Amanda Marcotte: Male Fragility Is The Root Cause of “Terrorism”

Amanda Marcotte sat down with fellow Feminist shit-shoveller Fiona Helmsley to try and link a fat chick getting hit by a car with “toxic” masculinity. Let’s enjoy.

When author Fiona Helmsley stopped by Salon to talk about her book “Girls Gone Old,” it was shortly after a pack of white supremacists rained terror on the Virginia town of Charlottesville. Helmsley writes about toxic, violent masculinity in her book and naturally, the conversation turned to what that has to do with the events in Charlottesville.

The people who actually bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are responsible for the violence caused by the people who did not (illegal mob of SJWs and counter-protesters)? The legitimate demonstrators are responsible for being pelted with cement-filled soda cans, urine ballons, and glass bottles?

The people who bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are guilty by association for the actions of an unrelated, unassociated schizophrenic man, despite loud insistence that it is wrong to associate Jeremy Christian with Bernie Sanders or James Hodgkinson with MSNBC-junkies?

“It’s your own fault for wearing that short, free-speech skirt, you fucking slut” is answer given when a mob of socialist censors show up intending to do violence.

And the root cause of it all, of all terrorism must be … toxic masculinity.

On the dangers of male fragility:

I think the single greatest threat, and I’ll say to humanity, at the moment is male fragility, and men just not being able to process their feelings of insecurity, their feelings of anger. I mean, when men get mad, they lash out.

You see it in school shootings. You see it in terrorist activity.

Most of the solutions to problems, I think, are simple. You know, like kindness and empathy: The basic things that your mother teaches you. But I think if men could be more honest and reflective about what them feel insecure.

Question: Didn’t James Fields have a mother to teach him “kindness and empathy”? Didn’t he likely have a life full of female teachers to teach him “kindness and empathy”?

This is the feminist narrative: Any act of violence, done by a man, is the result of “male fragility” and “toxic masculinity” which can only be cured by being “kind and empathetic” which are traits inherent in females (have you tried being more like the girls?).

Meanwhile, when a woman engages in violence, as many do, it is because some man made her do it, or she was under stress, or she was mentally ill.

When a man engages in a bad act, it is a result of his inherent male inferiority (toxic masculinity). When a female does a bad act, it is because of outside forces interfering with her natural feminine goodness.

Only by refining the “toxicity” out of men through feminism does a man gain “kindness and empathy” and become New Feminist Man (a beta pussy).

On what men are afraid of:

What they were chanting in Charlottesville: ‘You will not replace us.’ Who is trying? Who is trying to replace you? We’re just trying to make things more of an equal playing field for everyone.

I think it’s just the way that society raises them. Women are raised to have some concern about the way that they look, and they’re encouraged to be more sensitive. A lot of men aren’t.

They were actually chanting “JEWS will not replace us.”

As per the World Jewish Congress:

Your premise is wrong. So I can ignore the rest.

On the performance of masculinity:

And it’s that performance thing, too. Men perform for other men. When you get men alone in a group, it’s always very different than when you get a man one on one. There’s definitely, like the performance of manliness.

It’s also like the scariest thing, for anyone probably. For being a woman, for being somebody who’s gay, for being somebody who’s Muslim, to walk down the street and there’s a pack of guys, because it’s just, you know, the performance of masculinity can be so dangerous.

Even talking about this….Men get so mad when they hear women talk about them this way. They get so defensive.

And yet, women get so mad when they hear men talk about hypergamy, or AWALT, or Feminism, or alpha fucks, beta bucks. They get so defensive.

I guess that just part of the performance of femininity, which I define as making sweeping moral pronouncements against men and offering no proof sufficient to implicate men in general of being what Feminists claim that we are.

Source

Dianne Feinstein Champions the Heckler’s Veto Against Patriot Prayer in San Francisco

Dear Superindendent Muldoon:

As we discussed on our call yesterday, I strongly oppose the Golden Gate Recreation Area’s decision to grant an event permit to Patriot Prayer for an August 26 demonstration at Crissy Field. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Pray attracts white nationalists and other hate groups to its rallies with the intent to provoke unrest between those groups and counter-protesters. I am alarmed at the prospect that Crissy Field will be used as a venue for Patriot Prayer’s incitement, hate, and intimidation.

It appears that “counter-protester” is the new code word for violent SJW and Communist mobs engaging in illegal activity. Let’s not mince words: Unite the Right’s permit was not intended to cover the mob that showed up to disrupt their demonstration and assault them. Patriot Prayer’s public permit is not intended to cover the SJW and Communist mobs that will appear at their planned demonstration in San Francisco.

Unless the “counter-protesters” (SJWs and Communists) have their own permit, then they have no business being there. Let them stew in their “provoked” state of mind from the comfort of their own homes if they cannot get one.

As you know, Crissy Field is a public recreational area, which draws hundreds of families who enjoy the beach, trails, and picnic areas each weekend. Because of Crissy Field’s open design – with beaches, open grassy areas, and no fences – the proposed demonstration poses very real threats to the public should the protest devolve into racial violence and clashes with law enforcement.

The City of San Francisco can afford millions in public pensions, but it can’t afford barricades? Surely there are hundreds of plastic or metal barricades in storage from the dozens of alternative lifestyle demonstrations that are attracted to San Francisco annually. Is the City of San Francisco that incompetent at crowd control?

And the “violence” previously caused at Patriot Prayer rallies was more of a “political” nature than a racial one, specifically, violence directed by socialists against non-socialists.

While I understand from you that the U.S. Park Police is working with other law enforcement agencies to assess the public safety risk, I believe there is a strong potential for violence during this demonstration. I was mayor of San Francisco for nine years. I know the area well, and I know the very significant challenges an event like this at Crissy Field will pose for law enforcement. In fact, Patriot Prayer’s recent demonstrations in Seattle and Portland both involved physical altercations, resulting in several arrests.

Ah, now we have some meat to cut in to. Let’s look at those “altercations” from Seattle and Portland.

Trump supporters’ rally in Seattle met by counter-protesters at Westlake Park

Still, some anti-fascist and anti-Trump counter-protesters made it to the plaza and surrounded the prayer rally at the plaza. There were speeches and a lot of swearing. Some attending the rally donned protective vests and helmets, and waved American flags or signs with slogans like “Christian Values.”

Leaders and others attending the prayer rally condemned the violence by white supremacists in Virginia, many showing support for President Trump and his vision of America. The counter-protesters weren’t making much of a distinction between the two.

The SJWs and Communists cannot or will not distinguish between “white supremacists” and non-white supremacists? Interesting. It’s as if their politics are dualistic and completely intolerant of anyone outside of their ideological bubble.

Continuing:

“This powerful country needs to be waving high — red, white and blue — and never back down. Why? Because we are the patriots, and we’re going to fight for what’s right,” speaker Tiny Toese, of Vancouver, Washington, told the crowd. “It all comes down to respect.”

All the while, hundreds of counter-protesters booed, yelled expletives and held signs such as “Strength through diversity” from behind a fence separating them from the pro-Trump group. Organizers of that crowd said they were there to stand against hate. A few wore all black and masks.

Antifa? At my “peaceful counter-protests?” Surely not.

Continued and buried in the middle of the story:

Seattle police reported making three arrests: a 40-year-old man for obstruction, a 37-year-old man for assault and a 25-year-old man for assault. Officers also observed some people “infiltrating” the rally at Denny Park carrying ax handles, two-by-fours and balloons containing an unknown liquid substance, according to the Police Department’s online blotter.

When Communists and Antifa show up to commit violence at an illegal counter protest, they have “infiltrated” the illegal counter protest. When some guy from Ohio, unaffiliated with anyone present, crashes into a mob of illegally counter protesting SJWs and kills one, then it is a “violent white nationalist hate rally.”

Got it.

Let’s see what these “mostly peaceful”, illegally counter-protesting demonstrators had on them.

From the Seattle Police Department Blotter:

Seattle Police arrested three men as officers worked to facilitate two planned demonstrations in Seattle today: one in Westlake park and a separate, larger counter demonstration in Denny Park.

As hundreds of peaceful counter demonstrators gathered in Denny Park, police observed some individuals infiltrating the crowd carrying axe handles, two-by-fours, and balloons containing an unknown liquid substance. Still others wore dark glasses, goggles and bandannas to conceal their identity.

Axe handles and two-by-fours of peace.

Some members of the Denny Park counter demonstration tried to circumvent police by running down an alley between 5th and 6th Avenues and Lenora. These individuals tried to use a makeshift shield to force their way past police bicycle line. Police used pepper spray to move them back. There were reports of rocks thrown at officers.

Rocks of peace.

Soon after, some in the crowd lobbed fireworks at officers. Police issued a dispersal order, using pepper spray and blast balls to move the crowd.

Fireworks of peace.

If you click the link to the archived police blotter page, you’ll notice that among the items seized from the arrested are a couple of Communist flags.

I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

Let’s go to the Portland, OR rally back in June.

14 arrested during competing protests in Portland in wake of train stabbing

Police arrested 14 people Sunday and confiscated several weapons during a day of opposing rallies in downtown Portland, Ore.

The crowds in downtown Portland swelled to several thousand as people gathered for a free speech, pro-President Trump rally and an opposing group demonstrating at the Portland Stands United Against Hate Rally near City Hall.

Police detained a large group of protesters and others who were marching after being removed from Chapman Square where a separate protest designated for an anti-fascist group was eventually closed.

Protesters threw bricks, mortars and balloons filled with “unknown, foul-smelling liquid,” according to police. They said only the protesters at Chapman Square had engaged in criminal behavior. The crowds at Terry Schrunk Plaza, where the pro-Trump rally organized by conservative group Patriot Prayer occurred, and City Hall where the counter-protest organized by immigrant rights, religious and labor groups, were not involved, police said.

And who was at Chapman Square? SJWs and Communists, i.e. Antifa? Yep, that is correct. The pro-free speech people, the pro-Trump, were, and this might be a shock, more interested in speaking than fighting. Meanwhile the crowd that giggles about “bash the fash” and strokes their Marxist chodes to “is it okay to punch a Nazi?” were there attack and destroy (hint: If the Nazi didn’t punch you first, or isn’t making a credible threat to punch you, or the federal government hasn’t issued a declaration of war against Nazis, then no, it is not okay).

Dianne Feinstein is terribly concerned about “incitement” and “violence.” And yet, as we see above, the parties being “incited” are SJWs and Communists. What incites them appears to be anyone supporting Donald Trump or free speech (or “Freeze Peach” as they snidely refer to it). And the violence that Senator Feinstein is so worried about originates from SJWs and Communists.

Back to Dianne Feinstein’s letter:

Given this track record, there is a very real potential that Patriot Prayer will use its permit to demonstrate at Crissy Field as a free pass to incite violence. That is not what Crissy Field is about, and I urge you to reconsider your decision to issue this permit in the name of public safety.

Here we come to the crux of the argument: Dianne Feinstein wants to curtail the free speech and and peaceable assembly rights of the Patriot Prayer group to prevent SJWs and Communists from responding to speech with violence. Or, as Harry Kalven called it, the Heckler’s Veto. The Heckler’s Veto, in its precise form, occurs when the government suppresses an individual’s speech on the grounds that the government anticipates a strong negative reaction from another person or group of people.

It seems to fit this situation snugly.

More disturbing is the implication in this letter that the “counter-protesters” (SJWs and Communists) are justified in being incited by words alone to attack the speaker of those words or anyone who voluntary listens to speaker.

The narrative is that your words justify their violence.

U.S. Senators pledge to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Arguing that it should set aside because a group of self-appointed Communist outlaws take umbrage with the content of speech is neither support or defense; it is complicity in the Constitution’s destruction.

A Canadian White Ribbon Campaigner Wants Men To Risk Their Lives For Females

I am a lot of things. I am Rehtaeh Parsons’ father. I am an advocate for victims of sexual assault and cyberbullying. But most of all, I am sick of saying, “if a boy or man had done the right thing, a girl or woman would still be alive.”

For readers unfamilar with the Rehtaeh Parsons’ saga, Parsons was a Canadian teenager who, at the tender age of 15, got drunk and let four boys run a train on her.

Choo-choo.

It got out that she’s the type of chick who plays with trains. Males of a certain age thought, “if her standards are that low, maybe I have a shot” and texted her looking to get a piece of her kit-kat bar. The girls, being the cruel little beasts that they are, texted her that she was a slut (there’s nothing wrong with being a slut if done for honorable reasons).

About a week later, Parsons told her family that she had been raped. After a year-long investigation, the Mounties determined that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges. About a year later, Parsons decided to self-terminate via hanging.

I am sick of urging men and boys to prevent violence against women and then seeing familiar news headlines over and over. Reading about what happened to Kassidi Coyle earlier this year shook me to my core. I saw parallels between what happened to her and what happened to my daughter: A sexual assault that eventually led a young girl to take her own life.

Unless your name is Socrates, or you are a samurai, suicide is a personal decision.

And so I ask myself, again, why does this keep happening? I’ve been noticing a deadly disconnect between what Canadians say we want in theory versus what we actually do in practice … A disconnect that is literally killing women and girls.

If women decide to self-terminate, that’s their own decision.

Her body, her choice, right?

Take the latest Canadian Women’s Foundation survey, for example. This is the first time the foundation asked Canadians about the role of men and boys in ending violence against women. So what do Canadians say they want?

As Nietzsche once aptly described as the “mania for counting noses” (democracy) is embodied in the Western fetish for surveys and polls.

Please, Mr. Canning, tell me, what does the voice of God, as filtered through the people and the pollsters, say?

Ninety-three per cent of Canadians say they want men to take a more active role in ending violence against women. But how many people are working with men and boys to end violence in their own lives and communities? And how many people are talking to the boys in their lives about consent and how to safely intervene in a situation that they know is wrong?

There is no such thing as “safely” intervening in a potentially violent situation. Stepping into a conflict puts everyone at risk. Either be prepared to accept the consequences of intervention, call a cop, or mind your own business.

When Intervention Goes Wrong
Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

I’m not interested in intervening to save women, especially not if the woman in question played a role in creating the conflict.

I hate to say it, but I think we as Canadians often take an “Oh, he’s a good kid. I’m sure he’d make the right decision in a situation like that” approach. That’s not good enough anymore. It never was good enough.

His body, his choice, right? Or, do only women get to claim bodily autonomy?

Three quarters of Canadians feel that men don’t challenge other men when they witness inappropriate behaviour toward women in public (75 per cent) and in the workplace (74 per cent). When it comes to holding other men accountable, we can all agree it’s the right thing to do in theory. But it clearly isn’t happening in practice.

Women are strong and independent and don’t need no man. Let them defend themselves.

And it especially isn’t happening behind closed doors — I know that no one held anyone accountable when young men got into a room with my daughter, raped her, and then circulated a photo around her school. And what did one of the boys say when he spoke with a journalist? “‘I felt like if she didn’t want it, it wouldn’t have happened.” We are all failing our next generation if this is the way our 16-year-olds think about consent.

Remember now: Women are perfectly equal to men, except that it is impossible for them to give non-verbal consent or implicit consent.

Yay! Equality!

Speaking of accountability, thankfully 4-in-5 Canadians (79 per cent) feel “boys will be boys” is an outdated attitude. So that means, from a young age, we must hold our boys accountable for their behaviour. Our boys can be shown how to embody empathy and compassion. We must make no excuse for toxic masculinity to get embedded in our next generation.

84% of your provincial and territorial prison population are men. 93% of your federal prison population are men.

Canada is doing just fine holding the “boys” accountable.

Speaking of prisoners, why does the Social Justice crowd think it is appropriate to hammer boys with their moral condescension about “boys will be boys” and “toxic masculinity” but would not dare go after adult men who are actually guilty of the things they claim are problems?

And while 71 per cent of Canadians rightly say “locker room talk” is a big deal, I was disheartened to find out from the Canadian Women’s Foundation survey that almost half (42 per cent) of millennial men think it isn’t a big deal. Language matters. Language normalizes, justifies, and perpetuates a cycle that turns women and girls into objects for men’s consumption, rather than positioning them as equals.

If you demand someone’s protection, you are not their equal. You are either their superior or their inferior. They are either your patron (superior) or your guard dog (inferior).

Equals protect each other.

One last contrast from the foundation’s survey: 72 per cent of millennial men believe there is no reason for a woman to feel less safe in public than a man. Yet almost half (45 per cent) of millennial women report feeling unsafe because of their gender in the past 12 months. If that’s not a disconnect, I don’t know what is.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.

Or…

FUCK YOUR FEELINGS.

I refuse to order my life around your subjective and irrational emotions.

So what is the one action I hope every Canadian reading this will take? Ask a teen boy in your life to imagine him and his male friends in a room with a girl, like the situation Rehtaeh and the boys were in. Ask him what he will do. Who will he stand up for? Prepare him for the sad reality that his friends might make fun of him for doing the right thing. Let him know you will be proud of him for it.

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

No one should care more about your own well-being than you. Not random teenage boys. Not strange men. YOU. If you put yourself in position to get a train run on you, that’s your call. Men are not plastic rain ponchos that women get to grab, put on, and toss away when the storm has passed. We have just as much of an interest in our own safety as women do in theirs. And if these rapine, murderous men are such a threat to women, why wouldn’t they be a threat to a man? Do you imagine there is some special man hand-signal we put up to let each other know we are in the Man club? Here in the U.S., men are more of a lethal threat to other men than they are to women.

If women are strong enough and empowered enough to dig themselves into a bad situation, let them be strong and empowered enough to climb back out without crying for a random man to rescue them.

Source

Bash the Fash or “Beat Up Anyone Who Isn’t a Communist”

From the January 29, 1942 Home Edition of the Barrier Miner, an Australian newspaper

Anti-Communist Speech Causes Scene

LONDON, January 28.
Seventy-two-year-old Sir James Purves-Stewart, a famous physician, who advocates mercy killing, caused a stir in Anglo-Soviet circles by attacking Communism at a meeting in aid. of the Russian Red Cross at Basingstoke Town Hall.

He referred to “the horrible atrocities of the Bolshevik revolution.” Violent interruptions occurred and some of the audience walked out. A man shouted, “You ought to be speaking for Hitler.”

Alderman Mrs. E. A. Weston, who was, the next speaker, attacked Sir James Purves-Stewart,and said that she was sorry that he had been invited to speak.

Sir James Purves-Stewart later told the'”Evening Standard”, that he was strongly pro-Russian, but anti-communist. He said that there was danger of the Communists getting hold of the Anglo-Russian Public Relations Committee. “I wanted to give a true picture of Russia. There are many things in the Communist State I admire, but also things which never would be accepted by democratic citizens in Britain. I do not believe that the Russians are fighting for Communism. They are fighting for their homes and Holy Russia.”

The chairman of the executive of the Anglo-Russian Publie Relations Committee “(Professor A. V. Hill) said: “Sir James Purves-Stewart was talking irresponsibly. He ought to know better.”

[Sir James Purves-Stewart, among many, other publications, is author of Fix this text”A Physician’s Tour In Soviet Russia,” which was published in 1932.]

Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Because we are seeing this play out again like the latest installment of Dark Souls.

A lot of the same actions took place at this one speech that we see today. Purves-Stewart made valid criticisms of the Soviet Union, of the murders and repression carried out by the Communists against the Russian people in the name of Communism. The Communist response was to try and shout him down (Shut It Down, anyone?), accused him of speaking for Hitler, and wishing that he had not been invited to speak (no-platforming).

All that is required for a Communist to shriek “Fascist!” is to not be a Communist. That’s it. Nothing more. So when Antifa screams “bash the fash!” all they mean is “assault non-Communists.”

The tactics of Communists have not changed for the 70 years.

Jess Phillips and the Tyranny of the Male Feminist

My second-favorite Labour MP (second because there’s Jeremy Corbyn and the heterosexual white males always have to win) Jess Phillips attended the Edinburgh International Book Festival. While there, she had some interesting things to say about “left-wing men.” Compliments? Of course not. This is men we’re talking about. Nope, Jess wanted to complain about how left-wing men are the absolute worst.

A Labour MP has claimed that left-wing sexists are the worst of them all and that men on the left are the “absolute worst”.

Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, accused left-wing men of benign neglect in the fight for sexual equality.

She told the Edinburgh International Book Festival the “well-meaning, left-leaning” men were worse than what someone else said are the “out and out sexists of the right”.

Benign sexism vs. Out and out sexism?

This is going to be better than any Clegane-bowl could possibly be.

She said: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst”. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Keep in mind that Phillips is the same woman who wanted to ban men from running for office under the Labour banner until women achieved “parity” with men.

Phillips does a good job exposing two Feminist lies about men and power and the type of man who supports Feminism from a position of power. The first lie exposed is that men in power are in business for their fellow men. This has been untrue since the beginning of civilization. Men in power are in the business of retaining their power, not to help other men.

There is no Patriarchy. But there is an Oligarchy and feminists have proven very useful tools of that Oligarchy to keep men without power from having a chance of getting power of their own. That is what Feminism is and has always been: Females who were part of the Oligarch class, but excluded from being Oligarchs themselves, demanding to become Oligarchs in their own right. To rule over inferior men as they saw similarly situated men do. Feminists became willing servants to tyranny for the promise of power.

These same oligarchical men freely support better female representation in government, in the C-suite, in Hollywood, in universities, in the military, etc. do so at no cost to themselves. They intend for someone else’s ox to be gored, not their own. The female representation in government will, by Phillips own admission, be paid for by excluding men who aren’t already in positions of power.

Ms Phillips told a tale of how a left-wing journalist at the Guardian had told her Harriet Harman was not good for women and that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

Although it was thought she was referring to Seamus Milne, the Labour Party director of communications, both parties denied this.

The Labour MP said sarcastically: “So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously,

“I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality]”.

It might have been Owen Jones. I have no proof of this. However, Jones can hardly be stopped when it comes to fellating Comrade Corbyn’s Commie Cock.

She also said that while left-wing men think they want equality for women, “they don’t think of you on the same level”.

Of course they don’t think of you as on the same level. A beggar is never on the same level as a giver. So long as Feminists run around begging powerful men to give them things, then they are admitting that they are inherently not on their level.

Do for yourself and be treated like an equal, or beg and be treated like what you are.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she continued.

That…is a strange thing to think about before going to sleep, but this is Jess Phillips we are talking about. However, it is interesting that Phillips is objecting to men THINKING in a way she doesn’t like at the same time she is objecting to men not acting in ways she does not like.

Ms Phillips also added that women are completely missing from Labour Party industrial strategy because it was all about “men with shovels”.

Perhaps women ought to pick up some shovels if they want to be included in a conversation about industrial labor. Oh, wait, that’s not an air-conditioned, C-suite job or a ministerial post where a woman would get to order men around.

She said she is abused on Twitter a lot by “dunder-heided Neanderthals”, and revealed that after her friend Jo Cox MP was murdered she reported all the death threats she received to West Midlands police, and it was “quite a lot”.

That’s what the Block button is for. If a brutish, pussy-grabbing, evil male like Donald Trump can have someone manage his Twitter, you would think that a smart, empowered female like Jess Phillips could get one as well.

This latest spat between Jess Phillips and men in the Labour Party demonstrates the type of men in power that Feminists ally with: Those who already have their boots firmly placed on the necks of the supermajority of men who lack power and are looking for any excuse to press down even harder. The male feminist aspires to benevolent tyranny, to decide when any particular man gets to succeed over any woman.

And that is why Feminists are the Handmaidens of Tyranny.

Source

Clementine Ford Invites Men Back to the Plantation for Some Unpaid Labour

Clementine Ford published this very interesting piece a couple of days ago. It differed wildly in tone from her usual offerings of “men are whiny little man-babies” and “ironic misandry“; it was almost reasonable. She couldn’t resist putting women on the Cross and inviting the reader to admire how beautiful her martyrdom of pregnancy and childrearing is, but the difference in tone gave me pause.

What angle is this asshole trying to work?

Unless she repudiated the whole “women are justified in hating men because REASONS” schtick, the article didn’t make sense. Then I remembered her 2016 literary masterpiece, “Fight Like a Girl” and it brought the article into context.

She is inviting men to engage in unpaid labor. Which is supposedly terrible for women. Let’s enjoy it together with excerpts from her book.

There are a lot of cliches and sayings that get thrown around following the birth of a baby, but none are so apt as this one: it takes a village to raise a child. And hoo boy, do we really need that village. But you know who we really need in that village? More men.

Fascinating: From Clementine’s book “Fight Like a Girl”:

Do men really need to be acknowledged for doing the right thing? Do they even realise they’re taking credit for work that women have performed more tirelessly and with greater risk to their health and wellbeing? Do men need to be revered and admired, their egos stroked with the palms of a thousand tired hands?

If women are so tireless and such risk-takers, why does their Feminist village require men at all?

I’m not suggesting this imbalance of care is men’s fault. There are lots of reasons men are hesitant to offer this kind of support, and chief among them is the fear of being seen as a threat to the safety of children. Some families choose not to involve external men as caregivers because of these reasons. I can’t direct them to do otherwise, but I do think it poses a wasted opportunity to diversify the way we perceive childcare in our communities.

Ultimately, I invite men to be a part of my child’s village because I think there’s value to be had both for men in recognising their role in this village and for children in seeing men in this role.

I don’t want my son to think the people he can turn to for help are Daddy and a million other women.

I do these things not to inconvenience men in particular or because I assume my child and I are so important that we can just demand attention and time from strangers. I do it because child-rearing is hard and it does require support and outside help at times, but this help is typically just absorbed by women as more of the daily unpaid labour we perform invisibly for the benefit of others.

Fascinating. From Clementine’s book, “Fight Like a Girl”:

The thrill of supporting a man with our bodies, our children and our unpaid labour is not only supposed to make us happy but is offered as some kind of vital ingredient in the world’s evolution. It’s why absurd, insulting platitudes are thrown around to appease us, platitudes like ‘behind every great man there is a woman’.

Insulting platitudes like “it takes a village to raise a child”? In the case of men, it takes a village to raise a child you didn’t sire? That a woman didn’t deem you worthy of breeding, but she does deem you worthy of doing some “unpaid labour” on her behalf with her spawn?

Nope. Rearing another man’s child does not make me happy. I do not care how vital it is to the village or evolution. I am not appeased by “it takes a village.”

Not my kid; not my problem.

I do it because I am invested in creating a more empathetic community, and empathy involves helping other people when they need it. I do it because men are just as capable of caregiving for children as women are, but they are rarely called on to assist in the care of children outside their own immediate families.

Fascinating. From Clementine’s book, “Fight Like a Girl”:

I know now why that is. It’s because women do the work. We always have. It is usually done without complaint or protestation, because most girls are conditioned from birth to accept that unpaid domestic labour is our natural responsibility.

So, women do things “without complaint or protestation” (what is this mythical creature, a woman who does not complain? A cryptozoological being) and that just gets Clementine’s dander all the way up. But men should just “help other people when they need it”, regardless of the imposition on a man’s time, goals, or desire, (i.e. be a utility) because that’s “empathy” (translation: Something Clementine prefers).

I repeat: Not my kid; not my problem.

And I do it because I want my child to see value in extending that empathy and care to people beyond himself. I want him to consider the gentle care of children to be as much a masculine trait as it is a feminine one.

As his awareness of the world grows at a rate faster than his own fortitude or independence, I don’t want him to think that the people he can turn to for help are Daddy and a million other women. We can shape the villages we live in. This is how I’m shaping mine.

Fascinating. From Clementine’s book “Fight Like a Girl”:

Secondly, we have to start being okay with saying that. I know it’s difficult, but men aren’t children or dogs. They don’t get a cookie because they did the right thing. Not giving them a reward is not the same as swearing at them or throwing a bucket of shit at their head, even though some of them might act as if it is. We have to resist the urge to respond to basic decency by treating it as if it’s some kind of enormously magnanimous gesture. It isn’t. There shouldn’t be anything astonishing about a man who doesn’t degrade women, hurt them or treat them as somehow less than him. As Rita O’Grady says, that’s as it should be. You don’t get a fucking ribbon just for turning up to a morning tea, especially not when women’s reward for doing so much more than that is to gratefully scoop up the crumbs you leave behind.

Patriarchy Acts. Rape Culture Teaches. Sexism Wants.

The Devil Is A Liar.

Feminism is religion done wrong. If you’re going to make a moral argument, you have to provide some incentive for making a good moral decision over a bad one other than “I, Clementine Ford, shall be ever so cross with you if you do something I don’t like.” If you are going to ascribe metaphysical evil to men (all men benefit from the Patriarchy!) then you have to offer them something for doing good, whether it’s eternal paradise, 72 virgins, resurrection, Nirvana, prosperity, a pat on the head, etc.

Despite what Feminists think, men are just as human as women and almost all humans respond to incentives. Feminists don’t want to offer incentives. Clementine Ford is openly contemptuous of the idea of incentivizing Feminism, except with “insulting platitudes” or loud shrieking when a man does Feminism in the “wrong” way (as if there were a right way).

I don’t think I’ll be joining your Feminist village. It appears that the only payment for men’s labor to women and children is the business end of a stick.

Source

Bill De Blasio Wants Millionaires to Subsidize the New York Subway System

Today, Hizzoner Bill De Blasio of New York City trotted out his brain trust and union allies to declare “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Oops, that comes later.

De Blasio played that tired old song of “the rich need to pay their fair share”, this time, the rich need to pay for capital improvements to New York subways. It’s the same lame song that has seen an exodus of wealthy citizens to more friendly areas (see Chicago and Los Angeles).

Rather than attempt to excise the rot that caused the problem (MTA mismanagement of resources) De Blasio and company would rather paper over the MTA’s malfeasance with an infusion tax money, taken under sound moral theory of “how could you be so heartless as to deny me your stuff? You have so much and I have so little! If you don’t give me your stuff, I’ll suffer and it will be your fault!”

Here are some examples MTA malfeasance.

June 21, 2017:

Two MTA board members admitted Wednesday that the agency has mismanaged its money — as a top transit official declared that the current subway crisis is “an emergency.”

Board member James Vitiello griped that not enough money has been spent on issues that need to be urgently addressed, like subway maintenance.

“We have taken on projects that have been expensive . . . like Second Avenue Subway or cashless tolling,” he conceded during a meeting at MTA headquarters in Manhattan. I think we’re coming around to seeing we may have done some of that at the expense of day-to-day maintenance.

Members acknowledged the agency is beset with problems — and a chronic lack of accountability. Scott Rechler called the entire MTA system “immensely broken.” “We are at such a point of crisis that it requires approaching it differently,” he said.

In short, the MTA has spent more money on subway photo ops rather than subway functionality.

May 17, 2016:

Tens of thousands of New Yorkers left stranded; 2.5 million pick-up and drop-off times may have been manipulated to show more favorable performance; Less than 50% of one car service’s trips were on-time

More than 31,000 times in 2015, New York City residents booked Access-A-Ride vehicles that never showed up and failed to provide service, stranding thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities, seniors and others who are unable to take mass transit, according to a new audit released today by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. The audit found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) allowed vendors to act with impunity, failing to monitor and correct problems or improve its Paratransit service.

“Access-A-Ride is absolutely essential for thousands of people to get around New York City every single day, yet this program stranded thousands of people, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and caused untold harm and distress,” Comptroller Stringer said. “We found serious breakdowns in oversight and operations which have contributed to a culture of indifference and neglect by the MTA. After years of mismanagement, it’s on the MTA to take action now.”

Access-A-Ride services are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public transportation authorities to provide a paratransit system for passengers who cannot use public bus or subway services. In assigning Access-A-Ride trips, the MTA delivers service through a network of 16 companies. These companies provide service using MTA Paratransit Division-owned vehicles, such as specially equipped buses and cars, and for hire vehicles that provide transportation to ambulatory passengers through car services.

The Comptroller’s Audit examined Access-A-Ride services for which the MTA paid $321 million in calendar year 2015.

The MTA is paying contractors for services they never performed and then cooking the books to cover up their mismanagement.

May 9, 2011:

Over the years real estate and banking interests have been the most prevalent occupations of MTA Board members. At the Brooklyn Public Hearing for the service cutbacks held in March 2010, a small group of protesters raised signs critical of the MTA’s deal to sell Atlantic Yards for below market value. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to that effect. But it was hardly the only questionable land deal under the MTA’s watch.

Hudson Yards

Several years ago, the MTA entered into a deal to sell the air rights over the Long Island Rail Road yards near Penn Station. Although fair market value was received in that deal ($2 billion), the MTA has been criticized for the payment terms allowing the developer to hold onto much of the cash for 30 years.

The Sale of its Midtown Headquarters

We can only wonder how the MTA’s latest proposal to sell three adjacent properties at 341, 345, and 347 Madison Avenues will turn out and if it is best to sell these as a single entity as the MTA has proposed, or if a better deal could be struck if the properties were offered as three separate sales? Would a single developer have to pay more if there is increased competition?

Two Broadway

This is not the first time the MTA has thought about vacating its midtown Manhattan headquarters. When 2 Broadway was acquired at the southern tip of Manhattan, the MTA’s original plan called for purchasing that property to enable the MTA to stop the cash drain from its short term leases at 50 separate locations. That was the rationale used to sell the idea to the MTA Board. It seemed to make sense because a property owned by the MTA would have some equity should the MTA ever decide it no longer needed that property, and with real estate values on the rise, the MTA could make a killing.

Don’t ask me how it happened but somehow a purchase turned into a 99-year lease instead. I am not a real estate expert, but I fail to see the advantage of trading 50 leased properties for a single leased property in one of the most expensive areas of Manhattan, especially when the tenant (the MTA) still has to pay the massive renovation cost to adapt the building to its needs. Further, the renovations, over budget and behind schedule, have been the subject of questionable practices, including accusations of mob ties – enough to launch more than one investigation.

Amazing how our so-called public servants seem to find ways to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the people whose interests they claim to service.

June 4, 2010:

On Wednesday, the Empire Center for New York State Policy released payroll data showing over 8,000 MTA employees made over $100,000, including overtime and extra pay, and an overall average pay raise of 2.4%. There’s a searchable database of the employees and their salaries, leading to factoids like “Eleven of the 561 employees who earned more than $150,000 in 2009 were Long Island Railroad car repairmen who earned an average of $167,342 – which was $102,477 over their annual base pay rate of $64,865.” Yup, overtime is costing a fortune.

The NY Times points out, “A Long Island Rail Road conductor who retired in April, made $239,148, about $4,000 more than the authority’s chief financial officer” and “more than a quarter of the Long Island Rail Road’s 7,000 employees earned more than $100,000 last year, including the conductor, Thomas J. Redmond, and two locomotive engineers — who were among the top 25 earners in the entire transportation authority.” (Related: LIRR employees on disability.)

This news comes as the MTA is trying to deal with a $400 million budget shortfall. The MTA released a statement saying the 2.4% wage increases “reflects built-in raises provided under multi-year labor contracts” and says the data does show the “MTA reduced its workforce and held down costs by foregoing management raises.” Plus: “The MTA’s $800 million budget shortfall for 2010 — caused by State budget cuts and deteriorating tax revenues — means there’s much more work to be done. We are in the process of overhauling every aspect of our business, including the elimination of approximately 3,000 positions this year. One key part of this effort is a focus on the work rules, pension padding and management oversight that leads to some of the unnecessary overtime highlighted in today’s report.”

And on perfect cue, the managers will blame the greedy union boys for taking as much as they can carry, and the union boys will blame the managers for being pampered egg-heads who ain’t down with the working man.

Meanwhile, neither side will stop raiding the budget for every dime they can get.

May 21, 2010:

MTA officials are locking horns with the Transit Workers Union over rules governing overtime and sick time. The MTA brass says employees have been abusing the system and costing the Authority $560 million annually; part of that big expenditure was caused by the 25% of bus and subway workers took more than two weeks worth of sick days last year. Now the MTA is assigning a task force to crack down on employees who abuse sick days. Of course, the union is up in arms about it.

“These bureaucrats, they’ve never done a day’s physical labor in their life,” TWU Local 100 boss John Samuelsen tells the Post. “And they would faint if they had to work under the conditions that Local 100 members work under every day.” Speaking to the Daily News, he fumed, “They demean their own workers publicly on a consistent basis, and they fail to acknowledge NYC Transit workers work in some of the most horrific conditions you can imagine. Several bus operators are assaulted every week, subway workers breathe in toxic fumes… We put our lives on the line to move the riding public, and when we get sick, the company tries to portray us as slackers.”

But some high-profile incidents have revealed that some NYC Transit employees have in fact been on vacation while calling out sick. And one subway operator made the equivalent of what he would have earned in five days by just showing up for three days and then working overtime. The MTA says he called out for unpaid sick time the other two days, but because overtime kicks in after each eight-hour shift (not after 40 hours) the operator made his regular week’s pay. And the cherry on top is that his replacement on the sick days was paid time-and-a-half!

MTA officials estimate that the OT belt-tightening will result in $22 million in savings this year, while the Authority faces a $400 million budget shortfall. Next year the MTA will try to save $60 million by reducing overtime, though that will require union consent, so get the popcorn ready.

Not only is the management gaming the system for every dime they can get, the union boys have their hands in the kitty as well, freely dipping and double dipping sick time and overtime.

This is the classic public bureaucracy set-up: Politicians looking for easy answers, managers who are out to enrich themselves and their friends at the public’s expense, and an untouchable union out to scrape up whatever hasn’t been stolen by the first two because, hey, they aren’t going to be the suckers who actually do the right thing when everybody else is doing wrong.

I have to give the Devil such credit as he is due. This is not a problem of Bill De Blasio’s creation. The problem can be traced to Albany and the state legislature’s implicit consent to the MTA board’s effort to put fresh paint on a burning house. De Blasio’s proposed solution is temporary at best. It is a sin tax, and like any sin tax, it lasts only so as the sinner perpetrates the sin, or remains in the reach of the taxing authority.

A long-term solution would involve reevaluating fares, manager pay and decisionmaking, worker pay, and MTA accountability practices. But that doesn’t play well to the champagne socialists and government unions that swept De Blasio into power.

You always dance with the one who brought you.

Full Press Conference: