Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Dickless???Apparently you didn't look at the expenses reported. That's okay. Nobody believes 90% of revenues come from football....hence the absence of your link.
Nobody said anything about whether it was net or gross, but if you're looking only to score points by misinterpreting my statement please carry on. I 'm on a cell, so I figure why bother when you can find out quicker yourself and and maybe even read the thing before totally discounting it entirely.
Well, on the links that we do have (amazingly on your cell you can access links; just not provide them), few schools make money off of sports and many that do are subsidized by tuition.
I know I can, but won't.
And to clarify my remarks, since you're being an ass, in big schools with Big time football programs, football pays for the rest of the sports.
Is that clear?
And you wonder why men don't like you.....Jesus Christ.
Whatever you say dickless...
Football doesn't pay for itself in many cases; much less other sports.
Anyway...there is no need to have 85 free rides for football. I mean, if there were 50 free rides, would you stop tuning in?
The 3rd string QB may have to actually play a down or two, coaches would stop shelving talent to keep their competitors from having it, and other sports may flourish. I'm dubious that any State money should be spent on any of these endeavors but at least in college, you can choose to attend or not. It's you guys who think sports actually "make a man" out of you....
But no...CF needs 85 players to get free rides.
You're just begging for me to stoop down to your level.
Instead, we'll both experience one of the nice things about this new program. Folks like you just disappear.
It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.
Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.
some women going to have to learn by experience.Dickless???Nobody said anything about whether it was net or gross, but if you're looking only to score points by misinterpreting my statement please carry on. I 'm on a cell, so I figure why bother when you can find out quicker yourself and and maybe even read the thing before totally discounting it entirely.
Well, on the links that we do have (amazingly on your cell you can access links; just not provide them), few schools make money off of sports and many that do are subsidized by tuition.
I know I can, but won't.
And to clarify my remarks, since you're being an ass, in big schools with Big time football programs, football pays for the rest of the sports.
Is that clear?
And you wonder why men don't like you.....Jesus Christ.
Whatever you say dickless...
Football doesn't pay for itself in many cases; much less other sports.
Anyway...there is no need to have 85 free rides for football. I mean, if there were 50 free rides, would you stop tuning in?
The 3rd string QB may have to actually play a down or two, coaches would stop shelving talent to keep their competitors from having it, and other sports may flourish. I'm dubious that any State money should be spent on any of these endeavors but at least in college, you can choose to attend or not. It's you guys who think sports actually "make a man" out of you....
But no...CF needs 85 players to get free rides.
You're just begging for me to stoop down to your level.
Instead, we'll both experience one of the nice things about this new program. Folks like you just disappear.
Ahh, the good old days when you were just a racist:
Guns Aren t The Threat Blacks w. or without Guns Are US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Sorry you're feeling powerless to stop women from voting for Democrats. You brought it on yourself.... It will be folks like you who disappear from being effective...then all together.
Sorry you're feeling powerless to stop women from voting for Democrats. You brought it on yourself.... It will be folks like you who disappear from being effective...then all together.
This girl is a real treasure.
Looks like she's all grown up. I've admired her work for the last 15 years. It appears she's not doing things just to chase the same goals as the rest of Hollywood folk trying to get the best parts in movies. People tend to lose themselves in the chase. She has substance that apparently J.K. Rowling saw the moment she first saw her.
How Women Ruined Men, the World, Everything, Etc
By David Sessions On November 27, 2012 · 29 Comments · In Politics
So this thing that should be an Onion article but isn’t is providing internet feminists and parodists with some delicious low-hanging fruit. According to Suzanne Venker, the niece and protégé of the famously hard-working, career-having anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, men are sad and depressed and refuse to get married because “women aren’t women anymore”—that is, feminism has made them “angry,” entitled man-haters. Women are getting all the degrees and making all the money, and men are “pissed off” because everybody hates them and thinks they are the problem. While women have been busy getting indoctrinated about how terrible men are and how much women deserve to be on the male “pedestal”, men have heroically “not changed much.” If women had just accepted their natural femininity, their God-given separate/second place, then voilà, out from the woodwork would emerge our missing “marriageable men.”
I’m taking obviousness to a whole new level when I say there is so, so much the matter with this. The caricature of feminism bears almost no connection with reality, and the assessments of how modern men and women feel about each other are almost equally fantastical. I simply don’t believe there is a “subculture” of men who “refuse to get married” because “women aren’t women anymore.” (If there is, good riddance for the women they’re refusing to marry.) Venker leaves out the major economic reasons men might be feeling pessimistic about marriage and/or their role in society. And her whole argument is structured around a contradiction: men have been divested of their rightful and deeply desired role by feminist entitlement, but they are also getting everything their way because feminism makes it easier for them to get sex without commitment.
How Women Ruined Men the World Everything Etc Patrol
8 Ways Fascist Feminists Are Ruining America 8217 s Women The Greenroom
I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.
Get used to it.
It's all in your mind.Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.
She went to Georgetown because she wanted to sue the University. No other reason.
Besides, what's wrong with slut? I'm certain it's mainly women who use slut to denigrate other women.
The war on women from conservatives has no end in sight I see.
Just ask Emma Watson.
It doesn't matter if it's in her mind. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. The strategy is to repeat the lie over and over like it's the truth.
A lot of women will fall for the lie because they don't know any better.
332-206
Thanks to the women's vote. It turns out that women knew better.
According to your first link several of them do. And I repeat for the English challenged, as much as 90%.No offense, but you learn more from doing your own research I've discovered.90%? Gee, you'd think that tuition would be free at those universities. Somehow it's not.
Link for that?
You should start doing yours...
College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN
Myth College Sports Are a Cash Cow
NCAA report Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN
Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies
Not 90%.
As much as 90%
I figured you'd be your normal reactionary self. Just when I thought we were experiencing a kernel of understanding.
It appears you're the type Emma Watson was talking about.
Sources indicate that few schools in the NCAA have sports programs that make money. Those that do are subsidized by tuition in most cases.
Feel free to provide links to back up your "90%" fantasy.
As much as means, up to that percentage, and major universities meaning big time football powers like Alabama.
It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.
Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.
Unfortunately in some cases they are correct. Some women feel being a feminist means hating men. I'm sure some men give them plenty of reasons to do so. But it's nearly impossible to start a dialog when you assume that the other person hates you before a single word is spoken. It tends to shade what they say one way or another in your mind.
I had wanted to comment yesterday but I didn't have a lot of time.
First, I don't speak for all feminists because they sure as hell don't speak for me. If you were to conduct a personal survey of women that were actively protesting during the women's movement of the seventies, you would come up with very few. There is a reason for that. You are looking at a predominantly upper middle class white women in universities. The rest of the women were working. Kind of like how they did before and during the fifties.
Feminism is divided. It's divided by class, race and culture. Only we can't have these conversations because (what I call) the elite squad has center stage. Always. They never shut up. Many of them have arranged their lives so that they don't have to participate in life in the same manner as the rest of their gender. In fact, many of them come from a place of wealth so that participation is optional---meaning they can retreat any time at all and suffer no real consequences. Maybe they volunteer a little time. So, then this group decides they are going to educate the rest of the society because they are more superior via their class/status. Most often, they don't bother to do any research into actual issues. Great. A group of women that have nil life experience, little to any research and gets to frame the arguments and then doesn't actually have to defend them because participation is optional. When they do, it becomes petty and superficial and then they expect the rest of us to defend their position when they opt out.
Men have never been excluded. We have fathers, brothers and sons. The most tragic element of my son growing up is watching him become the enemy simply because he is male. It is heart wrenching.
I want to thank you for the great post. I think you hit the nail on the head in most cases except one.
Feminism is divided by class, race, and culture. What conversation do think "we" need to have (I consider myself a feminist)? The divisions are pretty well known and accepted.
You didn't name names of who you think this "elite squad" is. I would like to know. If they are professors at some university or some columnist at a paper...you don't think they worked their ass off to get there? I do. First in college and then at the university or paper.
While it's true they worked their ass off, you're right, the hardest real decision alot of the well-to-do face is what wine to pair with their salmon in the evening. If you're trying to figure out if Sprite or Coke is better with your McRib...does that make your opinion any more valid? I suppose it will over real-life financial issues and how to afford day care when you make near minimum wage but there are certainly other issues than that.
So again, thanks for the post. I would want to know, however, who you think these "elite squads" are. Their biographies may surprise you...perhaps not.
It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.
Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.
Unfortunately in some cases they are correct. Some women feel being a feminist means hating men. I'm sure some men give them plenty of reasons to do so. But it's nearly impossible to start a dialog when you assume that the other person hates you before a single word is spoken. It tends to shade what they say one way or another in your mind.
I had wanted to comment yesterday but I didn't have a lot of time.
First, I don't speak for all feminists because they sure as hell don't speak for me. If you were to conduct a personal survey of women that were actively protesting during the women's movement of the seventies, you would come up with very few. There is a reason for that. You are looking at a predominantly upper middle class white women in universities. The rest of the women were working. Kind of like how they did before and during the fifties.
Feminism is divided. It's divided by class, race and culture. Only we can't have these conversations because (what I call) the elite squad has center stage. Always. They never shut up. Many of them have arranged their lives so that they don't have to participate in life in the same manner as the rest of their gender. In fact, many of them come from a place of wealth so that participation is optional---meaning they can retreat any time at all and suffer no real consequences. Maybe they volunteer a little time. So, then this group decides they are going to educate the rest of the society because they are more superior via their class/status. Most often, they don't bother to do any research into actual issues. Great. A group of women that have nil life experience, little to any research and gets to frame the arguments and then doesn't actually have to defend them because participation is optional. When they do, it becomes petty and superficial and then they expect the rest of us to defend their position when they opt out.
Men have never been excluded. We have fathers, brothers and sons. The most tragic element of my son growing up is watching him become the enemy simply because he is male. It is heart wrenching.
You got it. Feminism was good until the movement was taken over by neoMarxists aka Progressives.
They are lied to you, other women, and girls. They told women that they don't need husbands and children to be happy and fulfilling life.
Harmful effects of this is felt by society as the concept of a two parents family disintegrates.
Dickless???
You're just begging for me to stoop down to your level.
Dickless???
You're just begging for me to stoop down to your level.
Let me go where you're too wise, cultured and polite to go.
What's the female equivalent of dickless? We could try breastless but that doesn't really work. Pussyless seems comical. Dried up barren snatch with tumbleweeds blowing through the dust might be closer to the mark because it speaks to a woman's failure to live up to standards of femininity much like dickless tries to paint a man as not being a man.
I don't see a snappy comeback that really works.
This girl is a real treasure.
Looks like she's all grown up. I've admired her work for the last 15 years. It appears she's not doing things just to chase the same goals as the rest of Hollywood folk trying to get the best parts in movies. People tend to lose themselves in the chase. She has substance that apparently J.K. Rowling saw the moment she first saw her.
She's definitely very attractive but she's still a woman and so logic and consistency are alien concepts to her.
There is a reason for that; these things (not sure what a political collective is) generally promote learning or safety. The campus football team or hockey team...seems to promote the exact opposite.According to your first link several of them do. And I repeat for the English challenged, as much as 90%.No offense, but you learn more from doing your own research I've discovered.
You should start doing yours...
College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN
Myth College Sports Are a Cash Cow
NCAA report Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN
Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies
Not 90%.
As much as 90%
I figured you'd be your normal reactionary self. Just when I thought we were experiencing a kernel of understanding.
It appears you're the type Emma Watson was talking about.
Sources indicate that few schools in the NCAA have sports programs that make money. Those that do are subsidized by tuition in most cases.
Feel free to provide links to back up your "90%" fantasy.
As much as means, up to that percentage, and major universities meaning big time football powers like Alabama.
You know what else is subsidized on campus - the women's political collective, the library, the art gallery, nightly campus escorts, etc.
A very small % of students play sports. The only difference would be that those who do not would not be subsidizing those who do. You may be correct if you had said that many people would not attend a college that didn't have big time sports programs. That I can see.When sports is subsidized from the general budget one must account for how much student tuition would also be lost if sports was eliminated, for many men won't attend a college where they can't play sports, so sports subsidy is not different than the subsidy needed to bring speakers to campus.
In fact, a better way to look at this is at the departmental level. Bullshit departments like Women's Studies exist only through subsidy while departments like engineering and economics generate tuition surpluses.
It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.
Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.
Unfortunately in some cases they are correct. Some women feel being a feminist means hating men. I'm sure some men give them plenty of reasons to do so. But it's nearly impossible to start a dialog when you assume that the other person hates you before a single word is spoken. It tends to shade what they say one way or another in your mind.
I had wanted to comment yesterday but I didn't have a lot of time.
First, I don't speak for all feminists because they sure as hell don't speak for me. If you were to conduct a personal survey of women that were actively protesting during the women's movement of the seventies, you would come up with very few. There is a reason for that. You are looking at a predominantly upper middle class white women in universities. The rest of the women were working. Kind of like how they did before and during the fifties.
Feminism is divided. It's divided by class, race and culture. Only we can't have these conversations because (what I call) the elite squad has center stage. Always. They never shut up. Many of them have arranged their lives so that they don't have to participate in life in the same manner as the rest of their gender. In fact, many of them come from a place of wealth so that participation is optional---meaning they can retreat any time at all and suffer no real consequences. Maybe they volunteer a little time. So, then this group decides they are going to educate the rest of the society because they are more superior via their class/status. Most often, they don't bother to do any research into actual issues. Great. A group of women that have nil life experience, little to any research and gets to frame the arguments and then doesn't actually have to defend them because participation is optional. When they do, it becomes petty and superficial and then they expect the rest of us to defend their position when they opt out.
Men have never been excluded. We have fathers, brothers and sons. The most tragic element of my son growing up is watching him become the enemy simply because he is male. It is heart wrenching.
I want to thank you for the great post. I think you hit the nail on the head in most cases except one.
Feminism is divided by class, race, and culture. What conversation do think "we" need to have (I consider myself a feminist)? The divisions are pretty well known and accepted.
You didn't name names of who you think this "elite squad" is. I would like to know. If they are professors at some university or some columnist at a paper...you don't think they worked their ass off to get there? I do. First in college and then at the university or paper.
While it's true they worked their ass off, you're right, the hardest real decision alot of the well-to-do face is what wine to pair with their salmon in the evening. If you're trying to figure out if Sprite or Coke is better with your McRib...does that make your opinion any more valid? I suppose it will over real-life financial issues and how to afford day care when you make near minimum wage but there are certainly other issues than that.
So again, thanks for the post. I would want to know, however, who you think these "elite squads" are. Their biographies may surprise you...perhaps not.
Thanks. My issue is not with Profs. It's with columnists.
When the white middle class feminism of the sixties and seventies was exported overseas it was rejected. For the same reasons that it was and continues to be rejected by many feminists today: Minimization (simplification) of race, culture and class.
Here:
genderealisations 1 2002
Different cultures may have different priorities. For example, my culture may place education as the number one. This culture places family above all else and then education. It influences how we view time. One culture may stress complete independence and one culture is interdependent. It influences how we meet the needs (resolve issues) in a diverse community.
And the decisions that are made are not as simplistic as what to drink with a McDonald's meal.
I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It absolutely lays out the types of decisions that are the focus according to one's socioeconomic status. If your physiological needs are not being met then that is where your mind is at.
For an Ivy League graduate she makes some elementary errors in her speechifying. From the top:
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality—and to do that we need everyone to be involved.
Why do we need to end gender inequality? She doesn't say a peep. She's speaking to a worldwide audience and many in that audience don't accept the notion. Her feminist audience in the West does buy in but then they're not the ones who need convincing.
Why is inequality bad? Inequality is a sign of diversity. Every graduate of a university has been propagandized into believing that diversity is good. Why then isn't the diversity represented by inequality also good? She doesn't say why inequality needs to be eradicated.
OK, you've told us what you want to accomplish, now how about telling us why you want to accomplish your goal and why men and boys should support that goal.
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.
Feminism being equated with man-hating. Brave of her to publicly state this equation. Will she explore how that equation came about? I don't know as I writing this as I'm reading through her speech.
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.
For the record, feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”
As to the theory aspect, again she assumes a benefit from feminism without arguing or proving that the benefit exists. What do those terms even mean, to her, to her Western audience or to her international audience.
I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents—but the boys were not.Gender roles exist because they serve a purpose, they're not just arbitrary inventions. A bossy woman is not romantically appealing to men, so this puts her at a disadvantage in the romance department. A woman who controls a relationship with her husband tends to find the husband less and less appealing as time passes and so marital stability erodes. The nature of women is to be submissive to a man she respects, so a bossy woman will, when single, find few men appealing because she beats them in the social realm, then if she does find a mate her bossy nature emasculates her mate and she begins to disrespect him. People know this, even if only on a subconscious level, and so social custom develops around this observation and women are encouraged to not express their bossiness in order to ease their way in life by not learning a bad habit.
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
You were being sexualized at 14 because you were becoming a woman. Part of being a woman is being comfortable with your sexuality. Sexual attraction between men and woman is the perpetual motion machine which keeps society functioning and progressing. This dynamic is at the root of much of life. At 14, and being in the public eye, your emerging sexuality was simply part of who you were and what your fans were interested in.
At 15 your girlfriends changed their behavior because they were also realizing the sexual component of who they were as young women. Feminism too often means de-sexualizing, women and men becoming sexless and interchanageable cogs. That's never going to be a popular alternative because ignores human nature.
Your 18 year old male friends were unable to express their feelings because they've always been unable to express their feelings. This isn't a role that boys/men take on, like an actor. Boys and girls are different. Men and women are different. You imply here that masculinity is a learned trait, not something intrinsic to biology and to brain development. Time to step away from feminist theory and take a look at the biology underlying sexual development.
What seems uncomplicated to you is a worldview that is in fact fairly shallow. If you don't understand what is taking place around you, then the world will look fairly simple. This phenomenon likely underlies why Feminism is so unpopular.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.Yes, you are one of those women. At least for this speech. You weren't one of those women when you publicly stated that you found bold men appealing. It's likely that you're a woman who doesn't actually know what she thinks, a woman who would abandon this position the moment the right man came along and hit all your right buttons. You though are not unattractive and you likely now that.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?
I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.
As to your pay, you weren't paid equally to your male peers, Danial Radcliffe earned more than you and he earned more than you because his pay was determined by his value. This is a rock solid rule in free market economies.
As for you making decisions about your own body and women being involved on your behalf, this is the problem of women in public life that we don't see with men. Male politicians focus on how to govern society, women politicians focus on what's good for women. Male reporters write about wars, politics, economics, female reporters write about gender stereotyping, beauty standards, Governor Palin's clothes and shoes, Secretary Clinton balancing her role as mother and Secretary of State. You don't improve society by misusing public resources to focus on gender issues.
To the issue of respect, no one affords you respect, we all have to earn respect. More men than women seem to understand this which is why we so frequently see women complaining about the lack of respect afforded them. Using female political power to try to engineer outcomes, equality of respect, is a doomed effort and the fact that you champion this as a desired outcome speaks to how deeply you've been infected with an ideology which runs counter to human nature. You can't be made to love someone, hate someone, or respect someone simply because a feminist commands you do so.
You'll never a country constructed like you envision because such a country would be erecting a charade and it would soon crumble from human nature eroding the foundations of the facade.
I'm going to skip down a bit.
Men—I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too.You still haven't defined gender equality nor explained why it's desirable.
Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.
I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49 years of age; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.
If you've seen men suffering from mental illness but unable to ask for help, then why didn't you provide them with the help that they couldn't ask for? They're mentally ill men. Woman are more verbally communicative creatures from birth than are men, so this quest for gender equality seems to be a quest for sexless norms of some sort.
Men show far greater disparity on all sorts of metrics than do women. I could explain the biology of why this is so but it's not central here, men are more often intellectually gifted and intellectually stunted than women, men more often achieve in society and also fail in society (prison, homelessness) than women. Evolution has "designed" men this way. Suicide is not simply an outcome of social forces and learned gender roles, in many cases depression is not situational, it has biochemical roots and one can't train men to be talky and emotive and outgoing in terms of relationships. Most women will tell you that they have a deeper social network than do their husbands. For a husband, his wife is usually his closest confidante whereas women will yak about their intimate lives with their girlfriends. This, in part, explains why women tend to have an easier emotional adjustment after death or divorce - the man quite likely has no one to talk to.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.
If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.
I want men to take up this mantle. So their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.
Ah, you silly girl. As with most feminists you don't give women agency. What you describe here is women being reactive to men. If men change, then women will too. If men change from being aggressive then women don't have to be submissive. And so on. This is funny for its naivete. You claim to be a feminist, well then take control of your own identity, don't make it dependent on men taking the lead and changing first.
The problem with the position you've expressed here is that you've stated that you don't find such men attractive, you respond to the type of man you want to erase from the world. As a woman you're not alone, women tend to prefer masculine men, not meterosexual non-men who cry and are acutely attuend to your feelings and are solicitious of your moods and submissive to your desires.
You keep yammering on about changing male identity as though it was created by a bunch of dudes in a secret cabal somewhere and written down and passed from man to man during secret initiations into manhood.
The overarching problem of your worldview is that it is divorced from reality, the reality of the world we inhabit and this problem with feminism also informs Leftism. The only people who are going to support your speech are other true believers. There was nothing convincing in the speech and many foundational issues were not addressed. For your next speech try to refrain from pushing this viewpoint and instead explain to your audience why you hold the axioms you do.
