While pouring buckets of alcohol into my face earlier tonight, I decided it would be fun to live the life of a YouTube response critic, because I don’t have enough reasons to want to climb a twenty-story building and leap off. However, because it would be a lot of work to find a building that high where I currently live, I went with some recently posted content by Shoe0nHead since she seems to find content that is just stupid enough to poke fun at, but not stupid enough to spark a short, but deep, session of thought involving the state of humanity that ends with a knife in my eye.

Said content is by Cosmopolitan, a magazine that my mother told me was ‘fucking garbage’ when I saw it on the shelves at the check-out aisle in the grocery store, and thus have stayed away from since to avoid getting smacked with produce. Said content is also published by a lass named Amy Odell, or Amy O’Dell; I can’t tell because these new-fangled website layouts have no internal consistency with their displaying of non-alphabetical/numerical characters and Amy may have just foregone the apostrophe as a result. I bring up her name to, as usual, give me a target to poke at later on instead of using generic ‘she’ or ‘her’ or ‘the author’, and because her ‘biography’ for her Cosmo account is this:

This absolutely was written by someone else, for sure, for realzies, no take-backs.

I don’t follow the fashion industry at all, but I do follow humor writing, and if this book was so goddamn hilarious, why did I miss it? Oh, that’s right, it’s because people like this read the book:

I’m dismayed I’m the same species.

How can you read a non-food item in ‘tidbits’? What in the hell does it mean to go to school to work in the ‘communications side of fashion’? The fuck is the ‘communications side of fashion’, anyways? Is that just four years of learning how to talk to others via your mouth? How can I take these reviews seriously when they’re written by people who are confusing to parse and can’t spell properly? It may be petty for me to harp on grammar and spelling time and again, but if these are the people who are reading this book, then the content in the book is implicitly banal and appeals to simps who like to live vicariously through others, rather than actually live their lives to be able to one day have what they desire. Quite a bit of the people who have reviewed this book consistently order self-help and ‘X Steps to be Y Better’ books, which are known to the general public to be one nut hair shy of a legitimate scam since they don’t provide useful information like a book should. Does Amy need to appeal to people who have a ‘sophisticated’ sense of humor? No, but you can hardly be considered genuinely comedic when you appeal to people who can’t seem to put their pants on before heading out the door without someone else telling them to. Plus, anyone who uses the acronym ‘LOL’ or ‘IRL’ in regular speech, typed or spoken, is a fucking moron and shouldn’t be trusted with anything until they learn how to ‘word gooder’ or whatever. Maybe I’ll buy this book once I have some disposable income and pass my full judgment on it, but for now, I confident in saying that this ‘collection of essays’ (read: published diary ramblings) is a bunch of hot garbage.

As far as Amy herself goes, she’s now working for Buzzfeed, if Twitter is a reliable source. That alone would be enough for me to simply end the article here, but I had to sit through whatever you can classify what Amy wrote, so you’re going to sit through me bitching up a wall about it.

Oh, we’re off to a good start, alright.

I will never not be amazed that these writers, who presumably went to college for journalism, or communications, or some degree that involves a plethora of writing at a professional level, will continue to pen titles/sub-titles that break every linguistic teaching possible.

Neat.

This is where Amy’s piece should’ve ended. It should’ve just been a pointless tweet that flies into the void that is the Internet and summarily disappears forever. Unfortunately for us, she has decided to jump off the cliff and has tied us to her so that we’re forced to follow her down her rabbit hole, which was likely spurned when her partner left the toilet seat up, or something equally innocuous.

This is the writing that sells books for the price of six dollars and upwards. This is the future. I hope that meteor that’s coming our way soon decides to become sentient and crash into us.

It’s called ‘grapefruit’, you haughty head-case.

Just so you know, Amy, drinking grapefruit LaCroix, watching trashy television, and eating chips on your couch is not ‘not doing stuff’. If you are not doing ‘stuff’, that means you’re, at most, sitting somewhere, simply existing. Also, ‘exploring the tasting notes of pamplemousse LaCroix’? Bitch, there are no ‘tasting notes’; it’s the hipster-snob’s version of fucking Pellegrino, except that it’s completely inferior to Pellegrino, thus solidifying it as the hipster beverage of choice. Plus, you can’t have ‘tasting notes’ if there aren’t other flavors or tastes in the drink, and since La Croix only sells single flavor drinks, you look like a dipshit trying to sound intelligent about over-priced soda water, talking it up like it’s long-aged wine.

All I get out from this ‘wonderful’ introduction is that Amy is an attention-seeker that has a black belt in bitch-fu. ‘Your couch can’t dump you, send mean e-mails’; oh god, the horror that people get on your ass for being lazy via e-mail to the point you have an emotional breakdown because your subconscious knows that they’re right, but your conscious mind refuses to acknowledge your faults because doing so would shatter your perception of how ‘awesome’ you are. ‘or leave you on ‘read’ without reply’; god forbid someone read your message and then get side-tracked with a more pressing matter. No, the world has to stop for Amy Odell, and if it doesn’t, she’s going to have a cry about it. Additionally, if you’re going to humble-brag about your expensive ass yoga gym membership, which you clearly did there, Amy, then have the fucking chutzpah to just say it and not pass it off like it’s something a friend of a friend has.

Lastly, if you ever have a text message like the one Amy portrays, or your friend, your significant other, your family, or you, ever says ‘YAS’, consider suicide. I realize this is a harsh suggestion, but life is going to require you to be way less goddamn retarded than this if you want to leave some footprints behind for others to follow, and, as I say in nearly every post now, we don’t need more stupid people.

Being a leech is something to be proud of in *insert current year here*.

Young women don’t own the narrative of laziness; that title has long belonged to teenagers and hikikmoris in Japan. The only difference is that hikikomoris are frowned upon as they are generally able-bodied adults who simply choose to live a lifestyle that is detrimental to one’s health and actively parasitic to society in some cases, whereas teenagers get a pass because they are inherently useless beings. I personally think this is stupid, since being a hikikomori is generally a phase at best and, at worst, someone quietly takes themselves out of society, whereas I am forced to deal with teenagers being stupid and can’t swiftly round-house kick them out of my vicinity because ‘child abuse’ or some shit that makes no sense.

Watching Netflix or having sex?

Blessedly? The lack of understanding of the importance behind the ritual of courtship is unbelievable. Amy, the reason why couples don’t stick together for the long haul in modern society is because of the very thing your praising. Yeah, it’s great to be able to get dick whenever; I’d include snatch, but anyone with a brain knows that’s total bullshit since the number of guys who can get sex on demand pales in comparison to the number of women, and that’s how the sexes have been wired for millenia now as it ensures evolution continuing.  The problem with being able to fuck on demand is that nobody bothers to get to know each other and learn about each other, which would be fine if people could just have hookups and not be awkward after, but we haven’t reached that level of collective intelligence yet. This all leads to dipshits like you who have a litany of fuck-buddies, and nobody you’d consider your ‘romantic partner’, and is followed up with the ever-present ‘Why can I never find anyone’. It’s because of this, you knuckle-dragger. It’s because modern adults are conditioned to not give a fuck about anyone but themselves, a behavior that would be conditioned out of modern adults if regular courting took place and people had to jump through the ‘hoops’ of getting to know someone they wanted to bone rather than swiping right.

Yeah, there are so many business professionals showing up to work in sweats every day.

Athletic wear is not ‘acceptable’ for out of the house attire, provided you aren’t doing anything relatively useful or work in a field that’s highly casual or conducive to wearing very comfortable and breathable clothing. Only an idiot, or a girl from the last ten years, would think this, the latter because society has been handing women a ‘get out of everything and every responsibility free’ card for decades now, which has led to this absurd entitlement we can see via Amy’s ravings. My previous job required business casual, and my interning time was consistently business attire, with the occasional foray into business professional. Even though I work a job that’s completely casual attire, I still own suits and nearly every kind of clothing from casual to business professional, and that’s because I’ll need it at some point.

What Amy also isn’t touching on is the leisure-wear boom, which is almost exclusively clothing for women, and is designed specifically to show off parts of the body that men or other women would find attractive, like how Lulu Lemon yoga pants do their goddamn best to hide and squish fat rolls and turn a lumpy ass into one that’s been doing squats since the day it came out of the womb. The accepted and overt sexual appeal is a huge part of why leisure-wear has exploded and why society is so lenient about it for women and not for men. So much for that empowerment, ladies.

Straight from Rationalizations 101.

Then what in the hell was all your boasting about before this very sentence? Oh, I get it. You’re doing that thing morons do when they want to attempt to get away with something, so they diatribe first about how they are this negative whatever, and then do a flying 360 barrel roll with their words to wizard the audience into thinking the negative thing is now a positive. It’s a shame it won’t work here because I’m not a chimp.

If you have to go out to have a ‘good time’, you’re probably carrying extra chromosomes.

I see this all the time from people, especially young girls, and it never fails to intrigue me that these folks not only cannot understand the concept of having fun while not going out, doing stupid shit after getting obscenely intoxicated, and spending a fuck-load of money, but actively shit on people who manage to stay-in and have an equally large ball of fun. ‘Fun’ isn’t this sensation that is precluded to being out and dumb in the world, it’s a sensation created via experiences of all sorts. I’ve had more fun in my life staring at a computer screen than I have bar-hopping; fuck, right now, I’m having a blast, even though I’m trying to bust through this because I’m so tired my eyeballs want to cave into my head like that girl from Junji Ito’s Uzumaki. Also, you can’t be ‘recreationally lazy’ and then admit to consistently taking time to pick out outfits, an activity done by people who both want to look good in public but also crave visual peer validation, and then follow that up with going out. People who are lazy generally don’t go out, full stop, Amy, so all I get from this is that you’re lying to me.

Cool, I guess.

Who cares about your hair? What is it with modern ‘writers’ that they always need to have shitty non-sequiturs in their work? Anyways, I had to sift through four hundred pages of that very document sourced by the useless info-graphic Amy provides, and while I have not found the exact number Amy’s reference is referencing, I was able to find the information I thought was far more important: where all the fucking degrees were going. For those who care, the information is from about page 486-501, but to sum it up, women obliterate men in enrollment in the following categories:

• Public administration & Social Services
• Psychology
• Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
• Liberal Arts
• Legal Studies (as Legal Assistants)
• Registered Nursing, & Health professions in general
• Languages & Linguistics
• Family/Human Sciences
• Education
• Communication
• Visual Arts
• Biological Sciences
• ‘Area’ studies

I’m certain there are those among you who can spot a few trends, namely that most of these disciplines involve the study of life and life interactions. As well, some of you may notice that many of these fields are saturated with people in the professional world, leaving very little room for new faces to enter. Additionally, if you’re following along in the Digest, you’ll notice that any work that involves high amounts of physical danger, physical labor, high-order applied mathematics, or computers is scant on the amount of females who enroll, let alone receive a degree. None of this addresses the obvious wolf in sheep’s clothing here, which is that the term ‘enrollment’ simply means people who sign up for classes that year/semester and not people who obtain a degree, which is the whole purpose of college, meaning using enrollment statistics is a bullshit metric to ‘prove’ women are ‘working harder’ and ‘becoming smarter’ than men. Enrollment statistics are additionally very easy to cook, as I can’t seem to find any data that includes people who register for classes, then back out at the beginning of the semester, meaning that the NCES is baking in people who aren’t studying into these totals, which makes all of the statistics suspect at best.

I included the extra bits to, again, highlight that this claim of ‘women are getting smarter and working harder’ is horse-shit since it presumes every woman who enrolls actually goes and, more importantly, finishes. It also presumes that what women study is harder than what men study, and while I don’t think writing ten-page papers on self-chosen topics is harder than learning how to properly solve differential equation systems, that is up for debate. I will say, though, that arguing a self-chosen topic is inherently less useful than learning how to solve differential equations, as differential equations helps construct buildings, whereas arguing topics wastes paper and digital space.

Did they thought?

I like when female writers use the term ‘dude’, because they don’t mean it in the traditional slang pro-noun meaning that was once used to reference ranchers but now is, for the most part, sex-neutral; rather, they use it in contexts where the tone is derogatory or with contempt and usually prods at the intellect of said men, implying that men, in general, are stupid. In this context, Amy’s clearly implying men are lazy and bad workers, which is up for grabs considering this entire study is done by a data security company and was performed by a company trying to catch its workers fucking off while on the clock.

Now, I would love to just leave it at that, but in digging for this study, I found the article that Amy is referencing that references the study, but no evidence that this study even exists. I also found the Ponemon Institute, which is a research outfit for data security, and this tells me that the study was conducted so that the company 3M could figure out how many of its workers were fucking off while at work on their computers, because of course a corporation wants to make work as boring and un-enjoyable as possible.

The point of the study was to measure the effect of 3M’s privacy filter on productivity, but the data ended up confirming a deeply held workplace behalf: women employees work harder.

It’s only a ‘deeply held workplace belief’ (not behalf, Elise; buy a dictionary) with people who believe they do all the work and likely also happen to be women. There might be a guy or two in there, but workplace cliques aren’t generally created by men, they’re established by women. I would chalk the reason up to women being the more social and communicative of the sexes, whereas men are the more logically-wired and physically capable of the sexes, which are traits that benefit solo efforts over team efforts, but honestly, I’m just spit-balling here based on years working in various industries where it was common for the gals to think they were doing all the work, yet security footage, system logs, browser filters, and general consensus consistently favored the opposite. Perhaps my experience has been coincidentally biased in favor of the guys; such is life.

Researchers observed 274 subjects working at companies scattered around the United States in financial services, consumer products, education, health care and energy. Approximately 53 percent of subjects were female and 47 percent were male.

Link to the study, or you are bull-shitting. I’m getting really tired of this ‘just believe me’ shit that blog-a-holics like Elise and Amy use to fucking hand-wave away any possible criticism that might come up.

During a ten-minute experimental trial, female subjects worked 2.5 minutes compared to 2.1 minutes for male subjects without a privacy filter installed and 4.9 minutes versus 4.3 minutes for male subjects with a privacy filter installed.

Was this a blind trial or an explained trial, as in were people told this was happening or not? How did Ponemon come to the conclusion that ten minutes, a span of time that would be considered too short in many work environments to produce an appreciable product, was good enough? What kind of privacy filter was it? What kind of work was being done? What were the roles of the men and women, and what kind of work were they tasked with? Why is it assumed that spending less time working means more time wasting company time and fucking off while on the job? Why can’t it be possible that the men get the work they can done in shorter time periods than the women? What about controlling for stuff like texts or smart phones that are rife to be abused in lieu of privacy filters? What about other distractions, like coworkers, food, bathroom usage, etc.? Why am I asking so many fucking questions about a study that is supposed to have been conducted by a professional research firm?

The bottom line is that, if this data even exists and this study is real, I can’t parse asses from ends from Elise’s ‘retelling’ (read: complete butchering for the purpose of propagandizing the results) of it. There are so many questions about the results and so little useful information to look at that could possibly explain these questions away that I have no use but to conclude that this study is fucking horseshit and anyone touting it as an excuse that ‘women are the harder workers of the sexes’ is not only a retard, but bigoted enough to assume more time worked is equal to efficient working, which is the whole goddamn point behind why a company like 3M would use a private firm like Ponemon.

Researchers also documented another interesting workplace dynamic: men work less when women are around. When both the researcher and subject were female, the average time worked was 4 minutes. When both the researcher and subject were male, the average time worked was 3.6 minutes. And when there was a female researcher and male subject, the average time worked was 2.8 minutes.

I’m not writing another list of questions as to why this is useless and screams of poor research methodology. I’m just going to highlight the fact that there is no mention of a control group, or if the research team purposefully put similarly aligned socio-political people together, which means there would be an explicit personal reason for these ‘researchers’ to cook the data. In short, there’s nothing trustworthy about this supposed study; if this were 2010, I would be shocked a place like Forbes would put this nonsense up with their brand name.

The contempt and hatred is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

I find it hilarious that modern adult women have every single thing going for them across the board, and still not only cannot be happy with winning, but are obscenely jealous of men to the point they can’t even talk about them without spitting some amount of venom. It’s just disappointing that the men who end up with these venus flytraps are too stupid or were too poorly taught by their parents/elders to not stay with someone already practicing abusive behaviors. Godspeed to whomever Amy managed to sucker in, because you’re going to need it.

No.

The wage gap is a myth, and it’s perpetuated by women who want to sit on their asses and be lazy hoes while getting paid stupid amounts of money and having other people take care of them like they’re still babies wearing diapers. Amy is also assuming all women become mothers, which is not true, and assumes motherhood/parenthood is hard, which it isn’t. It’s just very tiresome and thankless, kind of like being a custodian. Ironically enough, nobody respects custodians even though they provide a useful service, while everyone over-respects parents, despite the abject failure that the collective parenthood has been at raising well-adjusted people who fit in and are useful to society in the last three decades.

Also, there is no negative bias against mothers as Amy is implying. There is an overwhelming positive bias as noted by maternity leave, which is usually paid, office celebrations, women being able to take time off for things relating to their period or things during the whole time of pregnancy. Men get nothing, outside of a personal sabbatical, which is not paid for and is rarely even offered by anything not a university. You get paid less because you have a kid, need to take time to raise it, and can’t work the same hours; you don’t deserve more money because you produced an offspring that is more likely to be a complete waste of resources than a functioning human adult in eighteen to twenty-two years time. Be fucking grateful that you can not only earn as much as men, provided you work the same job and don’t do that classic ‘apples to oranges’ job comparisons that most wage-gap peddlers do, but that you can also choose to be a parent and homemaker and nobody except your radical feminist friends who have no eggs left and are subconsciously pissed about it and are now taking it out on society will give a shit. I would gladly give up my scrote and stick to have those choices, and I like those guys a hell of a lot.

No, it doesn’t. Stop lying.

I hate when ‘studies’ like this come out, because they only get done to push a socio-political narrative. I also hate these studies because this is the third one referenced, and I’m just breaching four-thousand words with no clear end in sight, and I’m of course not going to leave no stone un-turned because we’re already this fucking deep, so why not swim to the goddamn bottom, which is where shit like Good Housekeeping incidentally resides. Also, love how a web-blog dedicated to being a home-maker is posting articles about women empowerment; the fucking irony.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 70% of moms with children under 18 participate in the workforce. Seventy-five percent of these women are employed full-time. So, for the majority of mothers, their workload is extra heavy — it’s a whirlwind of doctor appointments, carpools and employment responsibilities.

First, the USDL doesn’t actually post the number of mothers at all in any of their very misleading and narrative-pushing info-graphics. They do have a number of apparently 25.1 million women, but since they don’t list total number of mothers, we don’t know what that figure is. Doing a quick ratio equivalency tells me it’s about 35.8 million mothers out there, but again, napkin maths. From what is available, that 25.1 million women makes up about 33% of the total workforce, meaning that the 75% of that 25.1 million (18.825 million) makes up about 25% of the total workforce, meaning the other 75% is made up of women working full-time and who are single, women who are working part-time and are single, part-time working mothers, part-time working fathers, full-time working fathers, men working part-time while single, and men working full-time while single. Working mothers are in the statistical minority, deal with it.

Not only that, but the whole ‘I’m a mom, my workload is heavy’ is horseshit for the sole reason that you don’t get a fucking punch-card when you become a parent, therefore it isn’t work by the proper definition used to describe employment. This doesn’t mean it’s not difficult, but it’s not ‘work’. It also presumes that it’s difficult, which rearing children, as I said before, isn’t. My father’s had four brothers; do you really think my grandparents were that attentive? Of course fucking not, and yet he’s a widely networked successful person, and by all measures would his time on this Earth thus far be considered ‘great’. Society needs to stop holding parentage on the pedestal that it’s on and bring it down to what it really is: a responsibility two adults can choose to shoulder at best, and a complete mistake at worst. Enough with the fucking back-patting.

The study reportedly consisted of 2,000 American women with children ranging from ages 5 to 12. Results found that the average mom starts her busy day around 6:23 a.m. and doesn’t finish with job or family-related duties until about 8:31 p.m. That’s a whopping 14-hour shift.

What about ages 0-4? Do those not count? Why leave off 13-22, or the time spent in high school and through college on average? Why does this study presume teenagers are adults here when they most certainly are not? Why is it factoring in travel time as ‘work’ time? Why is it not including the mandatory break all office employees get? Why is it assuming a woman who is working full-time and is likely a manager in human resources is doing a full day’s worth of work every day? Why is it assuming a woman works all those hours? Why, again, am I asking questions that the study should have covered when it was being performed?

Do you see what happens when you don’t abstract enough? You get shit like this that can be easily plugged and played with until it fits the exact outcome you want. That is not performing a study, that is manipulating information to reach a desired outcome, or, in a more proper word, propaganda.

“The results of the survey highlight just how demanding the role of mom can be and the non-stop barrage of tasks it consists of,” Casey Lewis, MS, RD and Health & Nutrition Lead at Welch’s, told Yahoo! News.

It’s not a non-stop barrage of tasks, you goon. The problem with modern parents is that they feel they need to be involved with every goddamn thing that happens to their kid, which helps nurture the idea that the kid is helpless and can’t do anything on their own, which has led to a generation of infantilized assholes that constantly feel the need to never be hurt and never work to earn their bread, literal and metaphorical. Not only that, but what about the shit non-parents have to deal with? Why is it assumed that non-parent lives are fucking perfect? Again, why are parents placed on this pedestal when it’s pretty clear that the last thirty years has been an objective shit-show? Why are doctor’s visits for kids considered ‘taxing’, as Casey Lewis is implying? Are they not taxing for me, someone who works consistently and hasn’t really felt properly healthy for years now? Fuck’s sake, the kid doesn’t even have to pay for them, and the parent likely has some level of insurance and has a co-pay. I’m not even that fortunate, but I guess because I’m a man who works full-time and plenty of overtime, that covers it? Fuck you.

As of 2015, working moms still take on the bulk of household chores, especially when it comes to childcare, reports a study by the Working Mother Research Institute.

Oh great, another ‘study’. I want to rip my eyes out, so I’m going to debunk this by points to save time:

• ‘Folding laundry’ is the same thing as ‘doing laundry’ which is the same as ‘putting laundry away; stop making more chores out of one big process, you spergs. Also, the machines do all the work, you just put it away. Get yourself a closet, buy hangars, done; folding is for dipshits.
• Scheduling medical appointments is not a chore. Most important vaccinations are done once or on a five/ten year basis. Other appointments are done in-moment. Also, it’s a phone call, and phone calls are not chores or work unless you work as a telemarketer. You are lazy.
• Filing ‘dusting’, ‘cleaning bathrooms’, ‘keeping the house tidy’ and ‘vaccumming’ under ‘Cleaning’. Again, it’s one big chore, stop compartmentalizing it to make it seem more time consuming, cunts.
• Filling out permission slips? Are you fucking serious? You think scribbling on paper is a chore? I can’t believe one of you is probably going to be President one day.
• What the fuck is ‘shopping for kids’ and how is it different than ‘grocery shopping’? Answer: it’s not. Do this shit on weekends, you simps.
• ‘Taking time of to take kids to things’ is not a chore and you know it. Enough of this self-aggrandizing horseshit. Also, love how women assume they do this the most, while I’m a living example of a kid whose dad ended up doing just as much of this, if not more, than my mom, and she was a homemaker for most of my life. Eat a dick.

As is tradition, the men always do all the dangerous, laborous shit, because keeping that norm is not sexist at all and in no way represents women wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. I love how most of the ‘outsourced’ shit is stuff you could only do if you had a good amount of disposable income, and it’s all put next to the father’s checklist, as if none of mom’s duties could be taken over by anyone because she’s so indisposable. When you properly condense the list, women have five things to do, and men have eight. Therefore, women do less around the house; checkmate; no, I’m not commenting on the whole article because it’s just two well-to-do people having a very polite pissing contest.

Despite the fact that dads are shouldering more household duties nowadays, the results also showed that, as CNBC related, “being the family’s primary earner doesn’t lighten the load for women.”

Yes, it does. It means that said woman doesn’t have to work to keep the books afloat, meaning she can do all that ‘difficult shit’, like putting scribbles on school slips and throwing shirts into the mouth of a giant metal monster without having to worry about the office. Of course, this entire article within this article I’m writing about assumes the gal is working, because not making that assumption means this all falls apart, but even then, it’s still stupid because most of the responsibilities women love to bitch about are self-claimed, thus making the ‘burden’ self-imposed. If you willing decide to do laundry, you don’t get to bitch about doing the laundry to the level that people are willing to step in to ‘ease your load’.

I live alone and I do every single thing, from cooking to cleaning to bill paying to working full-time plus overtime regularly, to travel, and plenty other shit, and not once do I ever sit around and think that someone should pay me for all the stuff I do around the house. Then again, I was raised by parents who didn’t let my ego get so large that I felt entitled to have all my whims and desires met without putting in any effort, which is clearly what drives these women who write these awful, borderline propaganda pieces.

A majority of them also claimed to have an average of one hour and seven minutes to themselves daily. While being a busy bee comes with the job, this number seems terribly low.

They absolutely have more, as do most people. Working moms, and most people in general, over-estimate and over-value themselves, so of course their ‘free time’ would be stupidly low. They’re not factoring in the hours at work they spent looking at Christmas presents, or the times they took three hours lunches, or the days they left early to ‘do errands’, which took all of a half hour to complete and the rest of the time was spent shopping or dicking about, or the times they took personal phone calls for hours at work, or the smoke breaks, or the phone breaks, or everything else that never gets added up because it would shatter the illusion that employees actually do work.

I get that I’ve been railing on working mothers, but my main issue with this is the notion that women inherently work harder, and that’s a load of shit. It only becomes ‘work’, especially house-related stuff, when a woman has to do it or decides to do it, but when a guy like me does it, it’s suddenly not work. Things become tasks when a kid is involved, and Mom ‘has’ to do those tasks, even though I know plenty of kids who have super-involved fathers. Funnily enough, I actually know more involved fathers than I do mothers, but I do know plenty of mothers who take credit for all the shit the fathers do that would normally be the ‘mom’ stuff, and then have no problem shit-blasting their husband/boyfriend/whatever behind his back. My family, friends, and coworkers are, however, filled with women who were very babied growing up, so I’m sure the issue is one of shitty parenting and not entirely a sex-based problem.

There’s the real agenda!

Two things:

• The first woman did not run; that was a fucking demon wearing a woman’s skin and hideous assortment of pantsuits and grandma dresses & overcoats. Anyone who actually lived through the 80s and 90s and wasn’t part of the lower upper crust who didn’t have to worry about anything will know why I don’t like Hillary Clinton (hint: for the slow ones, it’s not because she has a cooter).
• The reason women are the ‘leaders’ of the resistance movement ‘against’ Trump is because the ‘resistance’ movement is full of entitled liberal arts college students who have nothing to do with their time because liberal arts degrees are completely useless and require no effort to obtain. The other portion is soccer mom’s who spend way too much time on Facebook and have unreal amounts of unwarranted self-importance that would be quashed if they had real friends, but they actively search out people as stupid as they are, so they never get real friends.

Fucking finally, it’s over.

Amy, you did none of these things. I know this because instead of doing these things, you tweeted about them, put up instagram pictures of other people doing them while liking pictures and posts and tweets of other people doing these things, and then you wrote articles about them from the comfort of your couch on your Apple e-Book, or whatever stupidly named computer you over-paid for because you didn’t want to ‘deal with’ the customization or learn how your box of magic works. Since you didn’t do any of these things, you can’t claim you did them. You’re welcome to continue living vicariously through other people, who are only doing these things because they are dumb and think they have shitty lives and willfully let anything ever stop them from doing what they want, but you don’t get to abscond with their ‘achievements’, if such things can be called so.

There is no wage gap. There is no chore gap. You are an entitled prick who thinks the world revolves around her, and you are too full of yourself to get off your soapbox built on factually incorrect propaganda that panders to your feelings. You are dumb, your book sucks, you’re a terrible writer, you have bad taste in television programs, you’re lazy as fuck, and I hope you step on a Lego every morning when you wake up, and every night before you go to bed.