Aspiring Female Oligarchs Blame Bro Culture for Not Being Oligarchs

USA Today published an article today blaming the lack of “Women in the Boardroom” on Bro-Culture, or men associating in ways that feminists disapprove of.

“Bro Culture,” the exclusionary, male-centric vibe at some companies that’s led to a spate of powerful men such as Uber CEO Travis Kalanick losing high-profile roles is under heavy assault.

Misogyny is the new blasphemy.

However, many women remain skeptical that their complaints and the recent outcomes will make a dent in what they view as long-standing issues of inequality and harassment in the business world.

Women will rarely succeed in outperforming men, but they always succeed at out-complaining men.

Why is this?

Because females are rewarded for being weak.

A female’s tears and complaints get her what she wants.

A man’s tears and complaints get him scorn and derision.

“Will people stop sending memos about what kind of sex is appropriate at a company party? Likely,” says Jessica Rovello, CEO of interactive content company Arkadium, referring to a memo that Kalanick once wrote. “But will this change the way people operate? Probably not.”

Ingrained male habits die hard, Rovello says, recalling countless meetings where, as the only woman in the room, questions she asked were answered with the speaker addressing a male colleague.

I wouldn’t address her either. Females in the corporate setting have successfully turned every word, every glance, every gesture, into an actionable offense that could cost the offending party and the company millions of dollars and one or more people their jobs.

Origin of the species

The word “bro” is a white appropriation of the African-American greeting derived from “brother.”

But as a term describing an ethos, bro culture has come to represent a testosterone-charged group reminiscent of a sports team or frat house, and for some harks back to powerful white privilege that has caused women and minorities to struggle for equality since the founding of the country.

It’s a passive-aggressive slur used by Feminists and Social Justice Warriors against any white male who offends them.

Please, continue.

At its core, bro culture aims to create a space where boys can be boys, says Michael Kimmel, founder and director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University and author of Angry White Men: Masculinity at the End of an Era.

What we mean when we say ‘bro culture’

“It’s a reaction against the entry of women into virtually every public space, which they see as an invasion,” he says. “Once upon a time, every place was a locker room.”

Why is the “locker room” such a magical, forbidding place to these feminists? Here’s a free clue from someone who has been in the locker room:

Locker rooms fucking stink. Sweat-stained clothes, sweat-stained gear, sweat-stained towels, dirt, grass, mud, and blood are the wonderful bouquet of smells you get to enjoy in a locker room. Showers that rarely get cleaned. A couple of vending machines if you are lucky. No normal person would just want to hang out in a locker room.

But when your friend and teammates are in the locker room with you, the guys who you have just played a three-hour game against another team, guys you have trained with, played with, fought with, laughed with, cried with, bled with, then the locker room is not that bad of a place.

When feminists sneer about “locker rooms”, the thing they are actually attacking is male camaraderie, friendships between men born out of mutual respect and shared experience. It is evident in the feminist attacks on male spaces. The desired world of feminists is one where men scramble for the approval of females rather than the respect of other men.

Echoes of Wall Street

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which battled Wall Street on the behalf of women decades ago, says women continue to come forward even though the agency hasn’t filed any major financial industry sex discrimination cases in New York City in recent years.

“That doesn’t mean similar discrimination is not occurring. We certainly have continued to see allegations like that,” says Raechel Adams, an EEOC supervisory trial attorney who worked on one such case 13 years ago.

Every female is a lawsuit waiting to happen. She is a frag grenade with tits.

Naturally, she runs to the biggest, baddest alpha male on the block to punish men who have offended her: The government.

“Culture at work is so long-standing, and it’s just impossible to beat it down,” says Allison Schieffelin, who won a Wall Street discrimination settlement a decade ago in a case that showed bro culture is hardly a new phenomenon.

Case-in-point: Schieffelin worked for Morgan Stanley and later sued the company for “sex bias” (wah! They aren’t promoting a strong, independent woman like me at the speed I deserve!). She ran to the EEOC to defend her feminine honor against Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley saw the writing on the wall and settled for $54 million of which Schieffelin received $12 million. Where did the rest of the money go?

If you answered “the government” you win the prize of…the pleasure of being right.

$42 million went to the government, thanks a female pointing the finger at the company she probably told an interviewer she would love to work for and would be an amazing employee of and it was her dream to be at.

A female protects no secrets but her own and holds faith with no one but herself.

Serious consequences for bad actors

Even so, women working in Silicon Valley have made men think twice about the potential consequences of indecent behavior.

Venture capitalist Justin Caldbeck was forced to resign from Binary Capital after being accused by many women of inappropriate advances during business negotiations.

Former Uber engineer Susan Fowler wrote a detailed blog post in February about the ride hailing company’s sexist environment. Her charges started a cultural tailspin that led co-founder Kalanick to resign in June after eight years of helming his $70 billion startup.

You continue doing business with females, you get what you get.

And Google fired engineer James Damore Aug. 7 after he questioned the tech giant’s diversity program.

Questioning the official narrative gets you shit-canned. Misogyny is the new blasphemy.

Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit organization that champions equality for women, says there is no question that sexual harassment is rife in all types of workplaces. Nonetheless, outrage over bro culture has not been unanimous.

Men and women in the tech industry stood by their embattled colleagues, characterizing their downfalls as witch hunts. “How is it that men should pay with their careers for a moment of weakness?” asks Michael Petraeus, a start-up entrepreneur who calls McClure’s ouster a “crucifixion.”

Loyalty? Surely not! Haven’t these infidels heard to the good news of “Listen and Believe Her”?

Wall Street’s cautionary tale

History suggests that it may take far more than a paper billionaire’s demise to clean up bad behavior.

A few decades back, Wall Street was riddled with the same sexual discrimination issues as junk bond and derivatives wizards reinvented investing much the way today’s tech entrepreneurs have disrupted the taxi and lodging sectors. Their success often bred a feeling of invincibility and supremacy.

But some women wouldn’t stand for it. In 1996, Pamela Martens and two other women filed a federal complaint against Smith Barney, which had doled out 95% of its brokerage jobs to men, according to the lawsuit.

The case became known as the Boom Boom Room lawsuit, after a Smith Barney basement party room from which women were barred. Because all employees had signed agreements to take any claims to mediation, trial revelations were avoided in exchange for mediated settlements for nearly 2,000 women.

Irony of ironies, the Boom Boom Room case came about because of women signing arbitration agreement, and then failing to abide by it.

The settlement in that case called for Smith Barney to hire and train even more women, which is akin to inviting even more snakes into your house after one bites you in your sleep.

Feminists complain mightily about Wall Street being a No Girls Club and not being invited to off-hours excursions with male co-workers. Surely such strong, independent creatures could start their own All Girls Club.

Why the hell would they? It comes back to loyalty. There are hundreds of articles of women triumphantly crowing about how they “stuck it” to their former employer for millions of dollars for the glory of womankind. Why would any man bring a female along when any part of a conversation might become the basis for her multi-million dollar EEOC discrimination lawsuit?

Females have become personal and professional liabilities to most men and men are limiting their liability by keeping their professional and personal contacts with females as limited and public as possible.

Source

Amanda Marcotte: Male Fragility Is The Root Cause of “Terrorism”

Amanda Marcotte sat down with fellow Feminist shit-shoveller Fiona Helmsley to try and link a fat chick getting hit by a car with “toxic” masculinity. Let’s enjoy.

When author Fiona Helmsley stopped by Salon to talk about her book “Girls Gone Old,” it was shortly after a pack of white supremacists rained terror on the Virginia town of Charlottesville. Helmsley writes about toxic, violent masculinity in her book and naturally, the conversation turned to what that has to do with the events in Charlottesville.

The people who actually bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are responsible for the violence caused by the people who did not (illegal mob of SJWs and counter-protesters)? The legitimate demonstrators are responsible for being pelted with cement-filled soda cans, urine ballons, and glass bottles?

The people who bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are guilty by association for the actions of an unrelated, unassociated schizophrenic man, despite loud insistence that it is wrong to associate Jeremy Christian with Bernie Sanders or James Hodgkinson with MSNBC-junkies?

“It’s your own fault for wearing that short, free-speech skirt, you fucking slut” is answer given when a mob of socialist censors show up intending to do violence.

And the root cause of it all, of all terrorism must be … toxic masculinity.

On the dangers of male fragility:

I think the single greatest threat, and I’ll say to humanity, at the moment is male fragility, and men just not being able to process their feelings of insecurity, their feelings of anger. I mean, when men get mad, they lash out.

You see it in school shootings. You see it in terrorist activity.

Most of the solutions to problems, I think, are simple. You know, like kindness and empathy: The basic things that your mother teaches you. But I think if men could be more honest and reflective about what them feel insecure.

Question: Didn’t James Fields have a mother to teach him “kindness and empathy”? Didn’t he likely have a life full of female teachers to teach him “kindness and empathy”?

This is the feminist narrative: Any act of violence, done by a man, is the result of “male fragility” and “toxic masculinity” which can only be cured by being “kind and empathetic” which are traits inherent in females (have you tried being more like the girls?).

Meanwhile, when a woman engages in violence, as many do, it is because some man made her do it, or she was under stress, or she was mentally ill.

When a man engages in a bad act, it is a result of his inherent male inferiority (toxic masculinity). When a female does a bad act, it is because of outside forces interfering with her natural feminine goodness.

Only by refining the “toxicity” out of men through feminism does a man gain “kindness and empathy” and become New Feminist Man (a beta pussy).

On what men are afraid of:

What they were chanting in Charlottesville: ‘You will not replace us.’ Who is trying? Who is trying to replace you? We’re just trying to make things more of an equal playing field for everyone.

I think it’s just the way that society raises them. Women are raised to have some concern about the way that they look, and they’re encouraged to be more sensitive. A lot of men aren’t.

They were actually chanting “JEWS will not replace us.”

As per the World Jewish Congress:

Your premise is wrong. So I can ignore the rest.

On the performance of masculinity:

And it’s that performance thing, too. Men perform for other men. When you get men alone in a group, it’s always very different than when you get a man one on one. There’s definitely, like the performance of manliness.

It’s also like the scariest thing, for anyone probably. For being a woman, for being somebody who’s gay, for being somebody who’s Muslim, to walk down the street and there’s a pack of guys, because it’s just, you know, the performance of masculinity can be so dangerous.

Even talking about this….Men get so mad when they hear women talk about them this way. They get so defensive.

And yet, women get so mad when they hear men talk about hypergamy, or AWALT, or Feminism, or alpha fucks, beta bucks. They get so defensive.

I guess that just part of the performance of femininity, which I define as making sweeping moral pronouncements against men and offering no proof sufficient to implicate men in general of being what Feminists claim that we are.

Source

Jess Phillips and the Tyranny of the Male Feminist

My second-favorite Labour MP (second because there’s Jeremy Corbyn and the heterosexual white males always have to win) Jess Phillips attended the Edinburgh International Book Festival. While there, she had some interesting things to say about “left-wing men.” Compliments? Of course not. This is men we’re talking about. Nope, Jess wanted to complain about how left-wing men are the absolute worst.

A Labour MP has claimed that left-wing sexists are the worst of them all and that men on the left are the “absolute worst”.

Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, accused left-wing men of benign neglect in the fight for sexual equality.

She told the Edinburgh International Book Festival the “well-meaning, left-leaning” men were worse than what someone else said are the “out and out sexists of the right”.

Benign sexism vs. Out and out sexism?

This is going to be better than any Clegane-bowl could possibly be.

She said: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst”. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Keep in mind that Phillips is the same woman who wanted to ban men from running for office under the Labour banner until women achieved “parity” with men.

Phillips does a good job exposing two Feminist lies about men and power and the type of man who supports Feminism from a position of power. The first lie exposed is that men in power are in business for their fellow men. This has been untrue since the beginning of civilization. Men in power are in the business of retaining their power, not to help other men.

There is no Patriarchy. But there is an Oligarchy and feminists have proven very useful tools of that Oligarchy to keep men without power from having a chance of getting power of their own. That is what Feminism is and has always been: Females who were part of the Oligarch class, but excluded from being Oligarchs themselves, demanding to become Oligarchs in their own right. To rule over inferior men as they saw similarly situated men do. Feminists became willing servants to tyranny for the promise of power.

These same oligarchical men freely support better female representation in government, in the C-suite, in Hollywood, in universities, in the military, etc. do so at no cost to themselves. They intend for someone else’s ox to be gored, not their own. The female representation in government will, by Phillips own admission, be paid for by excluding men who aren’t already in positions of power.

Ms Phillips told a tale of how a left-wing journalist at the Guardian had told her Harriet Harman was not good for women and that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

Although it was thought she was referring to Seamus Milne, the Labour Party director of communications, both parties denied this.

The Labour MP said sarcastically: “So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously,

“I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality]”.

It might have been Owen Jones. I have no proof of this. However, Jones can hardly be stopped when it comes to fellating Comrade Corbyn’s Commie Cock.

She also said that while left-wing men think they want equality for women, “they don’t think of you on the same level”.

Of course they don’t think of you as on the same level. A beggar is never on the same level as a giver. So long as Feminists run around begging powerful men to give them things, then they are admitting that they are inherently not on their level.

Do for yourself and be treated like an equal, or beg and be treated like what you are.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she continued.

That…is a strange thing to think about before going to sleep, but this is Jess Phillips we are talking about. However, it is interesting that Phillips is objecting to men THINKING in a way she doesn’t like at the same time she is objecting to men not acting in ways she does not like.

Ms Phillips also added that women are completely missing from Labour Party industrial strategy because it was all about “men with shovels”.

Perhaps women ought to pick up some shovels if they want to be included in a conversation about industrial labor. Oh, wait, that’s not an air-conditioned, C-suite job or a ministerial post where a woman would get to order men around.

She said she is abused on Twitter a lot by “dunder-heided Neanderthals”, and revealed that after her friend Jo Cox MP was murdered she reported all the death threats she received to West Midlands police, and it was “quite a lot”.

That’s what the Block button is for. If a brutish, pussy-grabbing, evil male like Donald Trump can have someone manage his Twitter, you would think that a smart, empowered female like Jess Phillips could get one as well.

This latest spat between Jess Phillips and men in the Labour Party demonstrates the type of men in power that Feminists ally with: Those who already have their boots firmly placed on the necks of the supermajority of men who lack power and are looking for any excuse to press down even harder. The male feminist aspires to benevolent tyranny, to decide when any particular man gets to succeed over any woman.

And that is why Feminists are the Handmaidens of Tyranny.

Source

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

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

The Billy Graham Rule and Self-Preservation

This puff-piece appeared on the Harvard Business Review website by Drs. W. Brad Johnson and David G. Smith, professors of psychology (mind-fucking) and sociology (Socialism) respectively. The article’s primary purpose to shill their new book, “Athena Rising: How and Why Men Should Mentor Women” (HA!), by excoriating who have enough wisdom to avoid putting themselves in compromising positions.

When U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said that he would never have a meal alone with a woman who was not his wife, he was invoking the well-worn “Billy Graham rule”; the evangelical leader has famously urged male leaders to “avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” Translation: Men should avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. Graham has been known to avoid not only meals but also car and even elevator rides alone with a woman. The reason? To avoid tarnishing his reputation by either falling prey to sexual temptation or inviting gossip about impropriety.

Billy Graham also avoided handling the money of his ministry for the same reason. And guess what?

IT WORKED.

Have you heard of any scandals involving Billy Graham? Have you heard of Billy Graham doing meth or banging hookers? Have you heard of Billy Graham appropriating any unseemly amounts money from the ministry a la Creflo Dollar?

No, you have not because Billy Graham’s rule is successful.

Think Pence’s quarantine of women is unique? Consider a recent survey by National Journal in which multiple women employed as congressional staffers reported (and male colleagues confirmed) the existence of an implicit policy that only male staffers could spend time one-on-one or at after-hours events with their (male) congressmen. Cut out of key conversations, networking opportunities, professional exposure, and face time with career influencers, female staffers naturally are underrepresented in leadership positions and — not surprisingly — earn about $6,000 less annually than their male peers.

The Billy Graham — and now Mike Pence — rule is wrong on nearly every level. Lauded by some as an act of male chivalry, it is merely a 20th-century American iteration of sex segregation. When women are, in effect, quarantined, banned from solitary meetings with male leaders, including prospective sponsors and career champions, their options for advancement, let alone professional flourishing, shrink. The more that men quarantine women, excluding them from key meetings, after-hours networking events, and one-on-one coaching and mentoring, the more that men alone will be the ones securing C-suite jobs. The preservation of men and the exclusion of women from leadership roles will be perpetuated everywhere that the Billy Graham rule is practiced. Score another one for the old boys’ club.

Chivalry is not the issue. The issue is self-preservation, for your career and your mission. Billy Graham and his associates imposed the rule on themselves to protect the ministry they were building because they understood that they could not build a Christian ministry without the confidence of their parishoners that they were morally upright. And why? Because once a woman puts the mouth on a man, “He touched me/spoke to me/looked at me/paid me/etc.” that shadow hangs over him forever. See Casey Affleck, who can win an Oscar, but the rumor mill still churns up an eight-year old unproven accusation against him.

Let me put it even more plainly: If men do not choose to associate with women professionally, it is because women have become a professional hazard to men.

Whether codified or informal, sex quarantines are rooted in fear. At the heart of it, policies curbing contact between men and women at work serve to perpetuate the notions that women are toxic temptresses, who want to either seduce powerful men or falsely accuse them of sexual harassment. This framing allows men to justify their anxiety about feeling attracted to women at work, and, sometimes, their own sexual boundary violations. It also undermines the perceived validity of claims by women who have been harassed or assaulted. Although thoughtful professional boundaries create the bedrock for trust, collegiality, and the kind of nonsexual intimacy that undergirds the best mentoring relationships, fear-based boundaries are different. By reducing or even eliminating cross-sex social contact, sex segregation prevents the very exposure that reduces anxiety and builds trust.

A claim is not valid that is not supported by evidence or reason. But one has to love how the authors snuck that little attempt at creating an unjustifiable obligation. “A woman you don’t know what done wrong by a man who isn’t you; therefore you are obligated to give women you don’t know access to what you have, despite it being against your interests to do so.”

To build closer, anxiety-free working relationships with members of the opposite sex, thoughtful men will be well-served by having more, not less, interaction with women at work. In a classic series of studies, psychologist Robert Zajonc discovered that repeated exposure to a stimulus (such as a gender group) that previously elicited discomfort and anxiety helped reduce anxiety, and actually increased the probability of fondness and positive interaction. Termed the mere exposure effect in social psychology, the principle has been particularly useful in changing negative attitudes about previously stigmatized groups. Excellent leaders initiate positive developmental and collegial interactions with as many types of people as they can — deliberately, frequently, and transparently.

Can the “mere exposure effect” be applied to “rape” porn or even porn in general? Seems to being working in Japan.

Perhaps the most disingenuous and deceptive quality of the Billy Graham rule and other forms of sex segregation at work may be their superficially honorable and chivalrous nature. This “benevolent sexism” includes evaluations of women that appear subjectively positive but are quite damaging to gender equity. In their pioneering research on the topic, psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske discovered that women often endorse many benevolent forms of sexism (e.g., that women are delicate and require protection, or that sex quarantines at work help preserve women’s reputations), despite the fact that the sexism inhibits real gender equality. This may explain why many women applauded Pence’s stance as evidence of his character and commitment to his marriage. But sexism always diminishes and disadvantages women at work; even benevolent sexist policies, which lack transparent hostility and appear “nice” on the surface, lead to lower rates of pay and promotion, regardless of how many women support them.

As pointed out above, the Billy Graham rule has little to do with “chivalry” and more to do with “CYA” (Cover Your Ass).

Here is something most men fail to consider when invoking sex quarantines at work: What does their unwillingness to be seen alone with a woman say about them and males more generally? When a man refuses to be alone with a female colleague on a car trip or in a restaurant, owing to fear of something untoward happening, we must ask: Dude, do you, or do you not, have a functioning frontal lobe? Sex quarantines reinforce notions that men are barely evolved sex maniacs, scarcely capable of muting, let alone controlling, their evolved neurological radar for fertile mates of the opposite sex. Sex quarantines paint men as impulsive, sexually preoccupied, and unable to refrain from consummating romantic interest or sexual feelings if they occur in cross-sex relationships. The “sex-crazed” male stereotype is often reinforced in the process of male socialization, and there are plenty of men who, at least on some level, fear breaking rank and violating these expectations of male behavior. This is where moral courage comes in. The fact is, many men choose not to fulfill this stereotype; many men have close, mutual, collegial relationships with women and never once violate a relational boundary.

This whole paragraph is a stunning piece of academic shaming language, the trust of which is “we will call you names (sex maniacs, sex-crazed) if you do not give us what we want. But if you show ‘moral courage’ (give us what we want), we will not carry out the threat that we claim you should fear.” This is emotional blackmailing with excess verbiage.

The frontal lobe, as my “dudes” referred to it, is where problem solving takes place. Women accusing men of bad acts is a hazard. The most cost-effective solution to a hazard is to go around it. Some men have chosen to bypass the hazard of a false accusation by bypassing the typical false accuser (a woman).

Simple, logical, and practical.

Of course, the Billy Graham rule and other efforts at quarantining women suffer from a number of logical inconsistencies. For instance, there is the efficacy problem: Rigid efforts to eliminate cross-sex interaction in the workplace have not proven effective. Even in the most conservative religious denominations, nearly one-third of pastors have crossed sexual boundaries with parishioners. Then there is the uncomfortable truth that the Billy Graham rule denies the reality of LGBT people and that sexual and romantic feelings are not limited to cross-sex relationships. The logic of sex quarantine thinking would dictate that a bisexual leader could never meet alone with anyone! Finally, the truth is that sex-excluding policies are rooted in deeply erroneous dichotomous thinking: Either I engage with women at work and risk egregious, career-threatening boundary violations or I avoid all unchaperoned interaction with women.

Sirs, did these pastors accept the Billy Graham rule? Did they practice it? If the answer to one or both of those questions is “no” then they cannot be held as examples of its inefficacy.

Thanks.

So what’s an evolved male leader to do? In the simplest terms, become what we call a thoughtful caveman. Healthy, mature, self-aware men understand and accept their distinctly male neural architecture. If they happen to be heterosexual, this means they own the real potential for cross-sex attraction without catastrophizing this possibility or acting out feelings of attraction, to the detriment of female colleagues. Thoughtful cavemen employ their frontal cortex to ensure prudence and wise judgment in relationships with women and men.

Is “thoughtful caveman” the latest colloquiallism for New Soviet Man New Feminist Man?

Translation: Give females things, don’t ask females for things you want (sex), and don’t worry about females accusing you of things because…why would a woman ever lie about sex?

Here is a final reason why even devoutly Christian men like Mike Pence and Billy Graham should be dubious about isolating and excluding women at work: Jesus himself was known to meet alone with women (e.g., the Samaritan woman at the well). It seems that showing kind hospitality and elevating the dignity of women was more important than any threat of gossip.

That’s funny.

The Samaritan woman attempted to trickle-truth Jesus (lie by omission). It is only after Jesus calls her out on her bullshit (You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.) that she SUBMITS to his authority as a Rabbi and as the Messiah.

Source

Archived Source

Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: Featuring Nathalie Gordon

I haven’t done one of these in awhile. I hope I haven’t lost my touch.

Today’s subject is one Nathalie Gordon, recently featured in an Indy100 piece entitled “This woman perfectly summed up why men will never understand what it’s like to be female.”

According to her website, she’s some sort of advertiser/Social Justice enthusiast.

Alas, I was indiscrete. After re-tweeting her harrowing tale with some less than reverent comments, I was blocked.

So, I’ll just curate the tweets here, with commentary, for my amusement.

Oh boy! Nathalie is going to let her inner Ben Folds loose.

Let me tell ya’ll what it’s like, being female, middle-class and white

It’s a bitch, if ya don’t believe,

listen up for the new CD, sham on!

 

 

 

 

So, what we have here is a study in weak Day Game. No elevator pitch, no attempt to make her laugh, or develop a connection, he just tries to ply her with liquor in the hopes of getting the bang.

Again, this is a nope. Accusations are not how to counter a rejection. Calling a girl “rude” is to raise her shields and she won’t be receptive to anything else you might say because you’ve just called her rude, which heard as a “bad person.” You back up, reset, and try a different approach.

On the other side, a woman of a certain age usually knows how to handle unwanted male attention. She could have just told him, “Not interested in you, loser. Take a hike.” That would be the completely righteous answer because it is the honest truth. Saying, “I’m going to a meeting” might be truthful, but it’s not righteous. “I’m not buying what you’re selling. I don’t care if you’re funny, nice, rich, or you have a 12 inch schlong and a six inch tongue.” Righteous, unambiguous rejection.

And if the path of righteousness has no appeal, LIE! For most women, this is pretty easy. “I have a boyfriend” is older than the Code of Hammurabi; it might even be in a lost revision to the Code of Hammurabi. Don’t like that one? “I have four kids…with ADHD…and they sleep in the bed with me.” And if you feel the need re-enact the Cuban Missile Crisis and put the nukes on the table: “I have herpes.”

 

Maybe he needed some cornstarch for his genitals and laughed nervously because he got busted trying to stealthily relieve the itch.

 

An idea worthy of Einstein. Let the guy scratch himself, by himself and find another seat. GENIUS!

 

 

According to Glassdoor a bus driver pulls down, on average, £20,910. In real people’s money aka, US Dollars (I kid, British readers, I love you guys and your currency is superior to our Federal Reserve Monopoly money) that’s $27,147.45. This is not a lot of money, especially to demand someone initiate physical removal of a person from a third-party’s property. I don’t know the procedures of UK bus drivers, but here in America, our bus drivers have one job: DRIVE THE BUS. They call cops only if someone starts shit with them, or starts a physical altercation in the driver’s sight or hearing.

I do understand the cynicism of a low-ranked public servant. This bus driver has to see/smell/hear and chaffeur the dregs of humanity (or the salt of the earth, if you prefer), the frequency and volume of which depends on his assigned route. Here comes Nathalie, demanding that he involve himself in a non-issue that might require him to delay his route, which will get him shit on by his bosses, have to talk to the police, which will waste his time, write an incident report, which will waste more of his time, or, depending on the mental state of Nathalie’s public transportation paramour, get him injured or killed trying to “remove” the guy from the bus.

The bus driver, like Nathalie, is not being righteous. When he tells her “move to another seat” or “you’re a pretty girl, what do you expect” what he’s not getting at is, “your problem is not important to me, now suck it up and let me do my job without incident so I can go home.”

 

 

And here we get to the meat. Nathalie wants “respect” for women as a class, respect meaning a “feeling of esteem excited by actions or attributes of someone or something; courteous or considerate treatment due to personal worth or power.” Nathalie wants to be “esteemed” for no better reason other than she has a pair of breasts and a vagina.

I don’t respect all men because not every man walking this earth is respectable; additionally, my respect has value. Why should I give what is valuable to me to someone who does not DO anything to merit it? Merely existing does not make someone worthy of respect. Civility? Certainly. That’s the price of civilization. Courtesy? Maybe, depending on the person and setting. Respect? You have to actually do something to get that.

By your own logic, don’t you owe men, as a class, respect? After all, men and women are equal, and women are ENTITLED to “fucking respect” no matter who they are or what they look liek or what they are wearing. Therefore, men are also have an expectation of “fucking respect” no matter who they are or what they look liek or what they are wearing. So, yes, Nathalie, according to you, every woman on the planet does owe every man something: RESPECT.

 

Taken to it’s logical conclusion, Nathalie expects to “feel safe” sunbathing in a bikini in downtown Tehran during rush hour. When reality doesn’t meet you at the level of your expectations, who is in the wrong? Reality? Or you? Life is, unfortunately, an inherently unsafe enterprise. And when reality present you with unsafe circumstances, like living, you have two choices: adjust to reality until such time as you can alter your circumstances, or spit in reality’s face, proceed down the Primrose path of narcissistic delusion and take your chances with people who refuse to conform to script you’ve concocted in your head.

 

Yep. Loneliness and fear are purely female traits. No man will know what these feel like. Then again, if they are such bad things, why should we want to? Why should we empathize or sympathize with those burdened with such obvious weakness?

 

 

And we come to best part, the part where Nathalie binds your “morality” and “manhood” to servitude to her cause. Be on her side…even if she is in the wrong. Support her…even if she does not deserve support. Care…even if when she does not offer you caring in return. Listen…even if she is spouting irrational gibberish. Stand up for her…even if the person your standing up to harms or kills you.

Because, to Feminists, men aren’t people. As Nathalie pointed out, men are too degenerate to feel the full spectrum of emotions that a woman does or fully appreciate the existence of women, much as, in Christian eschatology, a man cannot fathom the mind or nature of God.

But thankfully, she can find some use for us as an “ally” (read: servant).

Twitter Archive