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

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

The horror.

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

Her feelings.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh? Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

God bless America and California über alles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent work, dumbasses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck that.

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

Archived Source

Advertisements

The Black Matriarchy and the Perils of Retarded Pussy

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

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

Just another day in the Black Matriarchy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source

Archived Source

The Case Against The Jedi: A Response

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

Tipper Gore would be proud.

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

Here are the most objectionable bits.

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

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

https://youtu.be/Z8uDQuWlnww?t=2m51s

– @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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSN5TPKMJ24

– @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.

Fear:

Anakin feared losing his mother.

Anger:

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

Hate:

Anakin still hated the Sandpeople, even after killing them.

Suffering:

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.

Fear:

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

Anger:

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

Hate:

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

Suffering:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGgODCqpFQ

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.

Source

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
-Carpenters
-Carpet, floor, and tile installers and finishers
-Cement masons, concrete finishers, and terrazzo workers
-Construction laborers
-Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers, and tapers
-Electricians
-Firefighters
-First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers
-First-line supervisors of landscaping, lawn service, and groundskeeping workers
-Glaziers
-Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers
-Highway maintenance workers
-Industrial and refractory machinery mechanics
-Locomotive engineers and operators
-Machinists
-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
-Roofers
-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.

Source