Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Banned Trojan Condom Ad

Watch this Misandric Crap of an Advertisement from a company that creates products specifically for men:

Don't go thinking that by some change of attitude the execs that banned this ad did so because they realize it is extremely degrading to their main target audience, however.

Fox said it had rejected the ad because: "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."

(and further in the article):

Directed by Phil Joanou, the commercial for Trojan condoms is entertaining.

But it also has a message, spelled out at the end: "Evolve. Use a condom every time."

Both networks had accepted Trojan's previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be HIV-positive, perhaps unknowingly.

A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation found: "Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention — which may be allowed — and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons."

I'll tell you what No Ma'am's official position on this situation is:

This is a company that is obviously filled with such a bunch of misandric morons that they cannot figure out that ads like this are degrading to their main target audience... and if they are that stupid, why should I continue to have confidence they are smart enough to build a product that is actually reliable enough to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies? The upper level of this company is stating to the world how incredibly inept they are - and shit runs downhill, people!

This ad is a very good reason NOT to buy Trojan Condoms.

They are doing a double whammie on themselves.

First, they show us how inept they are with their marketing skills, thus giving rise to the speculation of what else is lacking in quality control at Trojan.

Second, they are fueling the already growing Marriage Strike by perpetuating the myth that men are a bunch of pigs when they want sex... (misandry, hate men, you sexual pigs, ALL MEN ARE PIGS), effectively causing even MORE men to begin to desire a life without women... and thus shrinking Trojan's market.

Those in charge of Trojan Condoms are not sending a message that consumers should trust their professionalism - and therefore, by extension, their products. Trojan is a bust!

BTW, this is apparently Trojan's entire new marketing campaign called "Evolve." As in, "Men, evolve from being the pigs that you are."
Check out their site here where you can further click links to the "Trojan Evolve" website:
I looked for a "Contact Us" link, but maybe I'm blind, because I can't seem to find one. I'd dearly like to send them an e-mail telling them that No Ma'am says: GFY!

I'm still waiting for the ad, in this age of "equality," that says: "Women, stop letting your hormones make you into such a psychotic Medusa - Take a Midol and evolve!"

Monday, June 18, 2007

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Excerpt from The Woman Question, by Stephen Leacock - written in 1916


I was sitting the other day in what is called the Peacock Alley of one of our leading hotels, drinking tea with another thing like myself, a man. At the next table were a group of Superior Beings in silk, talking. I couldn't help overhearing what they said--at least not when I held my head a little sideways.

They were speaking of the war.

"There wouldn't have been any war," said one, " if women were allowed to vote."

"No, indeed," chorused all the others.

The woman who had spoken looked about her defiantly. She wore spectacles and was of the type that we men used to call, in days when we still retained a little courage, an Awful Woman.

"When women have the vote," she went on "there will he no more war. The women will forbid it."

She gazed about her angrily. She evidently wanted to be heard. My friend and I hid ourselves behind a little fern and trembled.

But we listened. We were hoping that the Awful Woman would explain how war would be ended. She didn't. She went on to explain instead that when women have the vote there will be no more poverty, no disease, no germs, no cigarette smoking and nothing to drink but water. It seemed a gloomy world.

"Come," whispered my friend, " this is no place for us. Let us go to the bar."


I've heard this before, somewhere, there's a group of people running around in the modern day and age that says this kind of tripe too... Oh yes, they are called feminists.

Jeez, the second and third wave feminists of the modern day really are whacked out, aren't they. Nothing like the noble suffragettes who only wanted equality.

The thing is, if one checks out one the major arguments against women's suffrage, back in the day, in that it wasn't equality at all what the suffragettes wanted, but rather the full privileges and entitlements of both sexes. Which of course is not equality at all. And... what many of those had fretted about would happen, has happened. Go figure.

The suffragettes were no more noble than Dworkin.

Check out this page filled with cartoons about feminists from around 1910 - these are the "noble feminists." Every one of these cartoons is just as relevant today as it was nearly 100 years ago.


Sunday, June 17, 2007

Book: The Fraud of Feminism - by E. Belfort Bax

Yup, Anti-Feminists keep popping up out of the woodwork everywhere...

Here are some excerpts of a preface from the book:

... Feminism in this and in some other countries has won well-nigh [near] all its formal demands.

...and so the pitch-forking of women into administrative posts proceeds galore. But the main contentions of The Fraud of Feminism have not been affected by the change in question.

Though women have been conceded all the rights of men, their privileges as females have remained untouched, while the sentimental "pull" they have over men, and the favouritism shown them in the courts, civil and criminal, often in flagrant violation of elementary justice, continues as before.

The result of their position on juries, as evinced in certain trials, has rather confirmed the remarks made in Chapter II. anent [concerning] hysteria than otherwise.

The sex-bias of men in favour of women and the love of the advanced woman towards her sex-self show no sign of abatement.

Proposals to the effect that in the event of infanticide by a mother the putative father should be placed in the dock merely because he is a man are received with applause.

The other day, at a court held in a fashionable town of the south coast, on a prostitute being brought upcharged with soliciting, a female "justice," recently appointed, declaimed against the wickedness of punishing prostitutes for soliciting while men were never brought up charged with the offence. (Needless to say, there was the usual male fool to be found in the body of the court, who shouted:"Hear ! Hear !")

Now is it conceivable, I ask, that anybody can be so infatuated with Feminism as not to see that a prostitute who solicits nightly in the exercise of her trade-- i.e . for the purpose of money-making--is in a different position from a man who, once in a way, may, urged by natural passion, make advances to a woman?

Such a person must be unable to see distinctions in anything, one would think. Besides, it is not true that men, if charged with the annoyance or molestation of women, cannot be, and have not been, prosecuted for the offence.

The lady "justice" in question would probably like to see a man paired with a prostitute in the dock every time the latter gave occasion for police action. Such is the Feminist notion of justice.

There are a vast number of men who cultivate the pretence of having a contempt for, or a prejudice against, their own sex. The idea seems to be to pander to the sex-vanity of the "New Woman."

Every popular writer caters for this prejudice.

No one can have failed to notice the persistent journalistic and literary "stunt" by which the man is portrayed in the light of a miserable and abject living creature as a foil [frustration] to the "noble animal"woman.

There is scarcely a play, short story or novel the plot of which in any way admits of it where this now stale device is not dragged in in some form or shape.

... This sort of thing is not without its influence on the course of justice, as the daily papers still continue to show us. Times have not changed in this respect.

... There is no indication that the general public has a dawning sense that, to adapt the common metaphor, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Everywhere we hear the same old bogus grievances of the female sex trotted out as crying for remedy, but never the injustice of a man being compelled, whatever his economic position, to keep his wife, while a woman is under no corresponding obligation to keep her husband. No urgency is suggested for removing the anomaly that a husband is amenable for his wife's libels and slanders; none that a boy of fourteen is punishable for a sexual offence to which he has been incited by a girl of sixteen, who gets off scot-free; none that the obligation of a husband, whose wife wishes to bring an action for divorce against him, to furnish her with the money to fight him, should be abolished.

On the other hand, every law, every judicial decision, every case in the courts, civil and criminal, that on the most superficial view can be exploited by the conventional Feminist claptrap to prove the wickedness of "man-made law" to woman, is gripped by the beak of the Feminist harpy to help build up her nest of lying sex-prejudice, whence she and her confraternity may sally forth and by their raids on male sentiment not merely help to buttress up existing female privilege, but wherever possible to increase the already one-sided injustice of the law and its administration towards men in the interest of the other sex.

August, 1921



AUGUST, 1921!

Still believe in "equity feminism?"

Still believe that the suffragettes were noble creatures fighting to "liberate" women?

Still believe that it was only second wave feminists that were fucked up?

There was no such thing as second wave feminism, people. When you read up on women's behaviour in the 1920's they were already getting out of hand... then the Great Depression happened, re-uniting men and women, crushing fembot lunacy with the hard reality of poverty... then World War II happened, compounding upon the depression... then we came out of the war, and within one generation, "Second Wave Feminism" picked up right where those responsible for Suffragette Feminism left off in the 20's.

There is something deep within women's nature that makes them antagonistic and hostile to men. This has been acknowledged since the Bible where God tells Adam that he will put enmity between him and the woman.

We think that Warren Farrell is the only guy who has written about feminism from the male perspective, when in fact, we men are doing ourselves a MASSIVE dis-service by refusing to acknowledge the plethora of literature that has been written about "Gender Studies" from the dawn of time up until WWII. Yet we think somehow think that we are discovering something new.

Every MRA who spends countless hours a year on MRM forums should spend a few evenings sifting through the writings of those before our times, and compare them to the issues we are facing today.

Here are two good places to start:

(read the fundamental arguments at the beginning which are excellent, and then scroll down to find a reading list about "gender studies" that is in chronological order and spans centuries.



It's up to you. You once discovered that you were living in the "Matriarchy" and you chose to unplug... do you think it is impossible, after that experience, that there could possibly be even a deeper level to this whole thing?

Saturday, June 16, 2007


The title says it all! Only a year ago, I got kicked off a prominent "Men's" board for a month for trying to discuss the apparent amorality that exists in women. The moderater exploded at such a wild generalization, being that he is a closet mangina posing as an MRA. I won't expose his name here, as I believe it is up to each pussy whipped, chivalrous mangina to come out of the closet on his own accord... But, this mangina did me an unwitting favour. Lol!

After my shunning punishment, I left the sicko world of the mangina-styled MRM which has gained absolutely zero ground (and actually lost ground), by adhering to the time proven failure of a philosophy of speaking softly and carying no sticks. Lol! The mangina-styled MRM caused me so much frustration because they still adhere to politically corrected Marxist party line of never calling women on their bullshit! And, this is how the finest blog on the web, also known as No Ma'am http://www.eebell.net/mwc/nomaam.mp3 came into being. So that I could freely say things like this:

Women are inherently amoral.

Yes indeed, they are, and until women prove me wrong, my superior opinion will be regarded as the gospel truth here at No Ma'am. Quite frankly, I don't see how anything will ever be accomplished within the "Sexual War" until some glaringly obvious things about women's collective behaviour becomes regarded as a fact which can be freely discussed, rather than "known but ignored" out of politically correct fear.

First off, let's look at a definition of Amorality.


Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong. 'Amorality' or 'amoralism' may also refer to knowing of right and wrong but lacking a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws.

However, "amoral" must be distinguished from "immoral" in that amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code.

Lol! I've had some women get down right furious at me for suggesting that their sex has a tremendous problem with amorality. However, the only way women will ever be able to shake an "amoral moniker" is to behave with a strong ethical code of right and wrong, and women are apparently reticent to do this in any meaningful way, so, the label fits. Sorry, girls.

And what, pray tell, illustrates the collective amorality of testosterone challenged humans better than Battered Women's Syndrome? We should all thank fembot psycho-ologist Lenore Walker for inventing such an absurd notion, thus proving the amorality of women for the world to see. Once we get over our fear of telling the Empresses that they aren't wearing any clothes, the amorality argument falls into place rather neatly.

Now, think about what "Battered Women's Syndrome" really implies about women. Forget, for a moment about how wrong you know it is, and think about what it says about women's psychological make up.

Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) makes women into the most weak-minded human beings that exist on our planet - it makes women out to be less mentally capable than a typical child!

Think about it. The whole notion of BWS is that it is perfectly natural for a woman, if faced with mental and physical abuse, to turn into a murderer, because of a woman's psychological make up.

There is no Battered Man's Syndrome and there is no Battered Child Syndrome. Only women turn into murderous psychos when faced with abuse. Since women commit the majority of child abuse, one might think that Battered Child Syndrome should be prevalent in our society, in fact, scores of children should be blowing the heads off of their abusive mothers and getting off scott free, with sympathy, in the court system - but children are not murdering their abusive mothers. Only women get away with murdering people who "abuse" them.

When children and teens are subjected to bullying by other children, they don't go crackers and murder the bully, either.

Nope. Only women turn into killers when faced with abuse.

Think about what that implies about the psychological weakness of women.

Battered Women's Syndrome should be the biggest slap in the face of "liberated" women that exists in our society, for the very notion of it says that women are so psychologically weak that even children are capable of controlling themselves better than women. Otherwise, we would have Battered Child Syndrome, wouldn't we?

Women should be outraged about people like Lenore Walker and her Bullshit Women's Syndrome, making women out to be weak-minded, uncontrollable psychos.

Why are women not outraged and speaking out against the travesty of justice displayed in the Mary Winkler case?

When I first heard about the Winkler sentence of "3 years but might get out in 60 days," I thought they were talking about how long she would be held in solitary confinement before being released into the general prison population to grow old and die in her new pinstripe suit.

But no, this is instead the whole sentence a woman receives for taking a shotgun and blowing out a man's spine while he is sleeping.

Q: Why aren't women outraged that they, collectively, are being regarded as too weak-minded of human beings to be held accountable for such disgusting behaviour?

A: Amorality

I believe that most women really do know that Battered Women's Syndrome is a bunch of bullshit. If they don't, then it would be easy to make the case that women are really, really stupid - and I don't believe that women are stupid.

Men do not let other men get away with miscarriages of justice like this. One would think that moral women would be outraged at the nothing prison sentences given to females when they commit hideous crimes like murder or infanticide. One would also think that feminists would be outraged at the notion of weak-minded women being easily transformed into psycho bitches in the face of adversity.

As long as women in general stay silent about these miscarriages of justice, they are illustrating complicity with these criminal women and they are rightfully earning the label of "Amoral."

Don't like the label, ladies? Think about how this type of "zero justice" behaviour on the part of women would have to labelled without using the notion of Amorality... it would invite an even nastier notion about women... that they purposefully choose evil over justice.

More on this subject to come...

Monday, June 04, 2007

Video: The New Rulers of the World - by John Pilger

Thanks to Pjanus for leaving a link to this excellent video about the effects of Globalization on the Third World, and the complicity of Multi-National Corporations, the IMF & World Monetary Fund, the Media, and yes, even our own Governments.

The video is 53 minutes long and well put together (read: a better use of your time than listening to the propaganda box you have playing in the background - you know, it's beckoning you, "turn off your brain, internet reader... come watch my screen... let me think for you..." Click!).