Bob Jones: Spare us from the opinions of old men

 A long time ago I was overseas and sitting on a balcony perving on women riding bikes. These women foreigners were terrible at the art of bike riding with their female panicking and possible perioding about the place.

Then NZ let me back into the country where I was asked to talk, for I made a lot of money in property and rich people should be listened to. I took along my holiday slides and regaled them with my talk on foreign lady bikers.

  

Being old and rich I have a lot of time on my hands and was spending my days complaining about traffic lights. “Boo, traffic lights!” I would yell from my front lawn to the street that was down the driveway a mile away. And don’t get me started about billboards!

One of the little people came over and I yelled at him about the traffic lights. He interrupted me; I slapped him for his impudence, but then began to tell me that my thinking was so amazing that the multitudes of international traffic engineering magazines had printed these very ideas, so wondrous and profound that they were. “Excellent!” I urged, my head bent over my steepled hands, and amazingly the little people complied with an idea that had already been expressed by experts previous to my showing up. Such is my power.

           

At the next meeting, after I had shown them slides of foreign women on Segway’s, the council agreed to turn off the lights, which I must say made them much easier to view. TVNZ begged to film me to sell my talks worldwide, making me the star I always should have been. But Maurice Williamson, supposed libertarian, probable communist, used his Ministerial powers to stop TVNZ filming. He denied me my close-up and the attention I so desperately need and deserve. He was meant to be a Libertarian!

The Council rallied, tearing traffic lights out and putting roundabouts in. It was a vision to behold, a utopia of spinning in circles. But this beautiful New World that I had created was to be undone – for like Eve cycling over to the apple tree, we were once more doomed by the spectacle of women.

Women drivers caused massive pile-ups at roundabouts, something that the Liberal Media chose not to report in these PC Times. Their lady brains, filled with thoughts of babies and shoes, meant that they screamed hysterically as they randomly drove towards things, killing thousands of men in oncoming cars. Insurance companies, driven by PC madness, have lower premiums for female drivers, saying that the PC driven statistics show that they’re safer drivers, causing less accidents. By tish, and tosh, I say, for who need evidence when you have anecdotes and outright lying.

Here I invoke Greg King’s widow, because since his the coroners report was only just released as I was writing this article, what a sensitive moment indeed to invoke her in my measured bigoted ramblings. She stopped driving her five minutes to work because it was taken her 25 minutes? Why? Women drivers! However she is a woman driver so maybe it was her to blame. Would you like to look at some more slides?

Women drivers cost the economy 52 billion dollars a year. Why would I make this obviously made up thing up? I’m a rich former property developer!

A few years ago, with the help not around, I rang 111 to yell at the police. “Police,” I said. “Women drivers are impeding the flow of traffic. Do something about this for I pay your wages!”. Initially they told me to bugger off, but after I explained that I had a knighthood and was very, very rich, they stopped a murder investigation and sent out police to watch cars going around roundabouts and  to work out the gender of the driver of each car.

They'd bailed up a swag of these women, while wearing pinstripe suits and carrying tommy guns, reminding them of the "keep left unless passing" rule and had them complete a two-question "tick the box" form. Men were given a brisk handshake and were free to go. Taxpayer money and police time well spent!

This official police form, that obviously exists and could not possibly be made up, where women were specifically targeted by the police and were legally required to fill out, asked whether women were breaking the law because of “sheer bloody-mindedness”, which many ticked. Most of them were in their 30’s which meant they were driving badly because they didn’t have a man in their lives. At least I think this happened, let us not forget that I’m very old. So old in fact that I will soon have to re-sit my drivers license test because I am seen as a very possible menace on the road, which is obviously PC madness!

Another woman once told me that women drivers are terrible so how can I possibly make my case anymore convincing. I know a women driver when I see one. I concede that some women can drive, because an Asian told me this. They’re terrible drivers as well. Did the war end?

I’ve known many women drivers. Four in fact. One being my mother. She crashed her car and I have been scarred ever since. MOTHER! WHY DIDN’T YOU HUG ME?!

I have driven to my office and got there late. Why? Women drivers. I bought a fast car and drove erratically and then the Police had the audacity to write to me. It was probably women who complained. Women. Stupid, never hugged me enough, women. MOTHER!

Like the Engineers I told the Police how to do their job. People appreciated that. I told them that though technically no illegal act had taken place they would be doing Gods work by going to the complainants' homes, beating the crap out of them and burning their houses down. How we laughed at my death threats!

Amazingly they wrote me a nice reply apologising for bothering me and asked whether I knew the address of their homes, and if I did, to inform me that they had recently moved to an undisclosed address and to please not contact them again.

Right now a bunch of feminists (probably communists) in Saudi Arabia (one of those sandy places) are trying to get simple human rights like being able to drive. But women drivers are bad so men shouldn’t give them those rights, even if they are Muslims. An Asian told me that.

MOTHER!

Loans for Men - FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can I do it all online?  
Absolutely, from start to finish. So off with your pants, balls out, hand scratching away, beer at the ready, laptop on your erm … penis. From applying to approval to funds in your account, there’s no need to leave the house. Except to work. 'Cause you're a Man! 

2. How much will you lend me MATE? 
Any amount. You can choose, you're a man with a good head for figures and naturally responsible. 

3. If I’m approved, when can I start spending?
Faster than a whore's fart, mate. HIGH-FIVE! 

4. Do you care what I spend my loan on? 
Yes we do. We want you to spend your loan on gender stereotypical items. Man items like a leaf blower, or a reconditioned Chevy, or a prostate exam or a ruler to measure your massive man schlong. Anything goes, Mate!  

5. Will you keep my details private? 
Of course we will. Just like you wouldn’t want anyone rummaging around in your pants legs where you keep your dangling ballsack, the details of your loan will not be discussed with anyone but you. We also have a digital privacy policy that means your data will be kept safe and secure at all times, because we understand a great big furry brute of a man might need to keep a few secrets sometimes. Feel free to worry though, because your man brain can take it. 

6. Do I have to be a Man to apply? 
Actually, no. Although we primarily deal with Men, we’ll take loan applications from anyone because we have to. 

7. Can you recommend a good garage to tune up my bitching bike? 
Well, funny you ask that. Because we loan to Men from all over New Zealand, some of them have become experts on where to get vehicles reconditioned and worked on. That's right, Men are contacting their finance company to tell them about where to go for car maitenance. This is so plausible why wouldn't you believe this complete horseshit! MATE!  

8. What if I want to know more?
Send us some smoke signals, because you're a Man and hate, and are bad at, communication.

MAAAAAAATE!

/ The Opposite Land of This: https://loansforladies.co.nz/faqs/  Which is real, this is a really real thing. Apparently.

Cunliffe: A Decision to Swallow

DAVID CUNLIFFE’S DECISION to ask his campaign manager, Jennie Michie, to stand down would’ve been both easy and hard. Easy, because if he hadn’t Grant Robertston would have snuck into their bedrooms and killed them both as they slept. Hard, because Michie is innocent, and like Jesus, was executed for the sins of others. 

Another reason was that as Cunliffe sat in his bunker, he cunningly awaited the inevitable betrayal. That a Robertsonite would yell ‘Homophobe!’. A sacrifice had to be prepared. This is because Cunliffe remembered a time when a young Grant Roberston prowled the student corridors of power, waiting to unleash such a cruel slur to unseat his opponents. 

1992 was the year, and Cunliffe remembered it well. Remembered and waited. A homophobic poster had been found during a student election that Robertston was a candidate in. People were bemused. Why would a gay person bring attention to homophobia and be upset by it? Nobody that day had seen the poster, and I know, I interviewed them all. People scratched their head and walked into poles. Things were taking a strange turn.

It was almost as if I was implying that Robertson had made the poster himself. The poster is no more. Some people say it was to destroy any fingerprint or dna evidence to tie the poster to Robertson. But who am I to say what some people might rightfully conclude.

Being a victim of homophobia was an inspired move! Having no policies meant he was reliant on the huge gay sympathy vote that was readily available in the early 90’s in NZ and Roberston won. Postergate had been a success.

Then Clare Curran tweeted, the modern equivalent of posters everywhere: Those with long memories couldn’t help hearing echoes of Robertson’s 1992 campaign that they remembered so vividly in their stark barren lives, and in Clare Curran’s tweet of Monday, 9 September. 

“The ‘NZ’s not ready for a gay PM’ is prob the biggest dog whistle I’ve ever heard. Extraordinary that it’s also coming from within the Party.”

Once again it was implied that homophobia was bad and people probably shouldn’t do it. People were once more bemused. There was a supposed outbreak of homophobia which was evidenced by specific examples that were given, but that’s not here or supposed there. Later on a union member in a private Facebook page went on to say that homophobia sucks.

This is an extraordinary statement. In essence she was suggesting that someone’s sexuality shouldn’t be an issue, like race, or religion, or hair colour, taking away our right to make homophobic comments, because Facebook comments suggesting things are law. People felt abused and and rocked back and forwards.

But, it also explains why Michie died for our sins.

Michie was asked by Rachel Smalley, from TV3’s current affairs show, The Nation:

“Okay, Grant Robertson, Jennie, says that he wants to be judged on his ability, not his sexuality. How do you think the socially conservatives might view Grant Robertson you know in the year 2013?”

To which Michie replied: 

“Well Rachel, I suppose you’d have to ask a social conservative. *polite laugh* We’re trying to run a clean campaign and I think addressing what I believe to be should be a non-issue is not in keeping with that.”

Just kidding:

“I think it’s not as big a deal as it used to be. You know we now have gay marriage, and it actually went through without that much of a fuss, and the sky hasn’t fallen. Having said that, I think we’d be naïve to imagine that there would be no resistance to a gay Prime Minister at this point. I think some people might have a problem with it, but I certainly wouldn’t.”

People were bemused. Obviously being gay is an issue and a problem, because being gay is wrong, so we should have the right to voice this without people getting all uppity as if they were human beings with equal standing.

This is why Cunliffe shook his head, clearing it of always present thoughts of early 90’s student posters, and climbed from his bunker, killing Michie so all of us might have the freedom to vote for Camp Cunliffe.

In many respects Cunliffe’s predicament is akin to that of progressive Americans living in the USA during the McCarthyite “Red Scare”. Our jail cells now bulge with the accused poster makers who live amongst us. People deported, families torn asunder, witches burnt and detainee camps now loom across the nation, all because of brave people who dare to suggest that being gay is ick.

Original Batshit Crazy Post here: 

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/11/cunliffes-decision-easy-to-make-but-hard-to-swallow/

Democracy. That's Kind of Important, Right?

The voting booth at Victoria University is being burnt, bombed and destroyed before the upcoming Local Body Elections1.

The City Council Electoral office has confirmed that there will be no voting drop off boxes provided at the University. However a special voting facility will be available on Wednesday 25 September from 9.30am to 3pm.

Why? Because a complaint was received, apparently (considering his statement linked to below) from Mayoral candidate John Morrison. His reasoning: the group that is one of the least likely to vote, young people, shouldn't have access to convenient voting because that would be unfair2. Democracy: where we don't make voting easier for all, we penalize people by removing voting booths. Oh, the sounds of ironic laughter. Mature students also seem to no longer exist, good to know.

Why should this be picked up by the mainstream media? Because it sets up a creepy precedent, and a campaign that of late has been aggressively used by the Republican Party in manipulating where and when people can vote as to try and influence the outcome. North Carolina Republicans have also been shutting down student voting on campus because of the supposed belief that the student vote is also going to be a predominately left-wing vote3.

Rachel Maddow has also been following the story on the targeting of campus voting in America. One of the reports can be here: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/52823962. Also downloadable through iTunes and I highly recommend it.

So come on media, I've been told that voting is important. Prove it is by shining a light on what is a terrible precedent that should be halted before general elections are sullied as well.

1. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153223878420344&l=5019337773
2. http://www.mm-research.com/Young+People%27s+Participation+in+the+Voting+Process
3. http://www.thenation.com/blog/175837/north-carolina-republicans-escalate-attack-student-voting#

Why I Disagree with Logic

Let me set up my straw man arguments first:

1. Feminism is not the same as gender equality. Why? Because I read it somewhere so it must be true. In fact I read it when I was re-reading this sentence to check for typos. So don’t think I haven’t done my research, because reading.
2. Modern feminism is not the same as feminism when it started and any theory, ideology, idea, concept or hypothesis that doesn’t remain unchanging and fixed mustn’t be one worth listening to. Ladies, if you couldn’t sit down and figure this all out in the beginning then don’t come running to me with your differing changing views like the nameless same thinking mass I know you to be.

Feminism first came about because chicks wanted to get out of kitchen duties, but then mad with power and time on their hands now that egg cooking was off the menu, they wanted to be equal(!), but now they’re running around and legislating that men are inferior and earning more and taking all the chairman jobs and this is why there are childcare facilities in every corporate building and the Sky Tower is always pink. Holy shit, “feminists” (scare quotes!) ruined the world and have enslaved men. Soon there will be tampon dispensers in the men’s toilets, mark my words.

Giving people an equal opportunity when you don’t address any factors that created an unequal position in the first place so that the outcome is always going to be unequal is fine, however Modern Feminists want quotas on snappers. This is what happens when women aren’t cooking eggs like how my Mum used to cook them with the buttery soldiers and the Paddington Bear egg cup. Quotas would mean that you’d have gender equality which would be a bad thing because we all know that women are incapable of doing things because otherwise they wouldn’t need quotas. 50:50 equality is feminism gone wrong and I’m a little bit annoyed at that, mainly at Labour but also at my Mum who no longer does my laundry.

The problem with modern feminists is they’ll swig away at their Pinots and their Sav’s and next minute they’re at the park shagging. This is a Fact, and a Problem, because who can get to the swing sets at 6pm on a Friday when the park is full of writhing drunk feminists having it off with strangers who are not me? Then when you bravely stand up and say that these feminazis have gone too far with their ‘equality’ and their ‘rights’ and their ‘rewriting wrongs’ they say mean things about me and hurt my feelings. Bitches.

“Feminism” annoys me because it doesn’t speak to me and asks me to question the status quo, and we all know if that the status quo was so bad if wouldn’t be how the world is. 

**

In response to this http://www.danielfarrell.co.nz/why-i-disagree-with-modern-feminism/ I wouldn't bother reading it, it will make your brain sad.

A Delicate Lavender Scented Lady-Sigh

Squish your eyes up very, very tight and imagine this scenario.

A group of men are on the internet and are discussing erectile dysfunction. They talk about their feelings on the topic, their insecurities and fears, they talk about their first-hand experiences. Then a women joins in and tells them that this can't be true, that what they're feeling or have gone through is ridiculous and illogical. Another women joins in and counters this and an angry debate emerges, more women then leap in taking various sides. The men slowly drift away from their computers, never having been listened to.

Bit silly, right? So why does this scenario constantly happen, genders reversed? Why do some blokes think they're instant experts on everything, including issues pertaining to women? Why don't they listen?

This, at least, has been my own experience on the internet. After one such instance when a debate on abortion emerged and all the participants, bar one or two, were men I sarcastically tweeted that we should leave the men to the abortion talk while we ladies went off to bake scones or some such shit. I was surprised by the number of favourites it received, all women, and I realised that I'd touched a nerve, that it wasn't just me that was frustrated by the fact that men were wading in, never listening, and banging on as if they knew the facts on the matter. Blokes getting angry and defensive instead of stepping back and thinking that other people's experiences might be different than their own.

Yesterday I mentioned that some women might find some difficulty in contacting the media about being on the benefit and being allegedly told by welfare officers that feminine hygiene products were a "luxury good" and so could not be bought on the card. I was effectively told by a bloke that this was stupid, and was dismissed out of hand when saying that for some women the topic was a sensitive one. Yes, because us women have been raised in a society that is open and celbratory about menstrual cycles, we've never referred to them as euphamisms in order to avoid talking directly about them, they've never been referred to as 'the monthly curse' (a curse! so positive and life affirming), when adverts first appeared they didn't cause a minor controversy, and red liquid is always used to advertise them, just like blue scabs are used for bandaid ads. Ads also don't use the fear of the Red Stain of Shame to sell their products (leak guards! wings! we will save you from the embarrassment of your body!), and if god forbid an accident was to ever happen we shrek it loudly across the office and have a jolly good laugh about it and not scurry off furtively in horrified shame.

Mind you at University I saw a girl wash out her mooncup in the public sink with a dozen people milling about, so when I say 'some women' might be sensitive, I mean some women and use that qualifier deliberately.  I can't talk for younger generations, I can't talk for other cultures, but I can talk from life experience and having been raised in a place and time that has from a young age instilled in me that menstruation was something inherently icky. So when I say that some women might not want to be linked to a media article, might have some reservations about contacting a reporter to talk about what may have been a slightly humiliating experience for them, I would like to think that I am talking from a place of knowledge on the subject and shouldn't be simply dismissed out of hand.

Basically, blokes, what I'm saying is that when womenfolk are talking about subjects such as periods, abortion, childbirth, glitter gluing kitten pictures, and your first instinct is to shout YOU'RE WRONG, MY MAN TRUTH WILL WIN, maybe, just maybe, listen. Maybe, just maybe, you might learn something instead of racing ahead to try and win gold in internet olympics for arguing and once again push women out of public spaces because, honestly, this stuff it's god damn tiring.

Tired Rant of Housing

Labour launches housing policy, oh sorry the Green's housing policy, and HYSTERIA breaks out. You'd think they were in the back of an Invercargill taxi cab.

1. Where is the god damn data? Do we not need that any more? If you're going to draw up policy surely you need that pesky thing known as facts and justification. GSCB, I'm also looking at you. But one potentially incredibly biased report from the people whose livelihood depends on fat commissions, does not data make. 

2. Yes, Labour should have the figures. But lets not forget that the CURRENT GOVERNMENT should also! There have been articles and reports coming up suggesting that the current housing situation could threaten our entire economy, yet not ONE investigation has been launched into patterns of house buying and where the heat in the market is actually coming from. No, instead, they're going to wrest control from councils (I'm surprised we're still allowed to have them) so that land can be released, because this is a supply-side government of fail.

As another twitterer mentioned, the current government, bless them, shut down funding for the Centre of Housing Research who compiled independent data.  That is truly boggling to the nth degree: http://www.chranz.co.nz/who.html. John Key says that foreign ownership is not a problem, an easy thing to say when you've made sure that any evidence to the contrary has been stopped from being compiled. How tragic is it that all Labour had to use was from the IRD: http://www.smh.com.au/business/nz-labour-plans-curbs-on-foreign-home-buyers-20130728-2qsng.html?skin=text-only

3. We are not alone in this, we are not the first Invercargill cab off the block. There are a raft of countries that have restrictions on non-residents from buying property. Every single one of those countries are probably just xenophobic though. I'm sure there aren't reasons beyond that.

4. Now that I think of it having immigration policies or having citizens/non-citizens is probably xenophobic as well. Yeah, that'll be it.

5. Did anybody read that this was only one policy out of a raft of things. No? Shall we discuss them? No? Okay. No more factsies for you, New Zealand.