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

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

What angle is this asshole trying to work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not my kid; not my problem.

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

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

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

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

I repeat: Not my kid; not my problem.

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

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

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

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

Patriarchy Acts. Rape Culture Teaches. Sexism Wants.

The Devil Is A Liar.

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

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

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

Source

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

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

Oops, that comes later.

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

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

Here are some examples MTA malfeasance.

June 21, 2017:

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

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

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

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

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

May 17, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 9, 2011:

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

Hudson Yards

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

The Sale of its Midtown Headquarters

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

Two Broadway

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

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

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

June 4, 2010:

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

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

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

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

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

May 21, 2010:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You always dance with the one who brought you.

Full Press Conference:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber With Commentary

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

One guy mistakenly believed that Google’s suggestion box really wasn’t a paper shredder with a funny post-it note attached and had the audacity to actually voice his thoughts. The author has to make the sign of the Cross against the greatest evils of our time: sexism, stereotyping, and exclusion, before screwing up enough courage to actually present an argument.

TL:DR

·Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

But you don’t understand! You are morally impure and they are morally pure! So, when they shame you and harass you and silence you, it’s okay because they have only the best of intentions!

Per the political correctness fanboys and social justice enthusiasts, there are no bad acts. Only bad people. Which is why it is “oppression” and “triggering” when you do it, but it’s “empowering” and “advocacy” when they do it.

·This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

Some might even call them sacred cows.

·The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Silly goose, discussion was never the point, only compliance.

·Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Dear white man, when you win, it because MUH OPPRESSION and TEH PATRIARCHY. When they win, it is because GRRL POWER.

Really, how hard is it for you evil oppressors to understand? It is impossible that you actually succeeded over a woman based on your own merits.

·Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression.

Utopia is just a stone’s throw away if we just give the proper well-meaning philosopher-kings absolute power over our lives.

It might even work out this time, unlike all of the other times it’s been tried.

·Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

BLASPHEMER! Is this evil male daring to suggest that two wrongs actually DON’T make a right?

What disgusting thing will he utter next? That equal treatment does not necessitate equal outcomes?

Will this madness never cease?

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Yeah, gonna have to stop you there. People don’t have invisible biases. They might have unexamined biases. They might have unreasonable biases. They might have unadmitted biases. But to suggest that someone just doesn’t know that they dislike men, or women, or whites, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, is complete nonsense. People will freely admit their biases so long as they believe that the person they are talking to isn’t sitting in moral condemnation of them.

Unfortunately, the political correctness brigade has no other tactic but moral condemnation.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Uh-oh. This cannot possibly end well.

Left Biases

·Compassion for the weak
·Disparities are due to injustices
·Humans are inherently cooperative
·Change is good (unstable)
·Open
·Idealist

The political left’s biases? Oh where to start.

Compassion for the weak: The Left does not have compassion for the weak; they have a disdain for the strong, specifically for anyone who gains anything outside of their oppressor/oppressed framework. It is why certain black men, like Dr. Ben Carson can be freely maligned, despite being “oppressed” as black men, Hillary Clinton, despite being a life-long member of the political and financial elite, can be praised.

Disparities are due to injustices: The Left takes that quote of Honore de Balzac, that behind every great fortune lies a crime, to the extreme that behind every success lies oppression.

Humans are inherently cooperative: The opposite is true; humans are inherently competitive. Humans are only cooperate when their interests are aligned.

Change is good (unstable): Not even remotely true.

Open: ???

Idealist: The idealist imagines he is creating the shining city on a hill when he’s just laying down fresh asphalt on the road to hell.

Right Biases

·Respect for the strong/authority
·Disparities are natural and just
·Humans are inherently competitive
·Change is dangerous (stable)
·Closed
·Pragmatic

Respect for the strong/authority: In the civil society, the strong have a responsibility to use their strength wisely, and authorities have a duty to use their authority justly.

Disparities are natural and just: Disparities are natural. Stephen King will never win a 100 meter dash. Usain Bolt will probably never work in astrophysics. They are both men and each owes the other the civility that comes with being men and the laws of men should regard neither as better or worse than the other.

Humans are inherently competitive: This true. Our first contests were likely for food and sex.

Change is dangerous (stable): Edmund Burke opined on the dangers of change for the sake of change far better than I could.

Closed: ???

Pragmatic: Pragmatism, like Idealism, should be tempered to avoid becoming destructive. Both can lead the holder to certain ruthless calculations that disregard the wills and desires of individuals.

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Holy smokes! Did this guy actually appeal to facts as reason? He’d better start cleaning out his desk.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
· They’re universal across human cultures
· They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
· Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
· The underlying traits are highly heritable
· They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Utopians will never let a silly little thing like biology or evolutionary psychology keep them from creating paradise on Earth, regardless of how many bodies they leave in their wake.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:
· Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
· These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
· Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
· This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
· Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Women are sensitive to their place in any social hierarchy, likely developed because fertile women were so dependent on the labor of others for their survival during significant portions of their childbearing and child-rearing years. So, they’re extroversion and gregariousness and even their neuroticism is a constant effort to maintain the favor of those with power and resources to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Men hunt, women gather. Goes back to our most primitive days. Some men didn’t get to come back from the hunt.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
· Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
· We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
· Women on average are more cooperative
· Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
· Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
· Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
· The male gender role is currently inflexible
· Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
· Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
· A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
· Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
· Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
· Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Diversity for its own sake is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If you have a commitment to facts and reason, it should not matter what the source is. If your best team of programmers is all white men, it shouldn’t matter if their product is good.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

Protect the eggs? Male disposability? This guy…this guy here is dangerously close to ingesting a red pill.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Let’s call “political correctness” by its true name: crude thought-policing. It is motivated by the same idea where kings made it a crime to insult or criticize them. Lèse-majesté has transformed into lèse-victimé.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.

·As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Yep.

Stop alienating conservatives.

· Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
· In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
· Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Never going to happen. Progressives would never deign to sully their pure minds with even the suggestion that someone has a valid reason for holding an opinion contrary to their own.

Confront Google’s biases.

· I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
· I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

And you will run into exactly the same issue that pollsters in the 2016 Presidential election ran into: people are not going to truthfully state their political positions to Progressives who will use the information to harangue them or mock them. Any conservative who has somehow managed to sneak into Google is certainly not going to out himself or herself.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

· These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

· Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
· There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
· These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
· I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Of course there is very little information as to the efficacy forced diversity programs because the reasonable inference is that these programs have not had the desired effect.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

· We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
· We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
· Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

Here’s the problem: The representative viewpoints are already available. The arguments have been argued. The positions have been laid out. But there is no room for dissent at Google.

De-emphasize empathy.

· I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Empathy is a virtue, but it is not empathy that the author’s cohorts want: It’s sympathy. They want you to allow them to emotionally manipulate you into giving them what they want. They want to say “Look at how beautifully I suffer! Oh, look how I bleed! Won’t anyone come save me from these troubles?” and for you to throw all reason to the side and submit to their will.

Prioritize intention.

· Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
· Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Oh, the “speech = violence” trope is far more sinister than the author believes. The “speech = violence” trope gives the party offended by speech license to do actual violence to the offending party and call it self-defense. They will claim that your words alone will justify their violence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

· Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

· We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
· Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
· Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

Source

Death Wish the Remake; Progressives Get Triggered

Joshua Rivera, a writer for GQ, saw the new Death Wish trailer, starring Bruce Willis.

He was not amused because Bruce Willis (originally a comedian before he became an action star) cracks a joke in the trailer.

I’ll give you a moment to recover from the overwhelming shock of the man who coined the phrases “Yippee-kai-yay motherfucker!” and “welcome to the party, pal!” says a darkly humorous thing in a movie prominently featuring death and explosions.

Now that we’re all off of the fainting couch, let’s get to Progressive sermonizing Rivera engages in and why it is so stupid.

In moving the setting to Chicago, a city where gun violence is both well-documented and highly politicized, and setting the trailer to “Back in Black”, the remake tips its hand: 2017’s Death Wish comes off as a work of cowardice and opportunism, piggybacking off hard-right fear-mongering and a government that’s completely and utterly disingenuous in its rhetoric about violent crime when nationwide, crime rates—despite rises in cities thanks to mass shootings like the Pulse massacre in Orlando—remain historically low.

Rivera serves the reader up with this run-on sentence packed with several different items that are not related to each other.

In moving the setting to Chicago, a city where gun violence is both well-documented and highly politicized

“Gun violence”? Let’s call it what it actually is: Negroes murdering other Negroes over petty bullshit. According to the Chicago Police Department, in 2011, 75.3% of the murder victims in the city were Black. As for offenders, Blacks made up 70.5%.

We’re #1! We’re #1! We’re #1!

Oh wait, this is actually not a good thing.

And now, for the really fun stat: The clearance rate for murders in Chicago in 2015 was *drumroll please* 25.6%. You have a roughly 70-75% chance of getting away with murder in the city of Chicago.

Those are the documents. No spin, no politicizing, no bullshit.

and setting the trailer to “Back in Black”, the remake tips its hand:

They should have gone with “Shoot to Thrill”, but Roth would have had to fight Disney over it (because of Iron Cash Cow, I mean Iron Man) which is probably not worth the licensing fees.

2017’s Death Wish comes off as a work of cowardice and opportunism

No! You’re a coward and an opportunist!

Name-calling is boring.

piggybacking off hard-right fear-mongering

Russians. Russians are everywhere. They are hiding under your bed. They are all up in your DMs, jacking your emails, leaking your nudes.

Nope. Only the hard-right is fearmongering around here.

a government that’s completely and utterly disingenuous in its rhetoric about violent crime when nationwide, crime rates remain historically low.

No thanks to traditionally Democrat-controlled metropoli like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, etc.

despite rises in cities thanks to mass shootings like the Pulse massacre in Orlando.

I can’t help but notice that Rivera neglected to mention that the murders done last year in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, were perpetrated by Omar Mateen, a Jihad-enthusiast of Afghani-descent.

Must have been an oversight.

But, to the gungrabbers, motives don’t matter. The gun is actually the guilty party. This is why they count suicides as “gun violence.” which is why they insist that only the police be armed, because, through the magic of POST, they will always be present to prevent or stop crimes, and gain perfect knowledge of when and when not to use their guns.

This stands in stark contrast to the state of violent crime in the U.S. during the ’70s, a decade that did see rising crime as well as some of the most notorious killers in the nation’s history.

Bullshit. America has long had a voyeuristic fascination with killers, going back to Levi Weeks and the Manhattan Well Murder. Bonnie & Clyde. John Wilkes Booth. Charles Guiteau. H.H. Holmes. Thanks to the unholy marriage of TV and yellow journalism, murderers and psychopaths transformed from local legends to national celebrities.

The new Death Wish has an entirely different context, one where guns are routinely turned on black citizens by white supremacists and white cops, where mass shootings regularly occur and lawmakers refuse to do anything about it, where guns in the hands of the populace is not a rarity but arguably an epidemic. It takes a profound level of either ignorance or craven, willful opportunism to think that this is a moment to make a film about a white man’s rage channeled through the barrel of a gun.

This is just a rewording of the previous paragraph with a conclusion about “the white man’s rage channeled through the barrel of a gun.” Yeah. And when the Black man channels his rage through the barrel of a gun, usually against another black man, as is the norm in Chicago, Josuha Rivera, and mincing Progressives like him, are as quiet as mice pissing on cotton.

Black people, understand that this is the progressive norm. They will shed a thousand tears for you being killed in a movie, but won’t lift a finger to prevent you from being killed in real life, especially when it is by your most natural predator, another black man. These progressives mean you no good. They are part of the system of your debasement and destruction. They are advocates of the system that broke the Black family. They are defenders of the system that leaves millions of black men and black women miseducated, poorly educated, or flat-out uneducated. Progressives are the beneficiaries of generations of government subsidized dysgenics practiced on Black people.

But progressives want you to be outraged over a movie in which fictional social parasites and reprobates receive their just reward as a result of the lives they’ve led. Divine retribution in the form of a man named Paul Kersey.

This is going to be the first Eli Roth movie I pay to see.

It’s A Trap! Lil’ Duval vs. The Tranny Taqiyyah

It’s Monday in America, which means that the various forces of the Kulturkampf pick up their weapons and renew their battle for the eyeballs of the nation.

A black comedian named Lil’ Duval appeared on the stereotypically black radio show, The Breakfast Club (grown men laughing at shit that isn’t funny and playing the dozens for 2 or more hours). In the course of the show, this exchange took place:

The conversation started with Donald Trump and the transgender military issue. Lil’ Duval dodges the issue at first. Charlemagne asks what would he do if he banged a tranny.

I don’t care! She dyin’!

You take away a person’s power of choice by not telling them

I mess with girls with kids, just to be sure.

Why can’t Negroes tell the difference between a vagina and an anus? I understand that education in America is not very good, but girls have two holes on the bottom side (there’s also a urethra down there, but you can’t really do anything with it unless you’re into pee).

Predictably, the tranny Twitter screeching could be heard for miles.

Laverne Cox:

“Some folks think it’s ok to joke about wanting to kill us,” Cox wrote on Twitter. “We have free speech but that speech has consequences and trans folks are experiencing the negative consequences with our lives. It hurts my spirit cause this isn’t funny. Our lives matter. Trans murder isn’t a joke.”

Janet Mock:

“This was not the first time that I’ve been misgendered, dismissed, told that I am an abomination, that I need medical help and God, et cetera, et cetera,” Mock wrote. “Boo boo: You are not original. Everything you’ve spewed has been said to me and my sisters before — hundreds of times. But there are deeper consequences to this casual ignorance.”

“Until cis people — especially heteronormative men — are able to interrogate their own toxic masculinity and realize their own gender performance is literally killing trans women, cis men will continue to persecute trans women and blame them for their own deaths,” Mock continued. “If you think trans women should disclose and ‘be honest,’ then why don’t you work on making the damn world safe for us to exist in the first place? The ‘I’d kill a woman if I found out’ rhetoric is precisely why so many women hold themselves so tight — the stigma and shame attached to our desires need to be abolished.”

Long story short, it’s your fault that trannies lie by omission that they have, or once had, a penis, because they are afraid of what might happen if they tell the truth.

Essentially, Tranny Taqiyyah.

What is Taqiyyah, you ask? From Encylopedia Britannica:

Taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”), taqiyyah defies easy translation. English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning of self-protection in the face of danger to oneself or, by extension and depending upon the circumstances, to one’s fellow Muslims. Thus, taqiyyah may be used for either the protection of an individual or the protection of a community. Moreover, it is not used or even interpreted in the same way by every sect of Islam. Taqiyyah has been employed by the Shīʿites, the largest minority sect of Islam, because of their historical persecution and political defeats not only by non-Muslims but also at the hands of the majority Sunni sect.

Unlike Christians, who must profess their faith, even in the face of persecution or death (because God is truth), Muslims are permitted to lie if they have “prudent fear” or are scared of stuff. That’s the same argument Janet Mock is presenting in defense of trannies tricking men into having sex with them (how you can be afraid of a man’s fist, but actively seek his dick remains a mystery).

Most troubling is the deprivation of agency that Cox, Mock and others seem to advance. These transgender activists scream about their own agency from the rooftops, how they should be able to do what they want, when they want, where they want, without ramifications or even disapproval. Yet men that they desire are not, in their minds, permitted to reject them on the basis that they have, or once had, a penis. How people can demand “respect” while actively denying that others have the right to their own personal and sexual preferences, is baffling.

Actually it isn’t. The wonderful thing about “Social Justice”: Other people don’t have the right to tell you no, as long as you have enough oppression points.

P.S.

As always, I have insert this disclaimer, because people are stupid: No, trannies should not be killed, or beaten, or otherwise harmed for obtaining sex by fraud. But it makes them pieces of shit for doing so.

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.

Source

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?

Nope.

How about the sound?

Nah.

Lighting?

Don’t be silly.

Editing?

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.

800px-Ilsa_she_wolf_of_ss_poster_02.jpg

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

I kid, I kid.

Here, you can have “Ladies Courageous” too.

Screen_shot_Ladies_Courageous.png

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.

Source