We all know that the media has been hijacked by the left. As 2020 draws to a close, I’ll happily confess I’m sick and tired of it.
I’m sick of the taxpayer funded ABC showing absolutely zero balance, and I’m tired of the lack of representation of conservative voices in women’s media.
There is only one thing to admire about fierce feminist propaganda site ‘Women’s Agenda’, and that’s it transparency about it’s agenda. It’s right there, in the name, there’s no denying it. This is all about an agenda for women – at the expense of individual men or any hope of harmony between the sexes.
It may as well be called ‘War On Men’, ‘We Loathe Men’, or ‘Advancing Female Supremacy’.
Today, this hell-site published a piece entitled, “He’s so precious’: Morrison’s casual sexism is on full display & no one’s laughing”.
It begins, “We’re used to Scott Morrison flying off the deep end,” as if this is fact. It’s not. We’re not used to Scott Morrison flying off the deep end at all, which is why he’s repeatedly acing opinion polls.
Clearly, this author, like many in the media spends too much time dwelling in the left-wing cesspit that is Twitter, where #ScottyFromMarketing has been trending for the entire year, because the left hate him. Why do they hate him? Because he stole their chances at snatching power and they’ll never forgive him.
In her second sentence, the presumptuous author takes it upon herself to accuse our Prime Minister of “explosive, irrational diatribes”, because the left use the same lines on all men they dislike, and she’s borrowing from the book on hatred of Trump.
So, to recap, we’re two sentences in, and we’ve established this author hates Morrison, is utterly biased, and riddled with Morrison Derangement Syndrome. Off to a great start.
She then criticises Morrison’s choice of words in Parliament yesterday when speaking to Labor MP Jim Chalmers.
This is, of course, entirely scriptable because the feminists new obsession is making question time more HR friendly. They don’t want mean men raising their voices or anyone being bullish, presumably for fear of offending the pearl-clutching feminists watching.
Morrison referring to Chalmers as the shadow “Trevor” instead of the shadow Treasurer.
“I’m terribly sorry, Mr Speaker, I mispronounced the shadow Treasurer’s name. That must be such an offence to him,” Morrison said. “He is so precious. This is the same shadow Treasurer… who cried in Kevin Rudd’s office Mr Speaker, we know how sensitive he is.
“We know how sensitive he is, but coming back to the serious issue, not the ego of the member for Rankin, Mr Speaker, which has its own reputation…”
What does our knowledgable author have to say about this?
“There are rumours swirling around Canberra that Anthony Albanese will be challenged for the leadership next year. Jim Chalmers is an obvious front-runner, and Morrison is feeling the heat.”
Feeling the heat?
Morrison has precisely zilch to fear from Labor or Chalmers, the risible Wayne Swan’s apprentice.
“But while we of course who that he’s projecting his own (clearly significant) insecurities here, the Prime Minister’s implication that the action of a man crying renders him weak, is shameful.”
So, this lunatic author believes it’s fine to assert, with absolutely zero justification that Morrison has quote, “his own (clearly significant) insecurities,” but Morrison is not allowed to shine a light on someone crying at work?
Our blind guide then has the gall, the absolute flaming arrogance, to refer to a study on male suicide.
“The results highlighted the importance of presenting young men with alternative and multiple ways of being a male and dismantling rigid norms,” the author writes.
But, clearly, men are not to be presented with a confident, strident leader?
“Except, what Morrison fails to realise, is that we don’t want tough guys in leadership,” writes the author from the currently overwhelmingly failing side of politics. “We want real men, real women who care about the country and the national interest.”
She reckons “real leaders” don’t “skive off responsibilities”, “cover up corruption” or “ignore women”.
And she concludes, “If we had a few more leaders crying in Parliament, we’d likely have a far more empathetic Australia – and that would be no bad thing.”
This left lunatic wants “a few more leaders crying in Parliament”?
Does she think this is a therapy session?
I presume she would like the guys to dress like Harry Styles in Vogue too?
So, her goal is to fill Parliament with men in dresses having a good cry?
How about these left lunatics back off real masculine men they simply don’t like?
How about they examine their own rancid narrative around “toxic masculinity” rather than quoting from surveys on male suicide when it suits?
How about they make a New Year’s resolution to stop language policing?
If we could leave this tedious, relentless screeching about men they dislike and create a better, more harmonious 2021 that would be a relief to us all.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.