Sorry to post so late today, but I’ve been super busy helping to coordinate the Man Boobz Street Team Flying Squad in its latest postering blitz. Here are some shots of the team at work in Cleveland, Ohio and Humpy Creek, Alaska.
And here’s the Man Boobz Misandrymobile we use to transport Street Team members to and from their targets. Don’t worry! As you can see, it’s driven by a man. (You know what they say about women drivers.)
Keep up the good work, gals!
NOTE: The Man Boobz Street Team Flying Squad is imaginary.
![The Man Boobz Survey is up! Go take it! [UPDATE: Survey closes Thursday at 8 PM, EST]](https://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/family-feud-2.jpg?resize=50%2C50)
WWI airplanes were rather unstable. If you were flying something even from the 1940s, if you took your hands off the controls the plane would keep going more or less in the direction it was pointed.
Try that in something like a Sopwith Camel and it would immediately depart controlled flight.
Even von Richthofen crashed 2 or 3 of them while taking off and landing.
Yes, that. Plus, they outscored men on some questions, but on others appeared much less engaged. The question of why some politics interest men more than women or vice versa seems kind of interesting to me.
And some of the questions where they scored lower… I’m not sure that the answer marked as correct is actually correct. Obama never really came out for gay marriage… Joe Biden kinda-sorta frog-marched him out there. Is that a distinction without a difference? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s simplifying something complex. To suggest that the women who didn’t identify him as pro-gay-marriage were wrong… well.
Plus, as I think about it, the pro-life question… I need to know how many called Obama pro-life vs. how many thought that Mitt Romney isn’t, based on his flip-flopping.
Which is not to take away from the socialization point. I know people who literally say ‘just vote how your husband tells you to vote, poor dear.’ That kind of attitude is going to lead to all kinds of problems.
@Kendra: well, Rehnquist was chief justice for about the last decade, the longest-serving chief justice in a long, long time. But, of course, I expect everybody to know John Roberts is chief justice now, because since being chief justice his biggest accomplishment has been Citizen’s United, and I expect everybody to share my white-hot fury.
*last two decades, rather.
Yeah, for that one you have to go by his most recent evolution on the topic. His previous stance was that he was not in favor of gay marriage, but also against a constitutional amendment that banned it.
@blitzgal, That LA Times story has had me reeling. Especially in light of this r/mr thread yesterday. Worst comments have now been deleted, but yesterday some of the most upvoted comments were from guys fantasizing about locking their ex-wives/girlfriends + their new boyfriends into a house and burning it down, and then downvoting and attacking anyone who said that violence was wrong.
I saved screen caps of some of the worst ones.
This matters, why? It doesn’t make the stunt he pulled any less coercive or full to bursting with abuser logic. Decent people want their partners to be happy. They don’t want them to “realise how empty her life would be without me and how life would have no meaning without me”
That’s from the article champ. Yeah, guy sounds like a real catch. It’s not creepy at all that he wants her to have nothing to live for without him.
Let’s link that every time another troll comes in here to complain about Sharon Osborne.
Well, yeah, probably had something to do with the giant spinning gyroscope mounted directly in front of the Camel pilot, known as a rotary engine. Even in controlled flight, the pilot would have to fight the Camel to get it to turn left, but it would whip right round in a right-hand turn. Helicopters have counter-rotating blades or tail blades to counter their torque; rotary-engined crates didn’t, although there were some experiments with two propellors before the war.
By contrast to the Camel, the SE5a had a reputation as a very stable gun platform. It had an inline engine. Similarly, inline-engined Albatroses and Fokkers were stable, and though they couldn’t win a turning battle against Nieuports and Sopwiths, they were faster and could climb better.
I am a Nerd of Many Subjects.
Screen cap #1:
Screen cap #2:
I could go on…
Yeah, I answered that question “Obama” and as the next question loaded in, I thought, hey wait, isn’t he in favor of separate-but-equal “civil unions?” And then I remembered that he Came To Jesus about marriage equality a few months ago, and everybody was saying, why weren’t you in favor of it years ago?
But the one I got wrong was, I thought the Rs had both branches of Congress.
I remember thinking at the time, wait, shouldn’t Chief Justice go to the Justice with seniority? But no, I guess the Prez can appoint any ass-kisser xie wants to, to be Chief Justice. Also, Chief Justice is a position with less authority than I thought.
But yeah, Citizens United. Fuck ’em.
Tiresome troll rule #6: “Occam’s Razor” means that plurality must never be posited without necessity, unless the plurality is the plurality of ways in which women are terrible because we all know those hypergamous wenches can’t be trusted to vote, amirite?
Yeah, I got them all right but had the same reservations as a lot of the other commentors RE: both Romney and Obama changing positions on things.
The one I was most likely to have gotten wrong was that I knew the Rs were the majority in one but not the other Congressional groups, but couldn’t remember which one.
FTR, the only reason I know about Roberts is that I spend a ton of time on SCOTUSblog, which is a truly fascinating website, even if they tend to sometimes lapse into lawyertalk.
Cloudiah, could you send me your screencaps? I missed the worst of the comments in that thread.
What I wonder about that test is the scores of liberals compared to conservatives compared to independents, etc. Or how college educated men compared to college educated women.
I also got 11 out of 11. Not to brag or anything, I’d imagine just about any non-troll USian regular or lurker of Manboobz would score above the average.
I love that the suffragettes in the first photo are pasting over an ad for some movie lauding The Crusades. And as a historical/economical side note it’s also amusing how that poster boasts “$5000 production”, no doubt very opulent back THEN…
owlslave on the other hand was flummoxed by his inability to pick ‘rothchild’ as an answer
Hey, where is our fuzzy mascot these days, anyway?
Sent, David. There are like 200 more comments since the last time I checked; I don’t have the stomach to look at any more. Something about reading that in juxtaposition with the LA Times story blitzgal posted seems to have blown one of my fuses.
“THE CRUSADERS, or, JERUSALEM DELIVERED
THE WORLD’S GREATEST MOVING PICTURE”
LOL. Yeah, people are still talking about that one 9_9
Irrelevant facts:
Omitted facts:
1) He’s quite wealthy
2) She said yes
He’s an asshole. He’s a bigger asshole than the people (I’ve seen women do it too) who “merely” make a really over the top proposal in a public place, but he’s still an asshole.
Fighter planes are, at best marginally unstable. Some (the F-100) were known as ‘active flyers” because they couldn’t keep level without constant input (the B-2 and the F-117 are both so unstable that if the computers adjusting the flight fail they crash). The Brewster Buffalo (Australian “Whirraway”) was notoriously unstable, and in the US was limited to being an advanced trainer (the Aussies tried to use it as an actual fighter, it didn’t last long).
Rotary planes were dueced hard to keep steady, in part because they only had one speed for the motor, and that motor was spinning around the axle.
The B-24 had something of the same problem, in that all four of it’s motors rotated in the same direction (the other bombers all had counter-rotating engines). The P-38 was counter rotating, in the US versions, but the British versions were right-hand rotation, so that they didn’t need two supply lines to keep them running.
But things like the Fokker DVII, or the Taube, were very stable. Inline engines, not rotary. On the flip side both the Albatross and the Nieuport were infamous for losing the upper wing in a dive.
Whup, forgot about the whole wings fall off, all die situation.
But you are clearly ignoring the fact that this is PROOF that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE WORLD is hypergamous. DUH!!!!
/sarcasm
Falconer: Still better than submarines. What goes up must come down… the reverse is not the case.
Falconer: A talented Chief Justice can use the small perks of the office to great effect.
1: The Chief Justice always votes last.
2: The senior justice on the side chooses who writes the opinion.
3: The Chief Justice is, de jure always senior.
As a result the Chief Justice can, in a tie, side with one side or the other to set the initial decision (the actual decision isn’t final until it’s issued from the bench. There have been reversals).
More to the point, by siding with a win for the position the Cheif doesn’t share who writes the opinion can be handed to the person the Chief thinks most likely to write a narrow ruling.
@Pecunium — Yeah, come to think of it, I’m not sure which I would freak out over more: being up high and looking at all the down I could fall on, or being surrounding by tons and tons of crushing water.
@Pecunium
If you can find a (used) copy of it, you might enjoy Frank Talmann’s book Flying the Old Planes. He was a famous Hollywood stunt pilot who logged a lot of hours in WWI and WWII aircraft.
Major Kong: I might look it up. I’ve read a lot of memoirs of WW1/2 pilots. Scary, and thrilling, stuff.
The most amazing snippit I got was about the lubrication; it was castor oil, and the fumes gave them the runs. Apparently brandy helped combat it.
Falconer: Parachutes.
Zanana: I listened to Transatlantic. What a neat story!
Magpie bro collects books about planes. My favourite title: “Submarine Aircraft” 🙂
Hi, I’m a typical Manboobz supporter & I don’t know the difference between the Suffragettes & the Suffragists, so I’ll look at old photos of women putting up posters with “Votes For Women” on them & assume “it’s all good”, not realising that the Suffragettes were a middle class movement opposed to working class women ( oh yeah and working class men, but hey they don’t count right? ) having the vote. Hey, but they’re women right? So “it’s all good”.
@(Sic) Male
a) [citation needed]
b)from what I understand the difference between Suffragette and Suffragist is that Sufragettes were women working to get voting rights for women, while suffragist is a more general term that could apply to men as well.
c)even if we assume that your definition is true, how do you know the women in the photos are Suffragettes and not Suffragists?
Sic Dude: Google is your friend.
http://www.northallertoncollege.org.uk/history/Suffrage%20website%202/Suffragists%20vs.%20Suffragettes.htm
Differences between different groups.
I don’t know whether you’re talking about the movement in Britain or the United States — but as far as I know, men in the U.S. (including working class and African American men, but NOT men who were members of indigenous cultures) had the vote when the Votes for Women movement started.
Frederik Douglass supported that: too bad that the racism in the white women’s movement (which was yes largely middle-class) led to problems.
Too bad that people who are members of oppressed/marginalized groups aren’t magically perfect unlike the oppressing groups–there has been and is racism and classism among civil rights groups, sexism and racism and classism among glbt groups, racism and classism among feminist groups.
In other words, sicktroll, fuck off.