or even race.

Read more

Is nouveau racism righteous retribution or just insanity?

Deraphim Hanisch
The Duran

We know that nouveau racism has been on the rise in America, even though no one calls it by this name.

What is it? Nouveau racism is racism. However, it is that racism which is embraced by "minority" groups, like African-Americans, Latin-Americans, feminists, and any group that is not the target group of their invective: the European-originated, white, Christian male.

Tucker Carlson gives a solid introduction to this topic in his own words in his reflection about one of America's leaders in the crusade of identity politics, Stacey Y. Abrams.  

Nouveau racism is often considered as "righteous retribution" by liberals who practice it. The logic is simple: After all that the European white MEN perpetrated upon native American nations, and upon the African peoples who were forcibly seized and brought to the New World as slave labor, women, blacks and native Americans now ought to give the white men a good taste of their own medicine. Let them see how it feels to be treated like we were, the narrative says.

The only thing is that the descendants of those European white men have largely long since renounced racism. The passage of the Civil Rights Law in 1964 marked the turning point that really had already been reached. The Act merely formalized what for many was already a present reality. After that, racism was loudly and strongly denounced in public service advertisements in the 1970's like this one:

Read more

Gillette: The Best an Incel Can Get

Paul Joseph Watson

 The worst an ad can get.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWa... 

Minds: https://www.minds.com/PaulJosephWatson

Where Gillette Went Wrong

Gillette's newest ad, 'The Best a Man Can Be', has created a social media firestorm in the last few days. We sat down to discuss the reaction, the cultural context behind it and our response to the ad. Drawing on our interviews with Warren Farrell, Cassie Jaye and our experience leading men's retreats, we ask whether the ad is helping men or toxic in and of itself.

 

We recently had an article in the Guardian about our men's retreats: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst... 

 

Our retreats: https://www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/retreats 

 

Gillette 'The Best a Man Can Be': https://youtu.be/koPmuEyP3a0 

 

Warren Farrell ,'Men Have to Speak Up!': https://youtu.be/BC5Cq8Qgy_o 

 

Warren Farrell, 'Men and Women after #metoo': https://youtu.be/ESiyb28fTQ4 

 

'Men and Women after #metoo - A New Conversation': https://youtu.be/9CizXBr91Js 

 

APA masculinity guidelines: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys... 

 

APA's clarification on masculinity guidelines: http://division51.net/homepage-slider... 

 

We're leaving Patreon, so to help us make more films and get access to exclusive content, become a Rebel Wisdom member here: https://www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans

Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women

FEE.org

 

“Gender pay gap is worse than thought: Study shows women actually earn half the income of men,” NBC announced recently in reference to a report titled “Still a Man’s Labor Market” by the Washington-based Institute for Women’s Policy Research, which found that women's income was 51 percent less than men’s earnings.

The "Gender Pay Gap" Isn't What You Think It Is

What do you think of when you hear the phrase “gender pay gap”? Perhaps you think of a man and woman who work exactly the same job at exactly the same place, but he gets paid more than she does. This sort of discrimination has been illegal in the United States since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963.

But that is not what is generally meant by the phrase “gender wage gap.” Instead, the commonly reported figure—that a woman earns 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man—is derived by taking the total annual earnings of men in the American economy in a given year and dividing that by the number of male workers. This gives you the average annual earnings of an American man. Then you do the same thing but for women. The average annual women’s earnings come in at about 80 percent of the average annual man’s earnings. Presto, you have a gender wage gap.

That’s it, honestly. It isn’t much above back-of-a-cigarette-box stuff. This methodology takes no account whatsoever of a whole host of factors that might explain this discrepancy. It ignores the fact that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2017, men worked an average of 8.05 hours in an average day compared to 7.24 hours for women.

True, women are more likely to be raising children, taking care of elderly family members, or doing housework, leaving them with fewer hours in the day for paid employment. But this does not alter the essential fact: that people working fewer hours, on average, can be expected to earn lower incomes, on average.

Read more

There really is no ‘gender wage gap.’ There’s a ‘gender earnings gap’ but ‘paying women well’ won’t close that gap

Mark J. Perry
AEI

Here’s Tim Worstall writing in Forbes today (“Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg Wrong Here – Just Paying Women More Won’t Close Gender Pay Gap“), emphasis added:

The idea that we can close the gender pay gap just by paying women more seems reasonable enough, as Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg (pictured above) has intimated on BBC radio. Sadly though this isn’t in fact the correct answer. The gender pay gap does not exist because men and women are paid less for the same jobs, it exists because men and women tend to do slightly different jobs. When equal jobs being done out there is reached then we will have gender pay parity. Because, as before, we already have the same pay for the same job.
This thus is wrong, or at best an incomplete understanding of the issue:

Fairer pay for women must be backed up by stronger policies at work, according to Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg. But the firm’s chief operating officer, in an interview for BBC Radio 4’s Desert Island Discs, said the first step is to “start paying women well.”

That’s rather to put the cart before the horse for the company of course. Why would anyone just want to have to pay more wages? But it’s also to miss the actual construction of the gender pay gap itself. It simply is not that a woman and a man doing exactly the same job get different pay because of their genders. Quite apart from anything else that is illegal and in a society as litigious as ours if it were happening on any scale we’d never be able to use the courts for anything else. Half the legal profession would be taking such cases on contingency fees.
What does happen is that men and women slightly end up doing different jobs and more than that there’s a large difference in the number who climb the greasy pole to the top. It isn’t that, say, female senior managers are paid less than male senior managers it’s that there are fewer female senior managers than male. This hugely skews those average figures like the 77 cents per dollar that are bandied about.

Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, told BBC Radio 4’s Desert Island Discs on Sunday she believed job openings should be contested by equal numbers of women and men.

“We need to start paying women well and we need the public and the corporate policy to get there,” she said. “Certainly, women applying for jobs at the same rate as men, women running for office at the same rate as men, that has got to be part of the answer.”

The other half of that proposal is absolutely correct given the above analysis. As and when there are equal numbers of each gender doing the same sorts of jobs to the same sort of level then there will be no gender pay gap.

MP: It’s an important, but overlooked point that there really is no gender wage gap, rather, there’s a gender earnings gap and that pay gap has almost nothing to do with gender discrimination. That is, there is almost no evidence that men and women working in the same position with the same background, education and qualifications are paid differently. Whether it’s the Target Corporation, Facebook, the University of Virginia, the United Way, the White House or McDonald’s, there is almost no evidence that any of those organizations have two pay scales: one for men (at a higher wage) and one for women (at a lower wage). Of course, that would be illegal, and if that practice existed, organizations would be exposed to legal action and “half the legal profession would be taking such cases on contingency fees” as Tim points out.

Read more

Liberal prof compares ideological opponents to flat-Earthers

Toni Airaksinen
Campus Reform

• A Seattle University professor claimed in a recent interview that debating whether "unconscious bias" deters women from entering STEM fields is like "debating if the Earth is flat."
• Responding to an article by Professor Stuart Reges, who argues that the evidence does not support that premise, Ruchika Tulshyan fretted that reading the article would itself make life harder for female STEM students.

Seattle University professor recently worried that women in STEM may feel bad after reading an article on innate sex differences, which she later claimed do not exist. 

The remark is the latest salvo from the academic community after University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges argued in Quillette that innate sex differences can help explain why women are less likely to study computer science.  

"Progressive ideology is so predominant on campus these days that faculty like Tulshyan are not used to being challenged."    

 

The professor, Ruchika Tulshyan, was responding to Reges’ claim that evidence supporting the “unconscious bias” hypothesis as the key explanation for the lack of women in STEM is “unraveling more day by day.”

Of the unconscious bias hypothesis, Reges said “I don’t think there’s strong scientific evidence [to support it anymore],” though he did note that the explanation is convenient because it “fits a nice political narrative that we live in an oppressive society.” 

Countering Reges, Tulshyan claimed that there is “a very, very strong body of evidence” affirming the role of unconscious bias in deterring women from entering STEM fields, though she would not cite any studies when reached by Campus Reform.

“I mean, it is extremely, extremely difficult, to argue against the evidence…I feel like we’re debating whether the earth is flat at this point,” Tulshyan told GeekWire during a recent podcast interview.

Further, she claimed that innate sex differences do not exist, saying that there are “fundamental differences between men and women in the way that they’ve been conditioned, not in the way that they’ve been hardwired.”  

Read more

Father's Rights - Do you support them?

Quiz Maker 
Layla Tough Love Stepford

Research tells us that father loss is linked to a broad range of negative outcomes for children, including lower rates of high school and college graduation, a higher risk of delinquency, early sexual activity, teen pregnancy, and poor mental, physical, and emotional health. Yet despite the emerging science of fatherhood, in many ways, we are only beginning to understand the significance of the biological father connection to child well-being.

 

Children in fatherless situations are:

 

85% more likely to exhibit behavioral disorders.

75% more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.

70% more likely to be a high school dropout.

70% more likely to be a pregnant teenager.

63% more likely to commit suicide.

60% more likely to be a rapist.

50% more likely to develop health problems.

20x more likely to go to jail.

10x more likely to be beaten or murdered.

8x more likely to be neglected or abused.

5x more likely to have mental health issues.

4x more likely to be poor.

 

Many mothers take advantage of taking custody away from the fathers in divorce cases, denying their children the right to more time with their fathers.
Many mothers abuse their children by manipulating their kids against their fathers.
Many mothers lie to their kids and the fathers about paternity (at least 30% of DNA paternity tests nationwide turn out negative).
Mothers are more likely to abuse their child(ren) than fathers are.
Mothers are more likely to abuse their child(ren) with their partner (who is not the father) than fathers are.
Mothers are more likely to kill their child(ren) than fathers are.

With all of this in mind, it's important to also note that most fathers in these situations had no say in becoming fathers and:

a) Are not ready and/or did not consent to fatherhood.
b) Don't know about the pregnancy and sometimes don't even know about the birth/child.
c) Are not given equal custody rights when they do know about the child and want to be involved.

Yet regardless of these violations, most fathers are still forced to foot a bill for the next 18 years of their life if the mother does not/cannot get an abortion.

So which of the following options for Father's Rights do you support?

Read more and take the quiz

Make no mistake, we are living under a diversity dictatorship

Zoe Strimpel
The Telegraph

When a Cambridge don of Indian heritage announced last week that she would no longer teach for a certain college in protest at “racist profiling and aggression” by the college porters, some onlookers – including yours truly – recoiled.

Among other things, the don was enraged and felt racially insulted that the porters had insisted on calling her “Madam”, as they do all women, rather than “Doctor”, as she’d demanded.

To certain friends and I, however, it seemed highly likely that the porters’ surliness was less racism and more a natural response to an obnoxious, arrogant and imperious member of the intellectual elite telling them what to do.

But these days, that sort of argument counts for nothing – worse, it could get you sacked, exiled, barred, no-platformed, bullied or worse. Those who cry repression and oppression – racism, sexism, transphobism – have become judge, jury and executioner.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

We’ve seen countless times in the past year or so how anyone accused of an outrage against identity will immediately pay the price, from classicist Mary Beard accused of racism and mauled on Twitter as a result, to Germaine Greer, ceaselessly attacked for her unorthodox views on transsexual women and #MeToo.

Read more

Manspreading: the shrivelling of feminism

Henry Jacobson
Spiked!

Something has gone badly wrong with modern feminism. What was once an admirable quest to expand women’s freedom is rapidly morphing into something very different.

This was clear for all to see in Channel 4’s much-hyped feminist comedy show, Riot Girls. In one heavily promoted sketch, the comedian and activist, Grace Campbell (daughter of Alastair), pranked unsuspecting London commuters by using duct-tape to mark designated ‘anti-manspreading’ zones on a tube train. 

For those lucky enough to have avoided it, ‘manspreading’ describes the tendency for some men to sit with their legs wide apart. Over the past two years, the term has spread like wildfire. For confused millennials, this minor annoyance has come to symbolise patriarchal oppression. Search for manspreading on Twitter and you will inevitably be confronted by hourly dispatches from horrified female commuters, often attaching photos of the latest offender (inevitably posted without their consent). Once it was women who were unfairly castigated for not keeping their legs shut – in the world of the new feminists, it’s men.

And it’s not just manspreading: ever since this childish grumble went mainstream, feminists have raced to coin new words describing the worst excesses of male behaviour. Other examples include ‘he-peating’ (when a man seeks credit by copying what a woman has just said), ‘man-terrupting’ (interrupting a woman, as a man), and ‘bro-propriating’ (when a bloke passes off a woman’s idea as his own).

Read more

Princeton course will teach students to 'read queerly'

Comment: This is plain ridiculous.

----------------------

 "Being mean to boys is fun and a second-wave feminist duty."

Campus Reform
 

Princeton University is offering a course next semester that aims to teach students to "read queerly" by examining "the ways in which desire, gender, and sexuality are queerly told."

The "Queer Literatures" course will explore several texts, including a memoir whose author asserts that "Being mean to boys is fun and a second-wave feminist duty."

Princeton University is offering a new course this fall that will teach students about the "theory, narrative, and aesthetics" of "queer literatures."

According to the official course description posted on the school's website, students will "both read from various trajectories of queer literature and engage what it means to read queerly" as part of the “Queer Literatures: Theory, Narrative, and Aesthetics” course.

"We will consider the historical etymology of the term queer and think through its affiliate terms and acronyms: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans," the description continues. "We will investigate how discourses of power and institutions of normativity have come up against queer bodies, narratives, and politic—and how such encounters are historically situated."

The university goes on to explain that the throughout the course, students will be urged to "pay close attention to the ways in which desire, gender, and sexuality are queerly told."

The upcoming class is cross-listed in the Department of English, the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, and the Program in American Studies, and will feature readings by several authors and poets, including Eli Claire, Michel Foucault, James Baldwin, and others. 

Read more

Feminist scholars defend female professor accused of sexual misconduct because victims should only believed if they are women

Tom Ciccotta
Breitbart

Feminist scholars are defending a female professor who is facing a Title IX investigation over alleged sexual misconduct in a reversal of their normal approach of believing victims.

Avital Ronell, a professor of German and comparative literature at New York University, is currently facing a Title IX investigation over alleged sexual misconduct. Astonishingly, feminist professors around the country are arguing that the investigation is unfair.

In a letter addressed to New York University's president that was signed by influential feminists Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek, the investigation into Ronell's alleged misconduct is essentially referred to as a witch hunt. They claim that the accuser has waged a "malicious campaign" against Ronell.

We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in the clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable over many years. We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her. We hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.

The group of academics who signed the letter doesn't claim to have any reason to dispute the facts behind the allegation against Ronell. However, they claim that terminating Ronell would be an "injustice."

If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing loss for the humanities, for New York University, and for intellectual life during these times would be no less than enormous and would rightly invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We ask that you approach this material with a clear understanding of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship, the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field, her enduring commitments to the university, and the illuminated world she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive in her company and under her guidance.

It's important to note that these scholars are the architects behind most of the major women's movements in America today. These are the same movements that advocate for "always believing victims" of sexual assault. It seems, however, that they can not consistently apply the principles they espouse when the person on the receiving end is a colleague that they feel has been wrongfully accused of misconduct.

Princeton group aims to make men ‘tremendously vulnerable’

Campus Reform

Princeton University offers a bi-weekly discussion group on "healthy masculinity" that aims to make men "tremendously vulnerable" in order to get them to "dismantle the institutional privilege that men enjoy."

According to Princeton's website, stereotypically masculine behaviors like "being the breadwinner" and "not showing weakness" are among the harmful aspects of the "guy code."

Princeton University officials are encouraging male students to join a bi-weekly discussion group that aims to make them “tremendously vulnerable.”

Led by licensed psychologist Jean Semelfort, The Men’s Allied Voices for a Respectful & Inclusive Community (MAVRIC) Project recruits male-identified students to help them resist “traditional gender norms” and cultivate a more “healthy masculinity."

"We can’t dismantle the institutional privilege that men enjoy if we’re not willing to ask hard questions of ourselves about the privilege we’ve been granted in our own lives."    Tweet This

“We as men can unpack our own internalized ideas about what it means to be a man,” writes Carl Adair, the Princeton English professor who runs the blog for the MAVRIC Project, who also asserts that “We can’t dismantle the institutional privilege that men enjoy if we’re not willing to ask hard questions of ourselves about the privilege we’ve been granted in our own lives.”

“We’re asking ourselves to be tremendously vulnerable—which runs against the grain of everything men are taught,” he adds.

School officials said that the project has been active since 2013, but only within the past two years has it established an online presence. Now, in addition to the discussion group, the project maintains an active Facebook page, a reflection blog, and hosts invited speakers. 

Read more

EPIC: Actors Read The Real “Facts On FEMINISM” From A Teleprompter, Their Responses Are Priceless [VIDEO]

Lucien Windrich
Gateway Pundit

Conservative filmmaker and personality Austen Fletcher recently hired a group of actors to cold read a script from a teleprompter; they were told that they were being filmed for a short video on feminism… only the script contained the *actual* statistics and explanations behind many far left talking points.

Among the debunked myths is the notion that “Women earn 77 cents to a man’s dollar” – this is a bunk statistic that third-wave feminists become LIVID over when confronted on it (it’s almost as if they *want* to earn less). The truth of the matter is that all average earnings are the same between men and women but, among other things, men tend to enter into more lucrative careers, work significantly longer hours, chose more financially-minded majors in college, etc.

When contacted by The Gateway Pundit about his idea and motivation behind the video, Fletcher said “It’s really hard to change people’s minds, especially when they’ve reaffirmed their views over years and years. This project was meant to wake people up and shed some light on issues that purposely go overlooked.”

Spontaneity was key to the video project as he wanted to capture the honest reactions from the actors, “We wanted the actors to cold read these facts to get honest reactions. Most people were surprisingly open to what they read.”

Discussing how the left ritualistically twists facts and presents misinformation, Fletcher went on to discuss how important it is to stay informed and keep a skeptical mind when examining certain headlines: “I don’t think people follow politics/current events as much as they should. This is what the left capitalizes on. They manipulate the people that casually read headlines and try to make it feel like they are morally superior to conservatives. This needs to change.”

Read more

How Do You Know Who Your Father Is? Because Your Mother Told You So?

Tough Love and Common Sense

According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 30% of DNA paternity tests nationwide turn out negative. “That’s out of about 300,000 tests per year nationwide,” said Angelucci. “In raw numbers that amounts to at least 100,000 negative results per year in the U.S., and that’s only the men who get tested. So this is a serious, under addressed problem.”
 
Paternity fraud occurs when a mother names a man to be the biological father of a child, when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father.  

Most men and children who find out they are the victims of paternity fraud are devastated. Many times the children will become preoccupied with figuring/finding out who the biological father is. It's instinctual: We want to know where we come from. This is especially true when the child grew up believing someone else was the father, as they will often suddenly feel untethered to a parent they've always held so dearly.

...

Women who knowingly commit paternity fraud tend to specifically seek out "nice guys" who are family-oriented and trusting; The kind of men who are likely to still care for the child even after finding out the fraud that has taken place.

These women are often manipulative liars with no regard for those who will be hurt by such lies. Some of these women even swear to the alleged father and/or child that he is the real father, all the while knowing this to be false, yet hoping they are convincing enough to talk their way out of a DNA test, court proceedings and/or any other accountability or consequences for their choices. 

Read more

The Truth About Virtue-Signalling

Paul Joseph Watson