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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


Hoes Gon Be Hoes Featuring Rose Dommu

Ordinarily, I would be gleeful in watching various drones of the Social Justice hive tear each other to pieces for lack of moral purity. I read this Feminist Kulturkampf hit piece and it just reminded me that Feminism is inherently anti-male, regardless of the male in question’s sexual peccadilloes or ideology.

I see it on my Facebook feed every couple of months: a gay man complaining about women in gay bars. Sometimes it’s a complaint about annoying bachelorette parties who harass and tokenize men who are simply trying to dance and hook up. Sometimes it’s a guy saying he doesn’t feel comfortable having sex at a sex party if there are women around. Sometimes it’s some older gay man saying, “There should be no fish allowed.” That is seriously a comment on saw on a Facebook post this week.

Freedom of association also includes freedom to disassociate. Homosexual men, if they don’t want heterosexual women around, should be able to exclude them from their events and venues.

I will never be upset that I am excluded from the local Klan rally because I lack the requisite skin color or political positions, or that I am excluded from the Feminist covens for the crime of having a penis and adamantly refuse to accept guilt for the wrongdoings of men who are not me.

Dear gay men, stop telling women they can’t be in gay bars.

What if the homosexual who owns the bar says he doesn’t want women in his bar? Fuck property rights? Fuck freedom of association? If only Feminists would, or could, make an argument against rights that had any depth to it. No, women’s demand for admission to homosexual bars is purely one of convenience.

I know this might surprise you, but in 2017, women can go anywhere we want to! And furthermore, we don’t need your approval to do it! When I see these kinds of discussions on social media, there are usually a few men who comment something like, “I love bringing my girls to the club!” Well, that’s nice, but not only do women not need your approval to be somewhere, we also don’t need you to take us anywhere. We know how to drive, get on the subway, flag down a cab, or download Uber.

Women, especially Feminists, regard the gynaceum as sacred and the andron as common property. They defend “women-only spaces” as inviolate, bastions of estrogenized safety against the barbarism of rapine male hordes.

Read a few Feminist defenses of women-only spaces:

Hannah Nathanson:

Member Natalie Guevara, a 30-year-old PR manager, tells me she was nervous about whether she’d feel cool enough when she first joined, ‘but all those anxieties melted away. What I like about The Wing is that it takes the pressure off [being in a male-dominated space] and having to be “on” all the time. It’s also a place where you can be unabashed in your need and desire to connect with other women.’

Want or need to connect with other homosexual men? Nah, you can do that just fine with a gaggle of drunk hens watching you like she’s on safari in the Pilanesburg National Park.

Patricia McFadden:

Women must be able to formulate and express their own ideas as individual women and as a constituency that is affected by patriarchal laws and practices in uniquely gendered ways—an experience which no man is open to and cannot experience for as long as patriarchy defines gendered relationships to power and privilege in their present form. And when men are in women’s spaces, women tend to react to their presence in intellectual and sexual ways. Men tend to intimidate most women; even the wimpiest male has an impact on the confidence of some women, and that is a cost we should not have to incur in our own spaces.

Because “men intimidate women” women need their own spaces. And because women make homosexual men uncomfortable to flirt and fuck and dance to terrible music, they don’t need their own space because MISOGYNY!

Brandy Sudyk

The right for any group — particularly if vulnerable and marginalized — to have their own autonomous spaces is a basic principle of social justice and critical to their well-being. Women’s freedom to share their experiences and thoughts, and to organize without the presence or interference of men — their oppressors — is a fundamental tenet of feminism and has been essential to our progress. Similarly, women who have common needs as a result of discrimination in the form of ableism, racism, homophobia, biphobia, poverty, etc., have the right to exclude other women in order to promote their own interests, since only they can fully understand their particular challenges and advocate for them. There will always be opportunities for such groups to support each other in solidarity and join together where their interests intersect.

That’s right, exclusion, especially of men, since we are oppressors, is a fundamental tenet of Feminism. Because homosexual men, regardless of their preference for cock over cunt, still have a cock, they fall firmly into the “oppressor” category, and are not entitled to exclude others autonomous spaces. Only women may exclude other women (usually for being non-Feminist).
And of course, no discussion of hypocritical Feminist horseshit would be complete without Clementine Ford:

The only conclusion I’ve been able to draw from this is that women, despite being constantly told what we MUST do to avoid danger, are actually not allowed to be in control of what those preventative actions might look like. Establish women’s only spaces and you’re discriminating against men. Talk openly about the risks you face (risks that men feel completely entitled to opine on) and you’re inflicting a perverse and paranoid view of masculinity on the world that’s ‘unfair’.

Discriminating against women is terrible and awful and should never be done. Discriminating against men, well, they can all fuck right off, gay or straight.

I understand that bachelorette parties can be annoying, that they do harass and tokenize gay men, and I would have nothing wrong with someone saying, “I don’t think bachelorette parties should come into gay bars and harass and tokenize gay men,” but saying that no women should be in gay bars is a false equivalency because not all women in gay bars are there to drink through penis straws and request that the DJ play “The Thong Song,” even though the DJ totally should play “The Thong Song.” Women in gay bars are not limited to bachelorettes, did you forget that queer women exist? Trans women? Straight women with gay friends or straight women who just like gay bars or drag queens? Well, yeah, you probably did.

This is hilariously tone deaf. When Feminists screech at men about rape culture, and anyone is not anti-male to the point of insanity states some variation of “not all men” Feminists scoff and roll their eyes.

Let’s play a little game.

The FBI estimates that there were 124,000 rapes in the United States in 2015. The population in that same year was 321,000,000. Divide that in half to get the number of men (160,000,000). Assuming that each rape was committed by a different man, you are dealing with less than 1/10th of 1% of all men alive in the United States. “But what about 1 in 4 women?” Fine, multiply it by four and you’re still dealing with 1/3rd of 1%.

Why are Feminists allowed to argue that exception disproves the rule when it is convenient to them to get into homosexual bars and then allowed to argue that the exception proves the rule when it comes to rolling their eyes at #NotAllMen?

And even if you did, requiring some kind of reason for a woman to be in a gay bar, or an excuse or some gay to supervise her, is misogyny. Questioning a woman’s right to be anywhere or do anything is misogyny. It’s perfectly fine to ask cis-hetero women to be more respectful of our spaces instead of being misogynists.

Yep, you read it right. Questioning a woman’s presence = Misogyny. How long is it going to take before Feminists start arguing that making eye contact with a woman is misogyny. And no, you don’t have to “ask” a woman to be respectful your spaces; you may demand that she respect the rules of your beautiful and ancient buttfucking culture, otherwise she can skip her ass on out of there.

The real t is that misogyny is a huge issue in the gay community, and this is one of the ways it’s most frequently enacted. If you can’t dance to some shitty house song or go down on a stranger just because a woman is in the room, you need to examine what that says about you, not call for that woman’s removal.

Notice that the author has out-of-hand dismissed even the idea that homosexuals have an interest in, or a right to, exclude heterosexual women. Homosexual men have no right to their own spaces, opinions, or even comfort if, at any point, it inconveniences some woman in her personal journey of hedonism or sight-seeing the poofs in their natural habitat.

You are wrong, she is right, and if you don’t give her what she wants, she will call you names until you comply (MISOGYNIST!).

And seriously, DJs, I want to hear “The Thong Song” more, ok?

Stop appropriating Negro culture, you cultural imperialist.

On an unrelated note, Strings did a decent cover of the Thong Song:

Understand, homosexual men, you are not safe from Feminism. Oh, they will repeat the typical Marxist blather about “solidarity” and “homophobia” but when you piss them off, they will play the “male oppressor” and “misogyny” cards faster than a game of Yu-Gi-Oh! Once they are done colonizing and decimating the fraternities, Final Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Boy Scouts, and any other male-space comprised of heterosexual men, it will be your turn.

Divida et impera.


Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes Featuring Mehera Bonner

Marie Claire is truly starved for content if it is paying feminists to gripe about World War 2 movies. With every iteration of “How to Get a Beach Body” (Hint: Less Twinkies, More Burpees) successfully stripped bare of anything new or valuable like the electronics department of a Wal-Mart on Black Friday, the editors have decided to assail the public consciousness with a review of Dunkirk. And not even a good review. Discussion of the cinematography?


How about the sound?



Don’t be silly.


Big, fat no.

Instead, this review will cover Harry Styles (because One Direction makes the girls go SQUEE!) and why World War 2 needs more stories about the WIMMINZ.

That movie was fucking bomb.”

That was one reaction I overheard after watching Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan’s new directorial gift to men, who are currently spending their time fervently ranking his movies, arguing about said rankings, and—presumably—wearing fedoras completely un-ironically. Or even worse, ironically.

“Hurr-durr! Stupid boys! Fedoras!”

The opening paragraph, at first blush, is absolute throwaway bullshit. But, upon reading it again, it reveals the tone that the Mehera intends to take with the reader, especially the male reader: “I am your superior, and if I dislike it, you have no valid reasons for liking because it doesn’t align with my personal preferences.”

The thing is, I just don’t think Dunkirk is a very good movie—if your definition of the word movie is “moving images held together by a plot.” Like, yes: Dunkirk is very well-made. I felt like I was going to vomit during it, because that’s how intense it was. And if your interests include riding a visual roller coaster called war, you will love it. But if you’re a fan of films with plots, Dunkirk doesn’t play that game. It’s as if Christopher Nolan (sorry, “Nolan”) plucked out the war scene from a script, and was like “let’s just make this part extra long and call it a movie, lol.”

Then Christopher Nolan accomplished his stated goal as he said he was trying to capture the intensity, the fear, and the uncertainty of the actual rescue at Dunkirk. He actually explains this in several interviews, one of which is reproduced here.

But please, feel free to make up what you IMAGINE Chris Nolan thought, rather than take him at his word.

The film, in case you aren’t already aware due to the endless critical musings devoted to it, is about the real life battle of Dunkirk—where British and Allied troops were rescued by civilian boats and evacuated. It’s a story worthy of being told and re-told, and I really enjoy war movies in general, but still—actual stuff needs to happen. Stuff other than scenes of men burning in oil-covered water, ships sinking, and bodies drowning. If you want to argue that the non-stop violent intensity of the film was the point, and that we should feel fully immersed in the war like we’re living it ourselves—I present Harry Styles.

The One Direction band member did a surprisingly impressive job in what turned out to be a pretty major role, but I refuse to believe it’s possible for any viewer with even a semblance of pop-culture knowledge not see him and immediately go “OMG, it’s Harry Styles.” Much like Ed Sheeran’s cameo in Game of Thrones, having a pop star casually show up in a film will inevitably remove the audience from the narrative and ground them back in reality. Harry Styles is a constant reminder to the viewer that the movie isn’t real, while the entire excuse for the film’s intense and admittedly-impressive cinematography is to convince the viewer that they’re right there in it. You can’t have your Harry Styles cake and eat it too.

What exactly do you imagine was happening at Dunkirk? It was 338,000 British MEN who had been thoroughly demoralized by the German military, huddled on the beaches, waiting for the Luftwaffe to come and rain fiery death on their heads or for the Panzers to drive them into the English Channel.

It is telling that the author does not view men struggling against a superior foe, suffering, and dying, as “actual stuff”; the Battle of Dunkirk does not need a romantic subplot where Hollywood-homely girl swept off her by a young, male model soldier who she never sees again because he dies in war (Yay! Male disposability!). Dunkirk portrayed what the actual event was: a desperate and nearly hopeless battle for survival. For the men and boys on the beach, staring at the White Cliffs of Dover, it wasn’t about politics, or morals, or good, or evil; it was about getting back home in one piece.

Speaking of boys, who exactly do you think was fighting World War 2? The price of war is always paid with the wealth of men too old to fight and the blood of men too young to know better. Despite the author’s inability to contain her fangirl squealing at the sight of a skinny, beardless boy who can allegedly sing, Harry Styles is exactly the type who would have had a rifle put in his hands and told to go fight and die for Queen and Country.


But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it’s so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it’s not like I need every movie to have “strong female leads.” Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams “men-only”—and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it. If this movie were a dating profile pic, it would be a swole guy at the gym who also goes to Harvard. If it was a drink it would be Stumptown coffee. If it was one of your friends, it would be the one who starts his sentences with “I get what you’re saying, but…”

Every war in human history has been dominated by male soldiers of varying degrees of bravery. A sliver of women have ever had the desire to fight in wars (loyalty is not in women’s evolutionary interests) and even fewer have any aptitude for combat in close quarters, which was the majority of wars until the last century. Yes, it is only in Wonder Woman and other similar works of fiction that you will see a model-thin female with flawless skin trapesing around a battle wearing a bustier with matching magical jewelry and imposing her will on men.

And the author doesn’t like because of “the packaging”, “the general vibe”, “the tenor” all of this being surplus verbiage that really means “MUH FEELZ!!” And any attempt to counter “THE FEELS” with reason or evidence makes you a poopy-head…I mean a “pretentious man.”

I guess congratulations are in order for Nolan managing to unite high-brow male critics and very annoying people on Twitter under a common bromance, but to me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don’t get to do enough.

There’s never a bad time to celebrate maleness.

Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II?

It’s already been made.


And never was there a more accurate depiction of women in film.

I kid, I kid.

Here, you can have “Ladies Courageous” too.


It’s up to giant powerhouse directors like Nolan to tell them, which is why Dunkirk feels so basic.

And at last we come to the demand. Mehera Bonner demands that Chris Nolan use his notoriety and power, the fruits of a 30 year career in the film industry, to do what she wants because…Feminism. And if he doesn’t do it, why, she will call him names and insult him and his work.

I hope Chris Nolan collapses in tears and has to console himself by drying his eyes with his pile of Batman money.

It’s a summer war movie. It’ll make you fear for the future and pray that we never fight again. You might get kind of sick. If you’re like me, a random man will come up to you after and explain why you’re wrong for disliking it. But this war movie isn’t special. At the end of the day, it’s like all the rest of them.

So long as there are governments, there will be wars. On rare occasion, wars are justifiable. The greatest lesson to learn is not that war is a terrible, calamitous proposition that profits a few at that expense of many, but that no man should waste his valuable time explaining things to women. When Mehera says “I don’t like things!” you smile, pat her on the head, and go on about your business.


The Delusion of Male Privilege and The Eternal IOU

A nearly 30-year-old term is slowly slithering its way out of Feminist academia into the vulgar argot: male privilege. Fortunately, it has hit some snags along the way, as its use as caused a fierce battle between the various participants of the Oppression Olympics in that eternal game of “who has the heterosexual white male oppressed the most?”

“Male privilege” is just another weapon in the Feminist sophistry arsenal. It’s purpose is to create a sense of guilt in the target and desire to comply with the Feminist so that the negative emotional state may be removed.

Definition of Male Privilege

The origin of the idea of male privilege may be a relatively new term, but it is an idea that originates in first wave feminism. In 1869, Elizabeth Cady Stanton dropped a turd in the Suffragist punch bowl when she allied with famous entrepreneur and racist George Francis Train (no, he was not a “suspected white supremacist”; Train openly argued that white women should vote and black people should not) to finance her newspaper and a series of speeches on behalf of (White) women’s suffrage.
Suffragists (of which Frederick Douglass was one) held a meeting to discuss this problem and what should be done about it. Douglass argued that the abolitionist-suffragist alliance should focus its efforts in Negro suffrage to protect their interests against the defeated, but unbroken, power of the former slaveowners. Susan B. Anthony, a friend and mentee of Stanton, said the following against Douglass in defense of Stanton:

Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
– Susan Brownell Anthony, May 12, 1869

Stanton was the daughter of Daniel Cady, a Congressman and New York Supreme Court justice. She was indulged beyond the standard of women of her own time, as her father paid for her to be educated in classical literature, foreign languages, mathematics, and sciences. She married Henry Stanton, New York State Senator, attorney, and journalist. Meanwhile, Frederick Douglass had to teach himself how to read in secret. He escaped to freedom then fled the United States for Ireland to avoid being returned to slavery. Hardly seems like a contest.

Anthony’s statement is absurd on its face. But it is such an idea that gives life to the game of “more oppressed than thou” that Feminists have played for the past half-century. “We are the most oppressed people in the room, and if you are a ‘good’ person, you’ll do what we want.” This plays very well in nations with Christian traditions that wrongly link suffering with sanctity and that self-destructive altruism is virtuous.

In 1988, a Feminist “scholar” by the name of Peggy McIntosh took the next leap in the thinking Susan B. Anthony and unveiled the concept of “male privilege” and its partner “white privilege.”

Through work to bring materials from women’s studies into the rest of the curriculum, I have often noticed men’s unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged, even though they may grant that women are disadvantaged.

Maybe because men are not willing to engage in false generalizations about the lives of men they are not aware of.

My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture.

This is the shift in tactics between the “Civil Rights Movement” and “Social Justice.” The Civil Rights activists appealed to the “goodness” of citizens to live up to their own professed social morals of liberty and equality before the law. In Social Justice, there is no appeal to goodness but a demand that people (especially males and whites) accept and publically confess their guilt as oppressors and sinners against “Intersectionality”, regardless of what they have done or not done personally.

I have met very few men who truly distressed about systemic, unearned male advantage and conferred dominance.

Few men are distressed about “systemic, unearned male advantage” because most men live in a world in which they possess no advantage and are conferred no dominion. The majority of men are held to the standard of “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

The problem with “male privilege” is that formed out of imagination and conjecture. It is sin without absolution and guilt without correction. But just like original sin and damnation are useful tools to extract tithes from gullible parishoners, male privilege is a useful tool for Feminists to extract time and resources from gullible men.

Application of Male Privilege

The typical application of “male privilege” follows a predictable pattern in any opinion piece or dialogue concerning the topic: A Feminist complains about something, then loudly proclaims your guilt and moral inferiority as a beneficiary of “male privilege”, and finally demands concessions and services in order to temporarily remove the psychological pressure she has applied in the form of guilt.

Rinse and repeat as is needed.

Complaint-Pressure/Guilt-Demand. Three steps.

Let’s apply to model to some examples:
Nian Hu, a Senior at Harvard and “government concentrator” (may God have mercy on us all), wrote this for the Harvard Crimson:

Recently, Saturday Night Live produced a skit called “Girl at a Bar” where a woman sitting alone at a bar is repeatedly approached by self-proclaimed feminist men—“not gross guys trying to hit on you or anything”—who make it clear, through their pussyhats and their feminist T-shirts, that they are not one of those “skeazy guys” at a bar. However, after successfully convincing the woman of their feminist credentials, these men use the opportunity make a sexual advance. And when she gently rebuffs their advances, these men become angry, calling her a “bitch” and complaining that “it’s not fair.”
This is the “woke misogynist” that Nona Willis Aronowitz wrote about. This is the self-proclaimed feminist man who proudly attends the Women’s March and reads Judith Butler and casually throws around terms like “gender performativity,” but who also harasses, talks over, belittles, and sexually assaults women.

The Complaint. A fake man on a fake TV show did a fake thing that hurt her feelings. Wah, wah, wah.

What these male feminists fail to realize is that, as men, they will always be oppressors. No matter how many feminist marches they attend or how much feminist literature they read, they are not exempt from perpetuating the subordination of women. Their support of the women’s movement does not erase the fact that they, on an individual level, are capable of harassing, assaulting, or silencing women—nor that, on a structural level, they continue to benefit from a system that establishes male dominance at the expense of women. And even though male allies may genuinely feel guilty, they will continue to benefit from male privilege. The patriarchy does not offer special exceptions for men with good intentions. Men, as a class, are culpable for misogyny, and male allies are no different and no less capable of demeaning women through their words, actions, and complicit silence.

The Application of Psychological Pressure via Guilt. You are evil and bad and wrong. Sure you’ve never called a woman a bitch to her face (you don’t know what you’re missing out on if you haven’t). But it doesn’t matter because you have penis, and that means that you could, at any time, jump up and harass and assault and silence women.

It’s sort of like the scene in the Matrix when Morpheus is explaining the Matrix. Anyone can transform into an Agent and “harass, assault, or silence women” at any time.

We are all the Woman in the Red Dress, according to Feminists.

As for those men who are not threatened by the idea of losing power, who are genuinely committed to social justice—they understand that allyship is not a badge they can proudly wear and hide behind, but rather a difficult task they must undertake everyday. They understand that allyship entails consciously ceding space to marginalized communities, listening to women’s voices, and willingly giving up the power that they and their ancestors have enjoyed for centuries.

I have faith that some men can, in time, become helpful—never integral—allies to women in their fight for liberation. But until then, beware the male feminist.

The Demand. Swear allegiance to Feminism and Social Justice, accept “ally” status (useful idiot status is more appropriate) and perhaps, one day, Feminists MIGHT absolve you of your ancestral guilt.

But probably not.

Let’s try another one.

Jessica Samakow writes for the Huffington Post:

It wasn’t yet 10 a.m. on Sunday when a man sitting behind me on a Giants Stadium-bound bus cracked open two Bud Lights and handed one to his friend. “To Trump!” he said, raising his morning beer. They “cheersed,” and I leaned in, curious to hear where this toast was going.

I almost choked on my bagel. My boyfriend squeezed my hand to express his horror (or to stop me from lunging at Trumpboi behind me, I can’t be sure). We exchanged knowing glances, but we didn’t have to have a conversation about what we’d just heard. We had already spent weeks in October talking about how pervasive yet unremarkable sexual harassment is in almost every woman’s life. We’d already counted the reasons women don’t report minor (or even major) instances of assault. He’d already heard me scream at the TV during the debates about how I’m about 1 billion times more likely to be harassed than to be a victim of a terror attack, a so-called “real issue.” We talked more about rape culture in three weeks than we had in three years.

The Complaint: Trump. Rape culture! (another Feminist hobgoblin for another time). Wah, wah, wah.

Those conversations followed a year of discussions we’d had about gender-based attacks on Hillary Clinton, about the cruel way society treats ambitious women who seek positions of power, and the way some men are truly terrified of losing power in the face of evolving gender roles.

I’m not the first to point out that the Trump campaign did us a favor by exposing the deeply rooted misogyny that still runs rampant in our country. Suddenly, during a presidential election, conversations that were once relegated to feminist corners of the internet became the conversations dominating mainstream media headlines. On Tuesday November 8, the country proved its misogyny runs deeper than most of us could have ever imagined. We chose to elect a man who has admitted to sexual assault over the most qualified candidate in history, who happens to be a woman. And to be a woman who has to come to terms with that fact is deeply, deeply painful.

The Application of Psychological Pressure via Guilt. Hillary Clinton, an active participant in dirty, hardball politics, was attacked! And YOU should feel guilty about that! America is full of “deep rooted misogyny”! And YOU should feel guilty about that!
God-dammit! Why won’t you just feel guilty about it?!

So, to the men who had any sort of eye-opening moment about the realities of sexism over the last year… Here’s what American women need from you now:
Remember 2016 when you’re voting in local elections. We can’t forget how the Republican party laid the foundation for Trump’s misogyny to thrive.
Remember 2016 when you witness (or perpetuate) rape culture. Call out men who catcall. Stop asking why women don’t report assault. Stop sending vulgar Tinder messages. Question your male friends when they make a comment that demeans a woman. It isn’t enough not to be a Donald Trump; don’t be a Billy Bush either.
Remember 2016 when raising your sons. This year we learned that using the “boys will be boys” excuse to give kids a pass for bad behavior is unacceptable. Teach your sons to respect women ― not only because they have moms and sisters. Teach your sons that women are their equals, because they are equally human.
Remember 2016 when you’re benefiting from male privilege. Could you imagine if Donald Trump ― crude, slimy, disheveled Donald Trump ― were a woman? Danielle Trump would never have gotten to the White House. Recognize that the gendered double standards Clinton faced mirror the gender dynamics most women are familiar with.
Remember 2016 when conducting yourself at work. Stop talking over women in meetings. Don’t assume other men are more qualified for jobs just because they’ve been conditioned to act like they are.
Remember 2016 when you think sexism is over because we almost elected a woman president. Women have spent the last year cataloguing our own experiences with misogyny and sexism as we watched Clinton face them on a national stage.

The Demand. Kowtow to Feminism, proselytize to your friends, coworkers, and kids, and always vote Democrat.

Last one, which I had to save up like a Level 3 Super attack: Gay White Male Privilege.

On July 9th, Sierra Mannie’s article “Dear White Gays: Stop Stealing Black Culture” was published on Time Magazine’s website stating that white gay men appropriate black womanhood, and emphatically asking them to stop. This imitation of black womanhood is seen in gay slang, in who gay men pick as their icons and even in the personas featured on RuPaul’s “Drag Race” (I’m looking at you LaGanja “YAAAS MAMA” Estranja).

The response came in from a sector of white gay men who saw Mannie’s article as wrong and offensive — their cultural appropriation is really appreciation, they said. Also, criticizing white gay men for their actions is homophobic, and because white gay men have no privilege in society, we’re all in this together, sistahs! These white gay men do not get the hurt and sadness behind Sierra Mannie’s words because they do not understand the harmful impact of cultural appropriation because of their status as White Men.

The Compliant. Have we really come to this? Have black women just become this pathetic? I understand that they lust after the penises of white men so they can have a baby with light skin and gray eyes and straight hair, but fighting gay white men for it?

Shame, shame, shame.

But seriously, the complaint here is that gay, white men are “emulating” black women. Wah, wah, wah. But it’s easy for gay men to caricature black womanhood because black womanhood is a caricature of actual womanhood.

It’s getting so bad that black men are throwing on wigs and look damn near indistinguishable from the average black woman.

Being white men, they benefit not only from white supremacy but also male privilege. Yes, gay people are oppressed because of their sexuality, but it’s possible to benefit from male privilege and white privilege even as a gay person because some gay people aren’t white and aren’t men. Your sexuality doesn’t negate your gender or your race. You can be two or three things at once and two of those things grant you powerful and unstoppable privilege.
Saying you don’t have privilege when you do have privilege and insulting those who say you do is an act of privilege. Denying that cultural appropriation is a problem is an act of privilege. Denying a black woman her hurt and anger in the face of racial oppression is an act of privilege. Changing the conversation about the racial transgressions of a certain group of white men to a conversation to shame and belittle a black woman affected by those very racial transgressions is an act of privilege.

The Application of Psychological Pressure via Guilt. Yes gay men, you might be oppressed because you love the cock, but you are not SUPER-oppressed because you lack a vagina, which means you are still an oppressor, and should feel guilty about that. Disagreeing with black women is proof of your “gay male privilege.”

I wish I could make up things this goofy.

You can align yourself with black women only if you are our friends and allies but yes, you should stop talking, pretending, and acting like black women.
Why do white gay men want to spend so much time telling a black woman that her hurt, anger and disappointment is false, hate mongering, and offensive?
Is it too much to ask of white gay men that they treat Black Women as people worthy of their respect? Does it ruin your night out if you can’t “[claim] our identity for what’s sweet without ever having to taste its sour” or if you can’t “[breathe] fire behind ugly stereotypes that reduce black females to loud caricatures”? Is a black woman asking to be treated as a person so worthy of scorn? The act of cultural appropriation treats people as stereotypes and jokes so why is cultural appropriation of black women so vital to white gay male culture? And why can’t it be dismantled when it is shown to be hurtful?

The Demand. Stop emulating black women (in an absurd and hilarious way). Kiss black women’s asses. Stop using Social Justice guilt-tripping and shaming tactics against black women who complain about what you do.

As much as it pleases me to see the contestants in the Oppression Olympics kick each others’ teeth in, this is illustrative of Feminist and Social Justice discourse: They must frame all discourse between individuals and groups as oppressor vs. oppressed, so they can apply this method of Complaint-Pressure/Guilt-Demand.

What’s Wrong With It

There is nothing wrong with guilt. Guilt as a corrective trait is what makes us social creatures. A guiltless person would be an unabashed narcissist.
The idea of being a beneficiary of wrongdoing is not beyond the pale either (see the concept of the “relief defendant” in Federal civil law, who committed no wrongful act, but benefited from the other defendant’s and can be held liable for restitution).

The problem arises when Feminists take these concepts and twist them into something malicious and detrimental to the person they target with them. Guilt for the purpose of correction is as old as the world. Jesus told the woman accused of adultery to “go forth and sin no more”, in other words, correct your actions and live on. For Feminists, male privilege, and the guilt they seek to engender by using it, is not for correction, but coercion. To give an example, say a husband forgets his wife’s birthday. He apologizes, makes amends and never forgets another birthday. But every time she wants something that he doesn’t, she says some variation of “if you don’t do this, it will hurt my feelings, just like when you forgot my birthday.”

It is a cheap, dishonest trick that plays on an emotional vulnerability that the manipulator knows the target has. It is a psychological pain-compliance hold that will only be released when the target agrees to the manipulator’s demand. And it is always available to be used again.

Feminist use of “male privilege” is just emotional manipulation, played out on a social level. When any individual man protests his innocence in the face of an accusation of guilt by male privilege, the Feminists counter that he is essentially a “relief defendant”, liable for the bad acts of some man who is not him, except that, unlike in Federal court, Feminists demand endless restitution. No amount of time or resources can EVER make up for the sin of “male privilege.” It is an eternal IOU.

The Solution

There are couple of ways to deal with these tactics. The first is to figure out what the manipulator wants from you. In the case of Feminists, it will always be some form of compliance, a demand to confess your allegiance to Feminism. Occasionally it will be a demand on your time and resources. Once you recognize the demand, you can articulate that you will, under no circumstances, accede to the demand.

The second is recognize the difference between justifiable guilt and unjustifiable guilt. As stated above, there is nothing wrong with feeling guilty when it is justified, as when you, in your own person, have done something wrong, and the guilt leads to correcting your actions so that you don’t do it again. Unjustifiable guilt is guilt imposed for deeds that you have not done yourself, or deeds that you have made amends for, or behaviors that you have corrected. When you recognize the difference between the two types of guilt, you can recognize that someone is trying to manipulate you and that you should not give them what they want.

The third, and the best way is the way advised by the classic movie War Games. In any psychological battle, it takes two to play. Therefore, the only winning move is to not play at all.