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


Cleveland Black Matriarch Murders Her Husband

CLEVELAND, Ohio — A Cleveland woman is charged with murder in connection with the fatal shooting of her 53-year-old husband.

Aviean Compton, 44, is being held in the Cuyahoga County Jail on $250,000 bond after her first court appearance on Monday.

The two have been married for five years, according to Cuyahoga County Probate Court records.

Compton shot Earnest Jackson about 10 a.m. Saturday at their home on Sebert Avenue near East 67th Street.

Compton called police and told them she shot and killed her husband. Police arrived and found Compton on her cellphone standing in the doorway. She handed her gun to the officers and surrendered without incident, according to police.

Officers found Jackson on the living room floor with multiple gunshot wounds to his chest, police reports say.

Police have not yet said what led up to the shooting.


Archived Source

Black Matriarch Murders Black Man For Walking Up On Her

A woman has been arrested in the stabbing death of Benjamin McKeel, 38, on New Year’s Eve in the 4900 block of Lorraine Street in Baton Rouge, police said.

Katrice Michelle Belezaire, 34, of 4949 Lorraine St., is accused of stabbing McKeel to death after an argument around 7 p.m.

Belezaire and McKeel were seen arguing before entering a home, and could be heard continuing to argue while inside, according to booking documents. Belezaire told deputies McKeel “walked up” on her, and she stabbed him. Deputies recovered the knife allegedly used in the stabbing, which she told them she placed on the counter afterward.

Belezaire was booked into East Baton Rouge Parish Prison on a count of second-degree murder.

McKeel not only ‘disrespeck’d’ Belezaire, but he had the nerve to ‘walk up on’ her.

Summary execution. Just another day in the black matriarchy.

Happy new year!

New Year, Same Old Feminism: Actresses and Lawyers Create ‘Time’s Up Now’ to Demand More Women In Boardrooms

In the New York Times today is an article by Cara Buckley about a new Feminist pressure group called “Time’s Up Now.” The purpose of the organization is to get more “WYMYN N BOREDROOMS” in Hollywood because “gender parity” is supposedly a virtue, but only at the decision-making level. Feminists see no need for gender parity with trash collectors. The tools of “Time’s Up” will be propaganda (why involve actresses if they don’t get to perform for the plebes?) and lawfare (Time’s Up Legal ‘Defense’ Fund which likely be drawn on to fund ruinous sexual harassment and defamation lawsuits).

Driven by outrage and a resolve to correct a power imbalance that seemed intractable just months ago, 300 prominent actresses and female agents, writers, directors, producers and entertainment executives have formed an ambitious, sprawling initiative to fight systemic sexual harassment in Hollywood and in blue-collar workplaces nationwide.

Oh, this ought to be fantastic.

The initiative includes:

— A legal defense fund, backed by $13 million in donations, to help less privileged women — like janitors, nurses and workers at farms, factories, restaurants and hotels — protect themselves from sexual misconduct and the fallout from reporting it.

This seems benign.

— Legislation to penalize companies that tolerate persistent harassment, and to discourage the use of nondisclosure agreements to silence victims.

Feminists just have to make sure that women are a protected class. Of course, all of this special handling that women require will only make women into a radioactive class and treated accordingly.

— A drive to reach gender parity at studios and talent agencies that has already begun making headway.

‘Gender parity’ is the new buzzword. When men are primarily present in an industry or occupation or institution, feminists will screech about ‘gender equality’, that ‘women are half of the population’ and that the way must be made straight and smooth for female entry. If or when women get a numerical advantage, they trot out ‘gender parity’ and screech that ‘women slightly outnumber men’ therefore perfect numerical equality is unnecessary, only that the numbers be proportional to the general population where, wouldn’t you know it, women outnumber men.

— And a request that women walking the red carpet at the Golden Globes speak out and raise awareness by wearing black.

Why not just wear pink pussy hats?

Called Time’s Up, the movement was announced on Monday with an impassioned pledge of support to working-class women in an open letter signed by hundreds of women in show business, many of them A-listers. The letter also ran as a full-page ad in The New York Times, and in La Opinion, a Spanish-language newspaper.

“The struggle for women to break in, to rise up the ranks and to simply be heard and acknowledged in male-dominated workplaces must end; time’s up on this impenetrable monopoly,” the letter says.

I get the sense that I’m on autopilot in offering this criticism, but it’s funny how feminists are so gung-ho to break the “male dominated workplaces” of the C-suite and the executive’s office, but are in no rush to break the “male dominated workplaces” of:

1% or less women
-Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists
-Brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons
-Crane and tower operators
-Electrical power-line installers and repairers
-Heavy vehicle and mobile equipment service technicians and mechanics
-Logging workers

5% or less
-Aircraft mechanics and service technicians
-Automotive body and related repairers
-Automotive service technicians and mechanics
-Carpet, floor, and tile installers and finishers
-Cement masons, concrete finishers, and terrazzo workers
-Construction laborers
-Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers, and tapers
-First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers
-First-line supervisors of landscaping, lawn service, and groundskeeping workers
-Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers
-Highway maintenance workers
-Industrial and refractory machinery mechanics
-Locomotive engineers and operators
-Maintenance and repair workers, general
-Mining machine operators
-Miscellaneous vehicle and mobile equipment mechanics, installers, and repairers
-Operating engineers and other construction equipment operators
-Pest control workers
-Pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters
-Railroad conductors and yardmasters
-Security and fire alarm systems installers
-Sheet metal workers
-Small engine mechanics
-Stationary engineers and boiler operators
-Structural iron and steel workers
-Telecommunications line installers and repairers
-Tool and die makers
-Welding, soldering, and brazing workers

10% or less
-Aerospace engineers
-Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
-Architectural and engineering managers
-Automotive and watercraft service attendants
-Computer, automated teller, and office machine repairers
-Computer control programmers and operators repairers
-Computer network architects
-Construction and building inspectors
-Construction managers
-Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
-Grounds maintenance workers
-Helpers, construction trades
-Industrial truck and tractor operators
-Insulation workers
-Mechanical engineers
-Motor vehicle operators, all other
-Painters, construction and maintenance
-Painting workers
-Refuse and recyclable material collectors
-Surveying and mapping technicians
-Water and wastewater treatment plant and system operators

The consistent pattern in all of these jobs is that they are not air-conditioned. They do not call for pounds of makeup. One cannot wear the latest fashions and do them effectively. They cannot be done by a manicured hand.

Feminists are not concerned about these “male-dominated workspaces.” Only the ones where they get to bark orders and take long lunches.

The group is one answer to the question of how women in Hollywood would respond to cascading allegations that have upended the careers of powerful men in an industry where the prevalence of sexual predation has yielded the minimizing cliché of the “casting couch,” and where silence has been a condition of employment.

If women weren’t willing to sit on the casting couch, there is plenty of room behind a cash register. But, the female sense of entitlement won’t submit to petty considerations of morality, not when her fame and fortune are just within reach and all she has to do is suck off some fat choad to get her big break.

The standard feminist rejoinder is something along the lines of “but women shouldn’t have to!” The illocution being that “women shouldn’t be able to engage in quid pro quo.” In their typically dishonest fashion, feminists refuse to even acknowledge that quid pro quo in the entertainment industry is typically initiated by the job-seeker, not the job-offeror. Ian McKellan recently got himself screeched at by angry feminists for acknowledging the theater tradition of aspiring actresses inscribing “DRR” (Director’s Rights Respected) at the bottom of their headshots, which was an offer of sex if chosen for the role.

Time’s Up also helps defuse criticism that the spotlight on the #MeToo movement has been dominated by the accusers of high-profile men, while the travails of working-class women have been overlooked.

Oh? How is that?

This was highlighted in November, when an open letter was sent on behalf of 700,000 female farmworkers who said they stood with Hollywood actresses in their fight against abuse. Time’s Up members said the letter bolstered their resolve to train their efforts on both Hollywood and beyond.

“It’s very hard for us to speak righteously about the rest of anything if we haven’t cleaned our own house,” said Shonda Rhimes, the executive producer of the television series “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Scandal” and “How to Get Away With Murder,” who has been closely involved with the group.

“If this group of women can’t fight for a model for other women who don’t have as much power and privilege, then who can?” Ms. Rhimes continued.

Better to speak righteously than rationally, right?

Cleaning their own house is doublespeak. Now that the rich women have moral sanction from the proletariat (farmworkers) they have that ever-desirable sense of moral purity with which to go forth and righteously purge the evil men (which will eventually be all men) from the C-suite and the decisionmaking positions in Hollywood.

Personally, I want them to do it.

Hollywood as an institution, is a dying beast. More people are realizing that Hollywood was subverted in the 1970sto the point that it exists solely as an instrument of social and political subversion. For proof, see the Hollywood Reporter article on the topic of domestic box office versus international box office.

Time’s Up is leaderless, run by volunteers and made up of working groups. One group oversaw the creation of a commission, led by Anita Hill and announced in December, that is tasked with creating a blueprint for ending sexual harassment in show business.

Another group, 50/50by2020, is pushing entertainment organizations and companies to agree to reach gender parity in their leadership tiers within two years. It already can claim a victory. In early December, after Ms. Rhimes pressed him, Chris Silbermann, a managing director at ICM Partners, pledged that his talent agency would meet that goal.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Silbermann lives just long enough to regret that pledge.

“We just reached this conclusion in our heads that, damn it, everything is possible,” Ms. Rhimes said. “Why shouldn’t it be?”

This is the logic of feminist extortionists in a nutshell: “If one person knuckled under to our threats, why not the next person? Or the one after him? Or the one after him?”

Another group is devising legislation to tackle abuses and address how nondisclosure agreements silence victims of sexual harassment. “People settling out in advance of their rights is obviously something that can’t continue,” said Ms. Shaw, a prominent lawyer whose clients have included Lupita Nyong’o and Ava DuVernay.

Why not? Ah, that’s right. Because you know better than any particular woman involved in situation they are in and that your wishes and desires must supercede theirs. If a woman is willing to take the money, she shouldn’t have that option. If a woman is willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement, she shouldn’t have that option. If a woman doesn’t want to go to trial, she shouldn’t have that option.

But, the feminists are in favor of a woman’s rights. Or so they say.

Ms. Tchen is spearheading the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which is administered by the National Women’s Law Center’s Legal Network for Gender Equity, and will connect female victims of sexual harassment with lawyers. Major donors include Ms. Witherspoon, Ms. Rhimes, Meryl Streep, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw, and the talent agencies ICM Partners, the Creative Artists Agency, William Morris Endeavor and United Talent Agency.

Harvey Weinstein was also a generous contributor to feminist causes. How well did that work out for him?

If once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Time’s Up has also been urging women to wear black at the Golden Globes on Sunday, to use the red carpet to speak out against gender and racial inequality, and to raise awareness about their initiative and the legal fund.

“This is a moment of solidarity, not a fashion moment,” Ms. Longoria said. A vast majority of the women who had been contacted and planned to attend the ceremony pledged to participate, she said.

“For years, we’ve sold these awards shows as women, with our gowns and colors and our beautiful faces and our glamour,” Ms. Longoria said. “This time the industry can’t expect us to go up and twirl around. That’s not what this moment is about.”

Again, I ask why not wear those hideous pink pussy hats? Or just boycott the event entirely? Because you are vain. You cannot stand not being seen. You cannot stand not being seen as ‘glamorous.’ But most importantly, you are disposable. Your replacement just turned 18 yesterday. Hollywood trades in beautiful illusions and age crushes beauty, one day at a time.

More importantly, I hope that #MeToo and Time’s Up, the latest bid by rich feminists to try and seize power from rich men with the aid and connivance of weak men, has the opposite effect that they desire. For men who want to keep what power they have and don’t need to dip their pen in the company inkwell, Mike Pence has shown them they way. For those bosses who just can’t resist the allure of young, tender, and stupid actresses, they’ll just put one or more layers of insulation between themselves and their sexual conquests; someone who will both screen women for the arrangement and serve as eye-witnesses to consensual and enthusiastic nature of their employer’s sexual activities.

Archived Source

Shaila Dewan and the Credibility of Rape Accusers

The New York Times published a piece by Shaila Dewan online to criticize the public for not believing any female who accuses any male of touchy-feely in the no-no place (after Garrison Keiller, it seems that the only place on a female that isn’t a no-no place is about a quarter-inch on her left big toe).

She took decades to come forward. She can’t remember exactly what happened. She sent friendly text messages to the same man she says assaulted her. She didn’t fight back.

“There’s something really unique about sexual assault in the way we think about it, which is pretty upside down from the way it actually operates,” said Kimberly A. Lonsway, a psychologist who conducts law enforcement training on sexual assault as the research director of End Violence Against Women International. “In so many instances when there’s something that is characteristic of assault, it causes us to doubt it.”

Partly this is because of widespread misconceptions. The public and the police vastly overestimate the incidence of false reports: The most solid, case-by-case examinations say that only 5 to 7 percent of sexual assault reports are false.

What happened to 2-10 percent? The narrative is ever-evolving. Also, how did this “solid” examination define a ‘false report’?

Nevertheless, relax guys! You only have a 5-7 percent chance of going prison on the say-so of a female. That’s a better chance of hitting than any state lottery.

But experts say that because many people are not psychologically prepared to accept how prevalent harassment and assault are, they tend to look for reasons to disbelieve. For example, offenders are more likely to choose victims who have been previously assaulted, statistics show, but a woman who reports more than one assault is less likely to be believed.

Really? We’re pathologizing skepticism now? We’re deploying the feminist head-shrinkers because some people have a preference for evidence over narratives?

Here is a look at some of the misconceptions that come up again and again when assessing whether a victim’s account is true.

This ought to be fun.

The victim doesn’t act like one.

A young woman said she was raped in a police van by two New York City officers, Eddie Martins and Richard Hall, in September. Their lawyers have accused the woman, who is 18, of posting “provocative” selfies and bragging about news media attention and the millions of dollars she expects to win in a civil case.

By provocative, you mean selfies displaying drugs and getting groped by porn actors at the age of 16-17.

“This behavior is unprecedented for a depressed victim of a vicious rape,” the lawyers wrote, according to The New York Post.

But victims behave in a wide variety of ways.

There is no one response to sexual assault. A trauma victim can as easily appear calm or flat as distraught or overtly angry.

In short, what Dewan would like for the reader to accept is the proposition that there is no behavior that a complaining witness can engage in that can diminish credibility, not even contradicting their own story or claiming pecuniary interest in offering testimony in a criminal trial (those millions of dollars she expects from a civil case against the city).

She stayed friendly with her abuser.

Some of the women who say Harvey Weinstein groped or assaulted them kept in contact with him afterward, saying that good relations with such a powerful player in the entertainment industry were a must for their careers. After the allegations against Mr. Weinstein were published in The New York Times, one of his advisers at the time, Lisa Bloom, sent an email to the directors of the Weinstein Company, outlining a plan that included the release of “photos of several of the accusers in very friendly poses with Harvey after his alleged misconduct.”

The females in Harvey’s harem prioritized their careers over revealing that Harvey Weinstein had a casting couch.

The victim may have little choice but to stay in contact if the offender is a boss, teacher, coach or relative.

Imagine that. When someone prioritizes personal profit over social good (becoming a rich and famous actress versus taking an alleged ‘groper’ off of the street), the average person who is likely to be a juror looks dubiously at their sudden moral development and rightly so. People look askance at jailhouse snitches for the same reason.

She did not come forward right away.

Leigh Corfman recently said that the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy S. Moore, sexually assaulted her when she was 14, nearly four decades ago. She said she worried for years that going public would affect her children, and that her history of divorce and financial mistakes would undermine her account. After being approached by a Washington Post reporter, she agreed to tell her story, and later said, “If anything, this has cost me.”

Corfman had children at 14? Corfman was divorced at 14?

But negative consequences are not the only thing to keep victims from coming forward. Experts point to a more fundamental issue: When the perpetrator is someone they trusted, it can take years for victims even to identify what happened to them as a violation.

This is the direction we are headed in with feminism pushing the narrative. Feminists want do away with any objective standard of rape and implement Catharine MacKinnon’s definition:

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”

In that most feminist of worlds, rape will be whatever a female says it is, whenever she says it is, no matter if it days or decades later. She will have no legal or social duty pursue her complaint in a timely manner. Rape will be a freestanding accusation above the heads of all men, regardless of facts.

Her story does not add up.

Not only does memory fade with time, but when the brain’s fear circuitry is activated, the prefrontal cortex where details like sequence and locations are recorded tends to recede, while the part of the brain that records sensory memories kicks in.

Memory fades with time. That’s a sound argument for pursuing criminal charges closer in time to the event than decades away when the complaining witness’ comfort level has reached its peak and all associated memories of any favorable or exculpatory witnesses has faded.

She didn’t fight back.

When people are mugged or robbed, they are not asked why they did not resist.

Because, for whatever reason, the purse between a female’s legs is held to be more valuable than the one on she carries over her shoulder.

But in sexual assault cases, failure to resist can be one of the biggest sticking points for jurors. Often both sides acknowledge that a sex act occurred, and the question is whether it was consensual. Fighting back is viewed as an easy litmus test. But women are conditioned not to use violence.

Females are ‘conditioned’ (feminists are never clear as to WHO is doing this conditioning) to use violence, but only against those weaker than themselves (i.e. children, other females, and men who allow it).

This is the one point where I almost agree with Dewan. Jurors are usually very…myopic in their thinking. They like to imagine what they would have done when placed in a hazardous situation. Their views vary between the grandiose and the implausible. Resistance is the clearest and easiest evidence to present of unwanted sexual contact in much the same way a black eye or a scar is clear evidence of an assault.

Jurors love smoking guns and bright lines between the good guy and the bad buy.

As much as feminists hate it, a large number of rape cases come down to the complaining witness’ story versus the defendant’s denial plus presumption of innocence.

Even so, the victim faces scrutiny of her failure to resist, and of every decision she made before, during and after the ordeal. To contrast sexual assault with other types of crime, Ms. Valliere said, she often shows a photograph of the Boston Marathon bombing. “We never said to the victims, ‘Why were you in that marathon, why did you put yourself in that position, why didn’t you run faster, why didn’t you run slower?’

Because of the presentation of physical evidence (photos, videos, shrapnel, corpses, etc.) that would make such a question flat-out stupid? Because the asking of such a question would rightly destroy the querent’s credibility in the eyes of the jury and the judge?

And the whole ‘why didn’t you run faster’ question is irrelevant as the Tsarnaev brothers’ targets were the crowd, not the runners. Last I checked, on-lookers are typically not expected to do any running at a marathon.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorneys did not pursue a defense of denying the bombing happened or worse, try to argue that the victims were culpable, they argued that Dzhokhar was a helpless flunky, a pawn of his older brother’s plan to play jihad on the infidels.

That strategy didn’t work. ‘A powerful, domineering man made me do it’ is a defense that only seems to work when offered up by a female. Funny.

Feminists like Dewan have a view of witness credibility that doesn’t mesh well with reality. Feminists would like to conceal all personal and moral imperfections of a witness in a rape case from the juror’s eyes (rape shield laws). But credibility does not turn on a witness’ moral purity (though it doesn’t hurt it either): A witness is credible when they present a persuasive and consistent story and also have a good reason for how they know what they know.

I like to refer to Sammy Gravano as the most extreme example of a credible witness who was also absolute piece of shit. Gravano admitted to 19 murders in open court. Gravano, by no stretch of the human imagination, can be considered a morally upright human being (he started an Ectasy while in the Witness Protection Program). However, his testimony helped put the previously untouchable boss of the Gambino crime family, John Gotti, in prison for the rest of his life. Gravano was ‘economical’ with certain parts of the truth, but he admitted his part in the Gambino operations, his function in the organization, and how he knew Gotti was calling the shots.

Feminists will not serve anyone’s interests, not rape accusers, and not defendants who are in most need of protection from the legal system, by demanding that people shut their eyes to testimony and narratives that don’t make sense.


Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: Matthew Facciani

I’m running a two-for-one special on male feminist nonsense today. Matthew Facciani of Patheos blog is here to lecture men of how we may better serve our rightful deity, feminism.

Now with the heightened cultural awareness regarding sexual violence, more and more women are speaking out against the sexism and abuse they have been dealing with since, well forever. Women are sharing their stories ranging from assault to harassment. All of these women speaking up about the frustrations of sexism may make us men feel defensive.

But instead of shutting down when you see a woman post online that “men are trash” why not take a moment to reflect on what inspired her post? Why not try to read it with an open mind and see her perspective?

Why should I? I am not obligated to interpret a female’s intentions that run contrary to her words. I am not obligated to contextualize her statements for her. I am not obligated to drag her emotional caterwauling into the realm of reason.

As Kanye said, “that’s a really bad way to start the conversation.”

First off, I used to be a “nice guy” when I was younger. Basically, this meant that I felt entitled to relationships because I was so nice to women. I got these messages from our culture that men should “get the girl” if they are just persistent and nice enough to break through the “friendzone.”

Ah, good old blue pill logic. Be nice to females and they’ll be nice to you. Throw your coat over those mud-puddles. Pay for multiple food excursions. Lavish her with gifts. Maybe, just maybe, if the stars are properly aligned and the moon is high in the sky, your princess on whom you have expended your money and more importantly, your time, might, MIGHT reward your efforts with her pussy.

Thankfully, one of the great things about the red pill is that a man learns that sexual attraction cannot be negotiated. Sexual acts can be negotiated, but not attraction. You can enhance your attractiveness and you undermine attractiveness, but no amount of good boy points will buy a man attractiveness in a female’s eyes. Good boy points are worth less than Chuck E. Cheese tickets and harder to get.

Early on in my dating life, a woman who I was seeing told me she wasn’t interested anymore. I was devastated. I was so nice to her! We got along so well! How could she not want to see me anymore?!

So I kept trying to get her to change her mind. It felt unfair. Finally, she told me she never wanted to speak to me again. I was crushed. Not only did I lose the relationship, I lost the connection entirely.

Maybe you weren’t as ‘nice’ as you thought you were. Maybe she thought you were an ugly prig. Maybe she was keeping you in a holding pattern while she pursued other options. As females will often tell men ‘a woman has the right to change her mind.’ That’s true enough. And I thank a female for giving me a straight up answer because that means I don’t have to give them any of my time or my attention. And that is what the game is between men and females and probably always has been. Females want as much of a man’s time as possible without having to give him any pussy. Men want to get pussy with a small of a commitment of time as possible.

That all happened a long time ago and I learned a lot from it. I started questioning lots of other toxic messages I may have learned. I started listening to women’s stories more and studying feminism. It was like a snowball of learning. The more I learned about inequality, the more I wanted to help out too. I spent the past 5 years or so being involved in a lot of gender equality activism. But I am far from feeling “enlightened” about feminism! I am constantly learning about ways I can do better.

So you are crying over pussy you never got? And the pussy you never got was your feminist equivalent of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. You allowed a female to fuck with your mind, to twist your entire worldview, and you never saw her vagina once? Never looked at it, never smelled it, never licked it, never rubbed it, never fucked it.

Vaginas. They need to be Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. Vagina has ruined more men’s lives than heroin. Females cannot be trusted to just walk around with this highly addictive and often lethal narcotic between their legs.

Recently, I wrote about how I didn’t always do the best job amplifying women’s voices. I was new to feminism and was told I should “use my privilege for good” and didn’t fully realize what that meant. I just started sharing feminist 101 points on my Facebook that ended up getting me thousands of likes from my thousands of liberal Facebook friends. However, many women were making the same points as me. So why didn’t I just share their words? Another toxic behavior men can learn is speaking over women. This was coined to be “he-peating.” I was basically centering the myself in the conversation of feminism instead of just amplifying the voices of women doing the groundwork.

I didn’t even realize I was doing this until it was pointed out to me. Now if I want to share some important point about feminism, I just share it from a woman who said it first. The only time I talk about feminism with my own words is when I try to explicitly address men, such as in this post.

Those 101 points were bullshit. Regardless, maybe their words sucked and yours were just better. You basically Caitlyn Jenner’d the feminists and came in, naive and wide-eyed and fresh-faced to feminism and did a better job articulating feminism than the feminists who have wasted their lives imbibing reheated class warfare.

Men: use these conversations as an opportunity to grow as a person. These women are giving you insights on how to treat people better. Listen to them. It may temporarily feel uncomfortable to realize you did something sexist or made some mistake, but isn’t it better to catch it now then to continue to make the same mistakes?

A ‘conversation’ implies an exchange of ideas. Delivering one’s testimonial followed by a call-to-action is not a ‘conversation’; it is a lecture in mortal danger of becoming a sermon. But notice the hypocrisy: Feminists claim a right and moral duty to make any given man feel ‘uncomfortable’ in the name of proselytizing feminism. But if a man makes a female feel uncomfortable in pursuing sex, that’s the worst thing ever and he must be condemned and shamed. Female’s feelings are held inviolable. Men’s feelings are optional.

The only mistake most men need to correct with respect to females is investing time and effort in females who hold them in low regard or pursuing females who are not interested instead of investing their time and effort in their own betterment or pleasure.


Male Feminist Splits Hairs On “The Brutality of the Male Libido”; Men Aren’t Bad, Just Toxic Masculinity

Some additional Stephen Marche commentary by a lecturer of philosophy at Northeastern Illinois. I have nothing clever to add about the background of the author, Tyler Zimmer. Another male feminist crawling up out of the termite-infested structure of academia.

While bent over locking up my bike in Chicago a few years ago, I heard the all-too-familiar sound of a wolf whistle. I turned around to get a look at the jerks accosting some woman on the street, only to realize I was the one who was being cat called. A man passing by from behind had seen my long curly hair and tight jeans and mistaken me for a woman. When I turned around to face him, he was shocked and started apologizing profusely. In so many words, he was saying: ”This is an unacceptable way to behave toward a man.” And we both knew, if I were a woman, there would be no apology.

And if you were in the county lockup, there would not only be no apology, you’d have several more ‘admirers’ who were sincere in their affections because of long curly hair and tight pants.

This is the double standard at the heart of masculinity: Men are taught to regularly say and do things to women that they would never say or do to other men, that they would never want men to say or do to them. That is not due to some timeless “male libido” driving their behavior. It’s because masculinity is founded on the myth that men alone are rights-bearing persons and women are subordinate, passive, second-class beings who either need the protection of or deserve to be subjected to men.

Men are also taught (by who, these advocacy pieces are never clear on, possibly fairies or some other imperceptible being) to tolerate physical and mental abuse from females that they would not tolerate from any man. They learn it from their mothers (oh, that’s a girl! You can’t roughhouse with them! Their not like boys!) and from bluepill males (you don’t ever put your hands on a female!) So yes, double standards are at the heart of masculinity because females and men alike recognize that men are the stronger and more enduring of the sexes and the only reason they can dare to try and lay this double standard on men is because we are strong enough to bear it. It is not in our best interests as individuals or as a class to bear it in any circumstances, and certainly not in a gynocentric society, but that’s another story for another time.

And females can hold all of the rights of men when they bear all of the social and legal responsibilities of men.

Still waiting to hear back on that Selective Service thing. Females?

In a recent New York Times op-ed, however, writer Stephen Marche uses some outdated Freudian ideas about sexuality and gender and the recent explosion of allegations of sexual misconduct to argue that male sexual desire is inherently brutal and oppressive. Thus, there’s no use, as Marche puts it, in “pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be.” So, feminist ideas are practically useless. The only fruitful thing men can do to respect women as equals is repress their natural urges.

Marche didn’t just use some outdated Freudian ideas; he flat out accused men of inherently being monstrous, which puts him in lockstep with a great many revered ‘thinkers’ and agitators of the feminist movement (MacKinnon, Dworkin, Morgan, Daly, Brownmiller, Solanas, et al.)

In truth, the very problem with masculinity Marche describes in his op-ed is too much repression: The rules governing masculinity require men to be stoic, to repress virtually all of their emotions (except anger). This leads many men to severely underdevelop their own ability to analyze and communicate about their own feelings. Our culture, not men’s nature, has enforced this emotional repression.

Where might I find these ‘rules of masculinity’ in writing? Stoicism is not a state of being, it is a tool for interacting with the world and the people in it. Stoics recognized that universally any given man can control nothing but his own thoughts and his own actions. They also recognized that a man did not have any inherent right to control the thoughts and actions of anyone but himself. Stoicism requires emotional homeostasis, the subordination of emotion to reason, especially those emotions that arise from erroneous judgments. A Stoic man seeks to tame his Pathos so that he cannot be manipulated by others because, as pointed out before, Stoics believe that a man has the right to control only his own thoughts and actions; as a corollary, no man has an inherent right to control the Stoic’s thoughts or actions.

Indeed, every man can think of at least one experience where he was punished for failing—whether intentionally or accidentally—to obey the dictates of these masculine rules. I remember a playground game where my friends and I would re-enact scenes from Disney films. I volunteered myself for the role of Ariel from the Little Mermaid. She was the protagonist and, it seemed to me, the best character to be. My peers bullied and teased me for this failure to obey the rules of compulsory masculinity for weeks afterward, and “Ariel” became a standard go-to insult in arguments.

In a world where females largely control the household, the primary purveyors of this punishment for failure to obey dictates is a female, specifically, a single mother. Here is where the author inserts the obligatory sleight-of-hand that all feminist discourse demands: He conflates the petty cruelty of children to a ‘dictate of masculinity.’ It is a minority of people who cannot comb over their childhood and find some instance of childhood teashing, bullying, or shaming done to them by some beastly, non-Stoic child who wished to exert power at the expense of their target. The author fails to point out that the petty power plays of children are despised in men as we grow larger, stronger, and, hopefully, more rational. Men are expected to moderate their natural strength with reason, wisdom, and again, hopefully, mercy. Otherwise, we’re just clubbing each other over the heads with sticks.

Females, on the other hand, never grow out of childhood power politics. The same tactics small girls practice are mastered by adult women: Out-grouping, gossip, shaming, physical attacks, shunning. These tactics degrade comraderie and social cohesion in any group they are introduced in, but the feminist modus operandi can best be summed up by Robin Morgan in the Redstockings Manifesto: “We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.”

This is the kind of masculinity that also teaches men they don’t have to ask permission to act on their sexual desires. They’re supposed to take charge and have no reason to respect women’s autonomy. This is what feminists mean when they say sexual harassment and assault are about power, not desire. It’s our culture, not our libidos, that shapes the way men act upon otherwise healthy, run-of-the-mill sexual desires. In itself, there is nothing inherently brutal in a man who is sexually attracted to a woman he works with—no more than there would be if a woman desires a man she works with.

But there is a difference between discreetly (or silently) deriving pleasure from someone’s presence, on the one hand, and imposing one’s desires on that person, especially if they’re unreturned or unwanted. The difference here, as the feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky puts it, is the difference between healthy eroticism and rituals rooted in toxic ideas about masculinity.

Antonio Gramsci called. He’d like his Cultural Hegemony back, if you don’t mind.

I don’t like doing this because after awhile, it just tastes sour, but the success of the 50 Shades of Grey franchise, among females, has largely put the lie to this claim of ‘respect female’s autonomy.’ Despite feminist whining about the nonexistent rape culture, females, not men, have defined what are and are not acceptable sexual customs and rituals. Females define these customs and rituals by the nature and actions of the men they choose to have sex with. 50 Shades is the most recent example but not the only. Books, TV shows, and novels have been gobbled up by females in which a bored, and usually boring, female is whisked off on an adventure by a man who is on the path to glory, fame, or self-destruction.

Females are the gatekeepers of sex. Men merely observe, note, and perform what is necessary to get through the gate.

If a man wants to act on his attraction, or sexual urges? Here, communication, the very thing modern notions of masculinity train us away from, is key. Genuine communication is a two-way street; it presupposes that both participants have an equal right to withdraw from the interaction or decline an offer. Men already understand this to some extent, because this is how men typically behave in interactions with other men.

So, relating to women as equals, as genuine peers, doesn’t necessarily require repressing desire. Instead, it requires coming to terms with the fact that masculinity trains men to have great difficulty recognizing women—or, indeed, anyone that presents as feminine—as persons, as agents, as authoritative and worthy of respect, and then making an effort to see and treat them that way.

Females actively repudiate agency when possessing agency does not benefit them. If men are always to be held responsible for their actions, why should men respect the ‘selective agency’ of females at all? If females are allowed to offer up their varying forms of ‘the Devil made me do it’, but replace the Devil with ‘culture’, ‘medications’, ‘stress’, ‘fatigue’, ‘post-partum’, ‘PTSD’, ‘I was afraid of a man’, ‘Patriarchy’ et cetera ad nauseum, then females are not agents at all.

A few years before my own experience with a catcall, I saw a young woman walking down a Chicago street with a milkshake in hand. A man watching her pass by shouted, “Titties!” at her. Without skipping a beat, she turned around, threw her milkshake at him, and continued on her way. Those of us on the street chuckled in admiration as the man stood dripping from head to toe with chocolate milkshake.

So, when one man assaults another man for words, that’s bad and evil and toxic masculinity. When a female assaults a man for words, you chuckle in admiration?

Yeah, fuck you, you hypocrite.