“Women Are Afraid of Men” Is Bullshit

A thesis has made the rounds recently in the feminist blogosphere and the gynocentric media over the last few months in conjunction with #MeToo slacktivism. It’s based on a statement made by Margaret Atwood during a lecture in 1982:

“Why do men feel threatened by women?” I asked a male friend of mine. … “They’re afraid women will laugh at them,” he said. “Undercut their world view.” Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, “Why do women feel threatened by men?” “They’re afraid of being killed,” they said.1

Naturally, this is absolute bullshit.

Women have always been sexually aroused by the male capacity for violence.
During the Roman Empire, women purchased the sweat of gladiators, the lethal entertainers and celebrities of that period, for use as an aphrodisiac.2 Some Roman women, not content with the secondhand bodily fluids from trained killers, preferred to use more direct methods of collection by bribing guards of the gladiator camps for entrance and a sweaty evening with the day’s winner.3 The second century poet Juvenal’s sixth satire, the story of Eppia, the senator’s wife, who ran off with the gladiator Sergius, who Juvenal described as having “sundry deformities in his face: a scar caused by the helmet, a huge wen upon his nose, a nasty humour always trickling from his eye. But then he was a gladiator! It is this that transforms these fellows into Hyacinths!”4

The female arousal for male violence continues into the present, despite male violence being far more controlled than in Roman Empire, particularly with the fascination of women with men who do violence on behalf of the state, otherwise known as ‘men in uniform.’ During the reign of King George III, this affinity for state-sponsored killers was referred to as the ‘scarlet fever’ a reference to the red coats issued to infantrymen in the royal army. The 19th century English journalist, Henry Mayhew noted that to serving women of that period:

“A red coat is all powerful with this class, who prefer a soldier to a servant, or any other description of man they come in contact with.”5

One hundred years later, during the First World War, the disease of ‘scarlet fever’ transmogrified itself into ‘khaki fever’ though the symptoms remained the same: a mania for violent men in uniforms. Contemporary essayist Catherine Hartley noted that:

“war turned men into heroes, while women thought the war was going to be so fine they could do anything to help; they wanted their share, each one to have a stake for herself, and the easiest way to gain this was the ownership of a soldier-lover. It prevented the feeling of ‘being left out.’”6

A report of three studies prepared by Hannes Rusch, Joost Leunissen, and Mark van Vugt stated that Medal of Honor recipients tended to sire more children than regular veterans. There is also evidence that women find men more sexually attractive if they are war heroes (i.e. the most successful killers).7 The female lust for government-sponsored killers is not always so patriotic. In France, there are estimated to be 200,000 ‘war children’ whose fathers were German occupation soldiers World War II, accounting for nearly a quarter of all of the children sired by soldiers of the Wehrmacht in German-occupied Europe.8 Women fall easily into the arms of conquering men, even before the war is lost.

Women’s attraction to the dangerous man is exclusive not to those whose violence is approved by the government. Plenty of blood and ink has been spilled on the female infatuation with ‘bad boys.’ Men on death row and famous serial killers have no trouble acquiring female attention, despite committing heinous crimes against female victims.9 Further down the food chain are the ‘good girls’ who become molls for their ‘bad boy’ boyfriends. These women may come from middle-class backgrounds. At best, they associate with violent criminals, knowing what they are. In other situations, they facilitate their boyfriends’ criminal activities, hiding their boyfriends’ weapons and contraband, or actively participating in crimes themselves. Teenage girls view these criminals as exciting and prestigious and protective of them.10
Continue reading


Aziz Ansari: A Modern Romance Between The Male Feminist and The Empowered Woman

So. Woke male feminist bae Aziz Ansari has gotten himself in a bit of a pickle. He tried to fuck a woman and she was less than awed by his rampant manhood or sexual prowess. Now he’s been #MeToo’d.

This is the part where feminists’ brains shut off in unison and assume this is a full-throated defense of Aziz Ansari.

Sorry. There are no saints in this story, only sinners.

I’m not going to go point-by-point through the article. It’s linked below for your edification.

Grace: The Sexually Dysfunctional Empowered Woman

Grace is a portrait of the sexually dysfunctional modern Anglo-woman prude. She can chatter about universities, old cameras, and pictures of food she’s eaten. When it comes to sex, she expects men to instantly know not only how and when to pleasure her, but to do so with no little-to-no input from them. “Let’s chill” is not instructive of anything.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Grace that she moved away from him in the apartment. She claims that she gave non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable she was, went to the bathroom, came back and mumbled some.

You know what the best ‘non-verbal cue’ is that you aren’t interested? Putting on your clothes and walking out of the door. I’ve done it. I’ve had it done to me. It has a 100% success rate of all of the leading ‘non-verbal cues.’ As far as verbal cues go, a hard ‘no’ followed by ‘I’m leaving’ has no ambiguity whatsoever.

It wasn’t until she retreated to the safety of her tech/girlspace bubble that her verbosity returned, which in turn allowed her to draft that ridiculous text-message-cum-essay to Aziz about the sanctity of her female tears. Men should understand that when you are dealing with a woman, you’re not dealing with just that woman; you are dealing with her entire collective of female friends and collaborators.

This is why women eagerly take to collectivist ideas like Feminism, Socialism, Communism, corporatism, cults, fads, etc.: Women do not have a moral center. A woman’s “morality” is based on the opinions of those around her. Women cannot do the ‘right thing’ (even when it is actually the right thing) unless they have an army at their backs.

And women admit to it. Listen to the dearth of women who squat on these allegations of sexual impropriety for 10, 20, or 30 years and then say ‘well, I was afraid of not being believed/afraid of men/afraid of whatever’ but now that there is a hashtag (read: other people) women can do the ‘right thing.’

Validation is the core of a woman’s life and thinking. The center of all female interactions is the acquisition and maintenance of that precious commodity called ‘validation.’ Women don’t have the capacity to tell right from wrong without the validation of others.

Aziz Ansari: The Sexually Dysfunctional Male Feminist

I’ve already given some thoughts on male feminists that don’t require a full repetition here. I’ll just restate the conclusion:

Men become feminists because they are genuine fools, or disingenuous power-seekers.
Ansari, like most of the male feminists being swept up by #MeToo, is an example of the latter. He says what he thinks will gain him favor with women so that they will give him money and sex.

The article notes that Grace was excited to meet with a successful comedian and celebrity. We don’t know what the text messages leading up to the date contained (strangely enough, Grace didn’t feel the need to screencap and publish those texts), however, there was a difference in the social status of the two. I lack sufficient information to categorize Grace as a starfucker, but allow me a little realistic speculation:

Aziz Ansari is a skinny, 5’3″ man who looks like a Tamil bobblehead. Despite what the guys at r/incel and lookism might think, being short, skinny, or average looking are not a sexual death sentence. But if Aziz Ansari weren’t famous or a comedian, 22-year-old photographer would likely not approach him or make goo-goo eyes at him all night.

Bad sex is always hilarious when it happens to other people. And this is some particularly bad sex. There are some issues of sexual etiquette here. His most glaring error was that Ansari moved in with a move that I hope is remembered forever in infamy as ‘The Claw.’ He tried to stick his fingers in her mouth and then finger-pop her vagina. A man should not fingerpop a dry pussy, especially with more than one finger. Sticking your fingers in her mouth, especially to start with, is porno stuff and generally you don’t hit square girls with porno moves unless your sexual value to her is just that high. Finally, just stripping a chick down and then telling her to wait while you get the condoms is a bit tawdry.

In Aziz Ansari’s book, Modern Romance, he states that part of his comedic motivation is a preoccupation with “douchebag bro culture” and those white cis-hetero jocks who had an “unfair advantage” during his childhood because he lacked social media to show women how witty and smart he is. But when placed in a situation where sex was all but assured, he showed neither wit nor intelligence; only the frustration of a beta poseur lacking sexual competence and social skills to convert his social status into sexual attraction.

Grace is no better. She is an example of a woman who has been fed this commercial, prepackaged, pop culture girl power feminism. It is cheap empowerment in the internet age that requires no courage and no growth; it is bravery born from the distance and numbers of Twitter; it is the heroism of women putting their money into other people’s pockets to watch Wonder Woman; it is the valor of wearing a black dress to a place surrounded by armed security guards.

As shown by this Aziz Ansari incident, when a “strong, empowered woman” is cut from the safety of her herd of female cohorts and deprived of her electronic security blanket, she shrinks back down to her proper size: A mumbling, bumbling, overgrown teenage girl being chased by an overgrown, sexually-frustrated, teenage boy with a fetish for white women.

Just another instance of how the male feminist and the empowered woman deserve each other.


P.S. I’m in no danger of Aziz Ansari ever reading this, but for the love of Aqua Buddha, the most holy and benevolent of all the divinities, buy a damn shirt that fits around your neck. When you’re rich, there’s no excuse to have that much gap between your collar and your neck.

Black Matriarch Films Her Own Shooting By Her Lesbian Lover

Courtesy of the black matriarchy and the People’s Democratic Republic of Chi-raq comes the sorry tale of Labritney Austin. As is common with Sapphic lovers in the ghetto, she had a dispute with hers. However, Labritney, being about that thug life, brought a gun into the mix.

Austin shot her fellow lesbo and turned herself in to the police two hours later.

I’m glad these hood-whores are shooting each other and not black men and black children, who are their usual targets.


Archived Source

Black Matriarch Attempts to Murder Her Girlfriend While Out On Bail for Another Attempted Murder

Nashville police arrested 23-year-old Cealie James on a charge of attempted murder. Police allege that James shot her girlfriend, 21-year-old Destiny Gregory, during an argument at the Haynes Garden Apartments on Thursday. James fled the scene but returned later and was taken into custody by the police.

At the time of the shooting, James was out on bail on another attempted murder charge. In 2016, James is alleged to have shot a woman outside of a Super 8 Motel on Spence Lane.

Hopefully, Davidson County doesn’t make the same mistake twice and release this braided up, tatted up, thugged out, high yellow killer.


Archived Source

Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: Karen Fratti Wants To Discriminate Against Men Based on Women’s Feelings

A POZ femshevik Karen Fratti is mad because men are using the laws to prevent women from illegally discriminating against men.

The horror.

But don’t worry, she’s got a really good reason for it:

Her feelings.

Remember last spring when a movie theater chain was advertising women-only showings of Wonder Woman and some people lost their minds in outrage? Now a comedian is being sued by a men’s right group for hosting her own women-only show in Los Angeles, and he might actually have a case citing anti-discrimination laws. But is banning men from women-only spaces sexist or is it just a way for women to have any safe space in this world? It’s something we should all think about.

Presumably, your house is pretty safe. Why not just stay there?

A few men got their boxer briefs all bunched up when the Alamo Drafthouse advertised a handful of women-only Wonder Woman showings in Austin and New York last year. They weren’t banning men from seeing it altogether. There were tons of other showings they could attend, but the movie theater chain blocked out a few nights for women to come together and watch the girl power flick together. For example, at one Brooklyn theater, there were 70 showings of the movie in one week, and one of them was for women only.

It Doesn’t matter. New York is one of the enlightened states that has made it illegal for a place of public accommodation to discriminate against the public on the basis of their sex.

In New York City, one man filed a complaint with the New York Human Rights Commission. In Austin, another man did the same. Ultimately, the Alamo Drafthouse admitted that it violated both cities’ anti-discrimination laws and apologized for running the promotion. And now, comedian Iliza Shlesinger might have to do the same. But really, she shouldn’t have to.

Oh? Why is that?

A guy named George St. George and his buddy bought $30 tickets to her Los Angeles show advertised as “No Boys Allowed” online. According to a suit eventually made public by Variety, he and his friend were told at will call that they could enter, but would have to sit in the back row. When they left to kill time before the start of the show and returned, they were denied admission altogether and given a refund. His suit likens being told to sit in the back to the Montgomery bus boycotts from the Civil Rights era.

Well, you enlightened women who hold up half the sky (or some such nonsense) were telling him that you intended to give him inferior accomodations (the back row) in a place accessible to the public because of his sex.

According to California law, St. George might have a case. He’s saying that the comedian, the talent agency, and the venue violated a state law that bans any discrimination based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.” There’s also a California Supreme Court case, Koire v. Metro Car Wash, in which men tried to get a discount aimed at women at a car wash. In that case, the court ruled that places of businesses couldn’t ban any protected class unless there was “strong public policy” to do so, like now admitting a toddler into an adult video store. So there is precedent for this lawsuit against Shlesinger.

The frustrating thing about this is that St. George attempted to get into the show, from as as far as we can tell, because he wanted to be turned away, provoking controversy where there didn’t have to be any. It’s hard to imagine a misogynist like this finding a woman funny anyway. And then he wanted to hire Alfred Rava, which he did, a lawyer who is an avid “men’s rights lawyer” and has brought almost 200 similar cases to court, including one where a baseball team gave swag away to women only on Mother’s Day. This guy is part of the National Coalition For Men’s Rights, which also takes offense at women’s only self-defense classes and blames women for campus assault. So…this is what we’re dealing with here.

He was creating a situation where he would have standing to sue. He’s practically a freedom rider sitting at a segregated lunch counter and waiting for the police to come get him so the NAACP could swoop in and argue that we’re all equal and legal segregation is evil and stain on American values.

God bless America and California über alles.

The upset on social media about the Wonder Woman showings was highly dominated by men’s rights groups, which allege that women getting equal rights has led to their oppression. But really, this claim is utter nonsense and a pretty next-level form of misogyny.

Still waiting for you to offer some proof as to why discriminating against men isn’t sexism. You could trot out ‘sexism = power + privilege.’ That’s always good for a laugh. It’s like the Bolsheviks claiming that because they weren’t motivated by capitalist, imperialist profit, therefore, butchering people and overthrowing their governments was okay.

Jason Posobiec, a well-known “alt-right” troll, was the guy who complained to the Human Rights Commission in New York. He’s the kind of guy who believes that men need safe spaces too, as if the entire world wasn’t already made up of them.

Cupcake, I hate to MANSPLAIN a thing to you, but I believe his name is JACK POSOBIEC.

And what ‘safe spaces’ are there for common men in this world?

In Texas, an anonymous man filed a complaint against the Alamo Drafthouse with Stephen Clark, a lawyer who handles LGBTQ employment discrimination cases. He told MyStatesman, “I’m a specialist in anti-discrimination law, so I was fairly certain that this was not lawful. If they were trying to do a gay-only Brokeback Mountain, I would feel the same way.”

It’s true that allowing businesses to not sell tickets to someone based on race or gender or religion is a slippery legal slope. And just telling men that they should “calm down” about a group of women gathering for a comedy show is not enough. Men have been telling women that same thing for generations when they banned them from social clubs and other man-only zones. They should technically be allowed to buy tickets.

It’s not a slippery legal slope at all. It’s called property rights and once upon a time, they were important in America. Then, the Warren Court happened. In the ‘wisdom’ of the Supreme Court, it was decided that if a property owner opened himself for commerce, he had no right to refuse to do business with people he didn’t want to do business with. Businesses don’t have the right to exclude people based on their immutable traits because…that would be wrong. Supposedly. Roberts v. Jaycees offered further judicial enlightenment on the topic that men did not have the right to exclude women on the basis of their sex.

Because women are hard-headed and short-sighted, they did not foresee that by using the imprecise, bludgeoning tool known as the law to invade male-exclusive spaces, they made the same tool available for men to destroy female-exclusive spaces.

Excellent work, dumbasses.

But men should think long and hard about taking up front row seats, chiming into a conversation, on top of examining exactly why they would want to be in a woman’s safe space or party in the first place. Much like a white woman shouldn’t be upset when women of color at work form their own group to talk about issues, or LGBTQ students form a club at school, or people of any religion have their own weekly prayer groups and meetings.

Most of the time these groups exist because there is not, overall, a safe place for these conversations to happen in the real world. People in these groups generally have a lot to talk about when it comes to the discrimination and micro-aggressions they face on the regular from every part of their lives. Men, especially straight, white men, don’t have these problems on anywhere near the same scale. They just don’t. They have all the rights, all the power, and are never interrupted, belittled, or dismissed. In fact, just asking most men to listen is misinterpreted as telling them to “shut up,” as the men’s rights groups seem to believe. That’s how unaccustomed they are to being quieted.

She’s realized that there is no legal grounds that allow the exclusion of men, so she’s wagging her little finger at men and implies that we should be ashamed of ourselves for having the audacity to violate the sanctity of the gynaeceum when women have treated the andron like public property and force the ‘feminism means equality’ crowd to abide by their own slogan.

In India, women’s only subway cars exist because men so frequently assault women while riding in mixed-gender cars. Given the amount of violence perpetrated by men toward women, maybe barring men from entering a movie theater or comedy show is like not allowing a kid to enter a porn video store. To so many women, men are actually dangerous. We’re not making this up. Men can turn having fun into a scary experience, like being groped on a club’s dance floor. Is it so hard to understand that women want spaces that offer respite from that possibility?

India is 7000 miles away and is irrelevant to men in the Anglosphere and the women who are allegedly against discrimination. But if you want to play this particular game, you’re not going to like where it ends up. You want to discuss India, let’s discuss India, where men ought to be very afraid of women, not to mention other men.

53.2 per cent rape cases filed between April 2013-July 2014 false, says DCW

Men are more likely to be harmed by other men than women are to be harmed by men. Women are socially a protected class when it comes to physical harm. White women are the most sacrosanct and least victimized when it comes to violence in the world. So, men not only have to prepare (because unlike women, we don’t worry, we adjust because nobody gives a damn about our feelings) in case we have to go at it with another man, we also have to mitigate the possibility that some woman might put a rape case on us for shits and giggles.

Maybe these dudes should stop trying to infiltrate women’s safe spaces to prove that feminists are *so mean* and should form their own groups to figure out why we need these safe spaces to begin with. (Then again, we already know what happens when a bunch of butthurt men get together.) Considering the very real fear and discomfort that women experience every day in mixed company, maybe men should stop whining that they’re not invited to the party. Their “problems” are not problems. Or hey, they can come in, fine, but they have to at least try to respect what’s going on in the room. If they can’t do that, they’ll just have to be escorted out. That’s not against the law.

The mean-spiritedness and vindictiveness of feminists has been proven a hundred times over. It requires no further proof. It’s axiomatic at this point. What Rava is doing is forcing women to abide by the rules they have tried to force on men; that we must suffer your presence when we don’t want it, regardless of any ‘discomfort’ we might feel in mixed company. When women want to invade male-spaces, we just have to suck it and deal with it. When we demand EQUAL treatment, suddenly, the womenfolk are ‘afraid’ and we must consider their widdle fee-fees.

Fuck that.

Enjoy the law being applied equally. That is what feminism is all about, right? Get over your petty fears and be as stunning and brave as we’ve been told you are.

Archived Source

The Black Matriarchy and the Perils of Retarded Pussy

Yes, this murdering bitch is a retard. Her IQ was measured at 67.

The mother charged with murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter who prosecutors say was starved and beaten entered a no contest plea on Wednesday.

Just another day in the Black Matriarchy.

Andrea Bradley, 31, and her boyfriend Glen Bates were both arrested and charged after the death of their daughter Glenara Bates on March 29, 2015.

Bradley brought Glenara’s cold and limp body to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Glenara was pronounced dead at the hospital. She weighed 13 pounds and had bite marks, numerous lacerations as well as marks from being whipped with a belt, according to the coroner.

Prosecutors said Glenara endured “a constant state of neglect and a constant state of (her parents) lashing out.” She slept in a bathtub with her own feces and blood, officials said. The couple’s other children, however, were not subjected to the same treatment.

Black women beating on their kids like master used to. But when master beat on black kids and made them sleep in their own blood and feces, that’s an eternal blot on all whites everywhere and throughout time. When black women beat their kids, black people are expected to take it, joke about it, and get over it. Except Glenara Bates will never have a chance to get over it because #blackwomen mom beat her to death.

The plea deal comes after Bradley turned down an initial deal in 2016. In May 2016, Bradley denied a plea deal that would have allowed her to spend life in prison, as opposed to the death penalty. But in November 2017, the death penalty was taken off the table.

In Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman’s courtroom Wednesday, Bradley appeared quiet, a departure from one of her previous visits to the courtroom. Her hands were cuffed behind her back as the plea was entered.

As Ruehlman read the autopsy report he made note of Glenara’s prior injuries and visits to the hospital, starvation and neglect. Prosecutors said they believe Glenara died the night before her mother took her to the hospital.

A no contest plea is treated a guilty plea for sentencing purposes and Bradley pleaded no contest on both counts. She will be sentenced Jan. 24. The maximum sentence is 23 to life, Ruehlman said.

In November, a psychologist found that Bradley is intellectually disabled. That finding means Bradley, if convicted, could not have been sentenced to death. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Experts have determined that Bradley’s IQ is in the mid-60s, below the threshold of 75 that determines intellectual disability.

Glen Bates was sentenced to death in October 2016 in a separate trial after he rejected at least two plea deals. Prosecutors said he slammed Glenara into a door frame, she was also burned, beaten and starved.

Glenara’s cause of death was acute and chronic head injuries, battered child syndrome and starvation, prosecutors said. The most serious head injuries, prosecutors said, happened when Bates swung her into a door frame “like a baseball bat.”

I have a little something for everyone involved in this sorry mess.

First, the state of Ohio. This bitch (Andrea Bradley) has been in the social service plantation system since at least 2007 when she was documented popping in narcotics and popping out babies. She was previously convicted of endangerment when another of her children was beaten to the point that the child couldn’t walk (black women have to beat their kids like master used to). She gave up custody of her kids in 2013 and got them back by the end of the year. She then had more kids. Glenara Bradley, the child that was murdered was hospitalized months before she died.

The children reported that all of the boys were whipped (like master used to do) and had all seen whippings of each other (like master used to do).

I’m not sure what the solution to this problem is. I know that the current regime of social workers and Juvenile Courts and “monitoring” isn’t getting it done. If a person regards society as a single organic whole, social work has accomplished the equivalent of administering aspirin to a cancer patient. The state taking and raising children is no option because, despite swimming in a sea of social workers, collectively, the state cannot successfully rear children.

If the state wants to maintain a social services plantation to feed and house the retards and reprobates of society, I would agree to its continuation only on the following terms: You don’t get to breed anymore. That’s goes for men and women. If you want welfare, social services, whatever you want to call it, you’re getting fixed before the first deposit hits your account or the first check hits your hot little hand. People who aren’t responsible enough to take care of themselves have no business reproducing. I can hear the sound of sphincters clinching in unison, so let me clarify. This is not a genetic fitness argument. I don’t care about your genetics in particular. Racial purity doesn’t interest me. The fact that a person seeks to be a burden on the public does interest me. The fact that a person has a demonstrable inability or unwillingness to rear children does interest me. When you beg for public money, or put yourself within the reach of the criminal statutes, you subject yourself to the interests of the public such that they can and should decide what is to be done with you. Dysfunctional people are just an unhappy fact of the human race. Dysfunctional people who are fertile and reckless is a problem that can be easily avoided.

Let’s now turn our attention to the ‘fathers’ such as they are. There are approximately six involved. The father of the dead girl and two others, Glen Bates, who has an extensive criminal record. Two of other fathers are in prison and two more are anonymous. None of the fathers provide support, according to the courts.

It’s well-known that black women use their vaginas like a social weapon of mass destruction, creating misery and death based on their sexual preferences and nowhere is that more evident than here. However, the men bear their share of the blame as well. I doubt anyone adminstered this retarded bitch an IQ test before fucking her and most women are pretty foolish, but to fuck a functional retard and not have an inkling of it would make the man retarded himself or just as reckless as the women. Black men need to stop picking this low-hanging fruit. Sadly, these retarded whores won’t wither and die on the vine because someone always has the sword of mercy in hand and is looking for a willing sheath (vagina). But fathering six children on a retarded woman is personally and socially irresponsible. Maybe these jailbirds were hard up for a piece of pussy. Maybe they needed a place to stay (because the state is good at feeding and housing women).

As for the bitch herself, what can I say? She’s dumb. The ghetto is overrun with barely functional women, surrounded by kids from multiple fathers, most of whom will grow up to be livestock for the social services plantation or the prison-industrial plantation. The game is the game. Black people seem to enjoy being in the system.

Everybody, do better. For the children. Or something.


Archived Source

The Case Against The Jedi: A Response

So, this is what it’s come to. This is the SJWs preferred hobby: Three months of acting as censors and assessing works of fiction for political and moral purity.

Tipper Gore would be proud.

The latest target is George Lucas’ Star Wars sextilogy, put in the dock for such toxic masculine notions as self-restraint, not being ruled by one’s feelings, and insufficient feminism.

Here are the most objectionable bits.

– @7:31 “Bury your feelings deep down, Luke.”

Some selective editing. Obi-Wan is not telling Luke to fuck his feelings. He’s warning him to ‘protect’ his feelings because they may be used against him. to turn him to the Dark Side, which happened to his dad.


– @7:52 They (Jedi) firmly believe that boys need to disassociate from their feelings and learn to tough it out in silence.

– @8:23 “The way we ‘turn boys into men’ is through injury: we sever them from their mothers, research tells us, far too early. We pull them away from their own expressiveness, from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase ‘be a man’ means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity.”

– bell.hooks

This is a lie. A Jedi does not disconnect or disassociate themselves from their emotions. They learn to control themselves. They control their bodies, leading their skill not merely to fight, but to survive. They learn to control themselves, mentally and physically to protect themselves and others.


– @9:20 Anakin tries to emotionally detach from his mother?

– @9:43 Anakin needs emotional support!

– @9:59 “Be mindful of your thoughts Anakin, they betray you.”

This comment was made in response to Anakin divulging to Obi-Wan that he was having…nocturnal fantasies about a certain Queen-turned-Senator from Naboo. Would the Jedi Order have dismissed him from going to check on his mom? We already know the answer to that: No. He did. All he got for his trouble was a tongue lashing. His secret marriage to Padme on the other hand would have been too much.

But Padme’s Good-Bar was that good, why not leave the Jedi for it? We’ll get to that in a bit.

– @11:04 Real masculinity is the courage to risk being vulnerable in front of others.

Anakin was vulnerable in front of Darth Sidious. How well did that work out for him?

– @11:46 Why don’t the Jedi free all of the slaves in the galaxy? Despite the Jedi’s considerable influence and resources?

Didn’t Anakin just say that Jedi are forbidden possessions? As a matter of fact, let’s quickly review the Prequels depiction of the Jedi’s “considerable influence and resources”:

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Naboo from the Republic.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Tatooine from the Naboo.

Qui-Gon has to gamble against Watto to get the parts for the Naboo’s broken ship and to free Anakin rather than just dipping in the Jedi’s petty cash box.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Coruscant from the Naboo.

The Galactic Senate brushes off any concerns about the illegal blockade or Naboo or the Sith Lord Qui-Gon fought on Tatooine.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan have to bum a ride to Naboo from the Naboo.

George Lucas could have renamed the Phantom Menace “Hitchhiking Jedi’s Guide to the Galaxy” and it would have been an accurate title.

As for the slavery piece, and because SJWs view it as appropriate to bring political criticisms against artistic works, let me draw from a historical event: The American Civil War. The bloodiest conflict in American history that claimed more American lives in a single conflict that any other and slightly fewer than all of America’s other wars combined. That was in one country.

Now imagine such a war on a galactic level with weapons to match. Few countries in the real world have yielded Peculiar Institution without delay or bloodshed. Why would beings in the Star Wars universe, commanding planets and systems and operating within the law of their own territory, acquiesce to the threats or moral grandstanding of a Jedi?

Oh, that’s right, they probably wouldn’t.

– @12:00 Jedi dogma prohibits attachments, he must satisfy his emotional needs in secret.

By now, we’ve seen that Anakin’s attachment to his mother led him to butcher a village of Sandpeople. Ordinarily I would say that Sandpeople Lives Don’t Matter because they’re a pack of murdering xenophobes themselves.

If Anakin were righteous in fulfilling his “emotional needs” he would have resigned from the Jedi Order, become one of the Lost Jedi, and taken himself and his wife off to some remote corner of the galaxy to raise a happy little Force-sensitive family. But Anakin was afraid. Afraid that he couldn’t be “General Skywalker” hero of the Republic anymore. Afraid that he would never attain the rank of Jedi Master. Afraid of losing Obi-Wan’s friendship and respect.

Anakin, like a spoiled child, believed that he could have everything he wanted and have to give up nothing. In the end, he lost everything he was and might have been.

– @12:39 “The fear of loss is a path to the dark side. Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force….Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed, that is.”

– @13:29 Yoda could have acknowledged and validated Anakin’s fears. He could have listened and shown a little bit of empathy. He could have encouraged Anakin to seek counseling for his obvious trauma and anxiety.

Except…this advice turns out to be entirely true. As noted, Anakin was afraid to lose anything and ended up losing everything.

– @14:03 In this scene, he is just afraid for the safety of his family.

His SECRET family. The family he is unwilling to leave the Jedi Order for. The family he is unwilling to give up for the sake of the Jedi Order.

Fear and greed. Just like Yoda warned him against.

– @14:31 In reality, of course, fear, like most human emotions, serves an important physiological function.

– @14:50 Emotional Domino Theory “Fear – Anger – Hate – Suffering” Also not how emotions work. And yet, this emotional domino theory is core to the Jedi belief system.

Except that is how they do work for Force-users in the Star Wars universe. When a normal person gets angry, that’s it. They get angry and they get over it. Force-users get afraid or angry, the Dark Side tugs on their sleeve like a sleazy drug dealer and asks “Hey, kid! Wanna try some Force Lightning? The first hit is free. Second one will cost you.” Once you tap into the Dark Side, it’s easier to be afraid or angry and the Dark Side is waiting to offer you more power.

(Say Thermian Argument, you maladjusted, killjoy Social-Justice-wanking dipshits. I dare you. There are not small green aliens or laser swords either. Deal with the material on its own terms or fuck off.)

How do we know the Fear-Anger-Hate-Suffering line works in Star Wars? BECAUSE ANAKIN FOLLOWED THAT EXACT LINE TO BECOME DARTH VADER.


Anakin feared losing his mother.


Anakin’s fear turned into anger against the Sandpeople, leading to their deaths (justifiable or no, it was done in the heat of passion)


Anakin still hated the Sandpeople, even after killing them.


Interestingly, the suffering created was Anakin’s own. He knew what he had done was wrong, which is why he didn’t tell another Jedi what had happened, not even Obi-Wan. He did tell his good friend, Darth Sidious however, who used this secret to manipulate Anakin iater.

And it happens again in Revenge of the Sith.


Anakin feared losing Padme. Anakin feared that he would not become a Jedi Master.


Anakin was angry with the Jedi for denying him what he felt was rightfully his, as well as the knowledge to save Padme.


“From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” (That was pretty terrible writing)


Anakin gets BTFO, loses his wife, children, and gets stuck in the Darth Vader suit.

– @16:24 “Just so we’re clear on what that means, according to the Jedi, it’s loving relationships with another person that leads men down the path to evil.”

Wrong on two counts. First, loving relationships with another person do not preclude a person from being or doing evil. Osama-bin-Laden had a loving family. Hitler loved his mommy. Plenty of murderers, thieves, rapists, stick-up men, torturers and other predators upon their fellow men had humans of which they were fond. Affection for one is not affection for all and it should not be. But by the same token, the ability to form affection is not ipso facto proof that one is good.

Second, those attachments or “loving relationships” as the author frames them, can very easily turn into justifications for all manners of evil in service to them. Refer again to Anakin Skywalker. Anakin’s “loving relationship” with his mommy led him to murder a village of sentient beings (deserving or not). His attachment to Palpatine led him to murder a (literally) unarmed Count Dooku. His “loving relationship” with Padme led him to the conclusion that slaughtering Jedi apprentices (I refuse to use those ridiculous ‘p’ or ‘y’ words) on the justification that it would give him the power he needed to save Padme’s life. Anakin plotted to kill Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Palpatine so that he and Padme could be king and queen of the galaxy.

So yes, ‘love’ whatever you make of that particular word, can very easily lead a man down the path of evil, especially when that love is not checked by wisdom or morality.

– @17:06 “By the end of Episode III, it’s been made abundantly clear that Anakin turns into Darth Vader, because he’s unable to suppress his love for the women in his life.”

It does seem to have led him down a…dark path?

But this is the hill that the author inexplicably chooses to die on because men compromising their honor, their comrades, their oaths, and their lives for the sake of a woman is just completely unheard of.

Also, it’s interesting how Anakin had these helpful female bosoms to cry into, but turned to the Dark Side anyway. Meanwhile, the stoic, self-disciplined, unattached Jedi did NOT fall to the Dark Side, but fell to treachery by someone in a position of lawful authority to which they submitted (Supreme Chancellor Palpatine).

It’s as if women do not possess the panacea to men’s woes.

It’s as if vesting more power into fewer hands with no checks on that power might result in disaster.

It’s something to think about, at least.

– @18:58 “He (Obi-Wan) instructs Luke to bury his love for Leia because, if he doesn’t his feelings will be seen as a weakness.”

It’s not as if the master manipulator and Sith Lord and Galactic Emperor won’t seize any emotional weakness he can to manipulate Luke into murdering his own father and becoming Sidious’ FOURTH apprentice. It’s not like this Sidious guy is especially practiced at using a person’s loved ones as a means of gaining his victim’s acquiesence to his evil Sith plots or anything.

Like with Darth Maul.

Or Count Dooku.

Or Anakin Skywalker.

Or Padme Amidala (thanks for the no-confidence vote, dummy).

– @19:58 “Men and boys are taught to hide their feelings because, we are told, expressing vulnerability demonstrates weakness.”

That is completely correct and completely true. Expressing vulnerability to predatory people, man or woman, demonstrates exploitable weakness, which predatory people will, shock and gasp, prey on.

– @21:58 When you really think about it, Luke Skywalker is at his very best when he doesn’t follow the path of the Jedi.

Yeah, let’s just conveniently ignore the part where Luke explicitly states that he is a Jedi, like his father before him.


The difference between Luke and Anakin by Return of the Jedi is that, Luke has abandoned his fear and his greed. He still wants to protect his sister and his friends, he wants to save his father, but knows that his duty is to stop the Emperor. Unlike Anakin, Luke does not wish to control life and death, not his own or others. He trusts the Force and he trusts his friends’ own strength to do their part. Anakin did not trust Yoda, or Obi-Wan, or Mace Windu, or even Padme by the end. He sought to control everything and ended up being controlled by Darth Sidious.

Yoda exhorted Anakin to learn self-control and he rejected the lesson, losing himself and everything he loved in the process. Yoda exhorted Luke to learn self-control. He rejected the lesson and lost his hand, but accepted it later and became a Jedi. The lesson is that by learning to control themselves to avoid being controlled by others. It also humbles the Jedi to understand that if mastering himself is a lifelong task, how could he hope master others, especially those with power like his who don’t agree with him? Most importantly, a Jedi, for all of his wisdom and power, may not have the right to exert control over others, no matter how much he disagrees with their choices (like slavery).

– @23:35 “Emotional detachment doesn’t prevent men from turning to the dark side. Emotional detachment is the cause of men turning to the dark side.”

That’s the lesson you took from this, huh? Because from my viewing, the more attachments Anakin formed, the more things he was unwilling to give up, the more things that were ultimately taken from him and the more he suffered for losing them.

The Case Against The Jedi excoriates the Jedi for a lack of insight into Anakin Skywalker’s problems and character, despite Anakin’s active efforts to deceive his fellow Jedi about exactly what was going on with him and blames Anakin’s own choices on people not named Anakin Skywalker.

Except for Padme, despite being a willing and consenting participant in all of the hot, forbidden, Jedi-on-Normie sex. Because she’s a woman and a woman can never be at fault. It’s just that fucking Patriarchy that makes them do it.

Anakin Skywalker’s problems did not come from Jedi training; Anakin’s problems came from the fact that he behaved like a sneaky, spoiled brat and got swatted down (with a lightsaber). It was Luke showing Anakin that a Jedi gives up all attachments, even to his own life, to do what is right, that showed Anakin what he had gotten wrong and how to redeem himself.

The Case Against The Jedi is ultimately a case against male self-restraint and self-mastery using the Jedi as props. There is the usual nonsense about men crying (no one has less mercy on male tears and male suffering than women) and emotional intimacy. But Star Wars showed us through the relationship between Anakin, Palpatine, Obi-Wan, and Yoda that a man should be cautious with his feelings and his precious male tears. When he trusts his feelings to the wrong person, he ends up in a walking iron lung without his arms and his legs (that’s you, Palpatine). As men, our true feelings and emotions are a treasure and we protect them as such. We do not share them easily or lightly.

Maybe you male feminists should try treating our feelings as such instead of as a clown show for the amusement and derision of your female masters. #IBatheInMaleTears