"Are Men Necessary?"

http://www.amazon.com/Are-Men-Necessary-Sexes-Collide/dp/042521236X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1375341-3772666?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192351868&sr=8-1
Interesting how feminists can get away with writing shit like that while if anyone else wrote a book called "are women necessary" they would basically be lynched. 

Why is it politically correct to portray men & fathers as stupid, worthless, and inept, and at the same time portraying women, mothers, and girls as sensible, intelligent, etc?

Think of some major American TV shows for a second, and think which gender gets portrayed as stupid, inept, weak, or lazy.  How about The Simpsons? Homer Simpson is a total idiot, Bart Simpson is a total idiot, most of the other men in the program are idiots, many of them are fat, lazy, stupid, and get made fun of constantly.  The women in the program? Lisa Simpson, Marge Simpson, and many of the other women in the program are portrayed as intelligent, reasonable, etc.  That isn't the only example, look at other shows too.  The show Everyone Loves Raymond is another example.  The wife is always intelligent and reasonable, and the husband is always stupid and lucky to have her.

Then, as soon as any TV show portrays women or any other group of people or 'minority' negatively, the libfags and politically correct police rush to their assistance. 

>>40

Don't blame me because you don't understand context. I shouldn't have to explain the use of quotes to you. What "School" did you "go to"?

Secondly, I'm not on trial, shitslick. Your pathetic limp-dicked and delusional accusations were addressed in >>33. Either you can dissect and find an adequate retort for my general thesis or you can't.

With all your pathetic flailing, I'm assuming that you're having a difficult time coming to grips with your undeniable faggotry.

Regards,
"Anti-White Anon" <==== Quotations faggot. Do you know them?

>>41
If you noticed I accepted your admission that you made a mistake in relation to my first accusation and were not being racist. I am not being unreasonable. However the second and third charges still stand.

>>42

>>41, here.

What the fuck are you on about? Are you going to reply to >>33, or not?

>>43
Here's how this works. One person make a statement and someone links to it like I've just done to >>43 (you), and this repeats. I am not >>32. I'm not here to argue whether blacks are genetically inferior or not, I already have the solution to that and it's called meritocracy, self-determination and social darwinism which decidedly do not discriminate based on race.