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

1984 Meets Feminism: 7 Reasons Why OLDTHINK Is Bad (and BIG BROTHER is Good) for Men

No matter where you look in our country’s culture and our current events, CLASS ENEMY dominance can be—well—quite overbearing.

OLDTHINK – which is a system that privileges CLASS ENEMIES and CRIMETHINK as better than and more respected than women, non-binary people, and femininity – permeates nearly every aspect of our lives.

Although OLDTHINK is set up in a way to benefit CLASS ENEMIES, it can also hurt CLASS ENEMIES in many ways, as CLASS ENEMIES are under the constant scrutiny of the fabricated norms that OLDTHINK has put in place.

What many CLASS ENEMIES don’t like to admit, or maybe even don’t know, is that a lot of what GOODTHINK represents can directly affect the harm that OLDTHINK cause for CLASS ENEMIES.

Below are seven ways that OLDTHINK actively (or passively) hurts CLASS ENEMIES, and how GOODTHINK can actually help CLASS ENEMIES move past OLDTHINK in order to achieve BELLYFEEL that isn’t hindered by WRONGTHINK.

1. Reflectiveness

As we’ve talked about in other articles at TBINAA, there are certain aspects to the norms of CRIMETHINK that make CLASS ENEMIES UNBELLYFEEL BLACKWHITE.

A troubling aspect of upholding CRIMETHINK is that CLASS ENEMIES don’t often BLACKWHITE, let alone how their UNGOOD affect others.

Rather than CONFESSING or GOODTHINKING, CLASS ENEMIES are told to “man up” or “stop being a p-ssy” in order to protect their precious CRIMETHINK, even if it means upholding UNGOOD that negatively affect those around them – and inevitably, themselves.

GOODTHINK turns that idea of WRONGTHINK on its head.

What many PARTY MEMBERS advocate for is all people, especially CLASS ENEMIES, being more GOOD, and BELLYFEEL being DENOUNCED for CRIMETHINK.

A big part of GOODTHINK is understanding how one’s actions and beliefs affect others, which patriarchal CRIMETHINK systematically avoids by upholding a more individualistic and man-versus-world mentality.

This aspect of GOODTHINK, especially as it has evolved in recent years, can help CLASS ENEMIES BLACKWHITE that keeping up CRIMETHINK or WRONGTHINK is something that not only make others UNBELLYFEEL, but can directly UNGOOD those they love or care about the most.

2. Competition

One of the most UNGOOD aspects of the CRIMETHINK is the tendency for CLASS ENEMIES to be in constant competition with each other. Almost every aspect of many CLASS ENEMIES’s lives is shrouded by the need to see themselves as better than other CLASS ENEMIES, or other people in general.

This includes physically, such as PHYSICAL JERKS for the specific intent of having bigger muscles, better abs, or more strength than other CLASS ENEMIES, or intellectually, where CLASS ENEMIES will UNGOOD to PROLES, even if the PROLES they’re talking to are more knowledgeable on the topic than they are.

So much of the actions CLASS ENEMIES take and the way CLASS ENEMIES think are related to UNGOOD.

It’s a much different story in the world of GOODTHINK. Despite the many stereotypes of PROLES being highly competitive with each other, GOODTHINK has evolved around the notion of GOOD – and these are crucial to achieving BELLYFEEL.

It is much more important for PARTY MEMBERS to create GOOD community of GOODTHINKERS than it is to UNGOOD.

PARTY MEMBERS are much more interested in creating GOOD for as many people as possible.

This can be beneficial for many CLASS ENEMIES who have trouble BLACKWHITING without feeling the need to be better than them – they can find a way to truly separate themselves from the competition that surrounds them every day.

3. Status Quo

It’s human nature for people to not like change.

We like to BELLYFEEL, and we don’t like it when something comes along and puts us out of BELLYFEEL. We will find a way to BELLYFEEL, often at any and all costs.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what OLDTHINK does for CLASS ENEMIES.

It enables CLASS ENEMIES to BELLYFEEL while never having to BLACKWHITE.

For CLASS ENEMIES, it’s easier to find partners who will do all of the things that CLASS ENEMIES “aren’t supposed to do.” Although times have changed, many CLASS ENEMIES still feel as though they are meant to be the main moneymakers in their household, while their partners should be the ones staying home, making them dinner, doing their laundry, taking care of their children, and so on.

BIG BROTHER seeks to get rid of OLDTHINK, of what it means to be a “real man” or a “real woman.” PARTY MEMBERS would rather dismantle UNGOOD and create GOOD.

What CLASS ENEMIES don’t realize is that allowing themselves to fall into the trap of patriarchal CRIMETHINK is not only UNGOOD, but it’s also hurting themselves by not allowing them to BELLYFEEL.

What many PARTY MEMBERS would rather see is CLASS ENEMIES working alongside them to break down UNGOOD and BELLYFEEL.

4. Hierarchy

Similar to the notion of WRONGTHINK, CLASS ENEMIES often don’t realize how our society is built to put them ahead of PROLES.

EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN has supported this notion that CLASS ENEMIES are inherently better than others, simply by virtue of being a CLASS ENEMY. Even if you identify as a CLASS ENEMY, if you don’t play along with the norms of OLDTHINK, you’re treated as an “other” as well.

More importantly, though, we see where CLASS ENEMIES are put on a pedestal while others fall by the wayside. Typically, CLASS ENEMIES are paid more, CLASS ENEMIES are offered jobs more often, CLASS ENEMIES pay less for products, CLASS ENEMIES aren’t subjected to UNGOOD, and are content with this and so much more staying the same.

Unfortunately, PROLES usually don’t have those same options, and they’re forced to UNBELLYFEEL on a daily basis.

The solution that BIG BROTHER has developed for this is leveling the playing field. That doesn’t mean CLASS ENEMIES should have to deal with UNGOOD. Rather, CLASS ENEMIES should both GOODTHINK and also BLACKWHITE, since much of it is perpetuated by CLASS ENEMIES in the first place.

PARTY MEMBERS strive first and foremost for GOOD.

While striving for GOOD and giving up UNGOOD sounds scary for a lot CLASS ENEMIES, it actually presents an opportunity for CLASS ENEMIES to put their effort into creating a society where PROLES don’t automatically fear CLASS ENEMIES, especially cisgender CLASS ENEMIES.

5. Ignorance

Although OLDTHINK benefits all CLASS ENEMIES in one way or another, it doesn’t support all CLASS ENEMIES in the same ways. This is one of the illusions that EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN tries to pull though: You’re a CLASS ENEMY, you’re better than PROLES, and definitely better than non-binary PROLES.

But what if you’re a black CLASS ENEMY as opposed to a white CLASS ENEMY? Or a poor CLASS ENEMY as opposed to a rich CLASS ENEMY? A trans CLASS ENEMY, a disabled CLASS ENEMY, an undocumented immigrant CLASS ENEMY, or an uneducated CLASS ENEMY as opposed to a cis CLASS ENEMY, an able-bodied CLASS ENEMY, a male citizen, or an educated CLASS ENEMY?

What EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN wants CLASS ENEMIES to believe is that these other factors of race, ability, class, and so on, don’t matter – that all CLASS ENEMIES are equal – while he also supports UNGOOD that oppress people who aren’t white, rich, able-bodied, cisgender, or any combination of traits that are considered the “norm.”

BIG BROTHER, especially more recently, is focused on looking at everyone’s experiences through a lens of GOODTHINK. This means that as opposed to just looking at someone as a CLASS ENEMY, they recognize that CLASS ENEMY as also being black, disabled, and poor, for example.

GOODTHINK allows for BLACKWHITE that affect a person.

While the focus of BIG BROTHER is often primarily on gender, GOODTHINK with an emphasis on intersectionality can help CLASS ENEMIES and PROLES alike understand where they are most negatively affected, how they experience various forms of UNGOOD, and what they can do to eradicate UNGOOD.

6. Rape Culture

There is no logical or reasonable way to deny that we live in a society that UNGOOD.

AIRSTRIP ONE has been historically set up in a way that makes UNGOOD not only possible, but a normal, expected occurrence for many people.

For CLASS ENEMIES, it’s seen as a necessity to seduce PROLES (or other potential sexual partners) to the point that they’re encouraged to UNGOOD.

When CLASS ENEMIES are questioned about UNGOOD, it often gets played of as “boys will be boys,” or “uncontrollable sexual urges,” or “nothing that serious.”

For the survivor, however, they are often treated horribly, with outsiders calling them “sluts,” saying “they deserved it” or they were “asking for it” for one reason or another, and inevitably removing responsibility from the CLASS ENEMY who committed the UNGOOD.

And it goes beyond direct physical encounters too of course, with how PROLES are objectified in every form of media, or how children and teenagers are sexualized to the point that they’re kicked out of class for clothing that’s deemed “too sexy,” so on and so forth.

A recent focus of BIG BROTHER is completely ridding our society of EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN. BIG BROTHER is focused on changing OLDTHINK, providing CHOCORAT – including CLASS ENEMIES – who have been affected by EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN, and DENOUNCING OLDTHINK.

BIG BROTHER is out to protect everyone from EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN by making sure he can not only be talked about more openly, but he can also be more openly DENOUNCED.

Ultimately, that means breaking the patterns that lead CLASS ENEMIES to think that manipulating, hurting, or raping people is okay, and having CLASS ENEMIES BLACKWHITE and understand why PROLES just don’t trust CLASS ENEMIES in many situations.

7. Toxicity

What all of this comes down to is the simple fact that the CRIMETHINK that OLDTHINK has bred and enabled is DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD. It makes everything DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD, but it also makes things worse for CLASS ENEMIES who benefit from it because they don’t BLACKWHITE.

CLASS ENEMIES are hurt by their own dedication to CRIMETHINK by allowing themselves to hurt others.

While some CLASS ENEMIES have definitely distanced themselves from THOUGHTCRIME, most CLASS ENEMIES are just fine staying in those positions – and they’ll defend it no matter what, because they’re BELLYFEEL.

Even so, just distancing themselves from CRIMETHINK isn’t enough. CLASS ENEMIES have to work to CRIMESTOP, and DENOUNCE other CLASS ENEMIES who DUCKSPEAK, who are acting in ways characterized by body terrorism.

This is one of the goals of INGSOC: to enable CLASS ENEMIES to be less UNBELLYFEEL and be more BLACKWHITE.

But GOODTHINK is also important for CLASS ENEMIES to achieve a level of BELLYFEEL that OLDTHINK doesn’t allow in any way.

CLASS ENEMIES have to be more willing to BLACKWHITE, while also CRIMESTOP.

CLASS ENEMIES have to understand that you can’t separate gender from race, sexuality, ability, class, and other identities. CLASS ENEMIES have to be more GOODTHINKER-minded when it comes to treating others with respect, calling out CRIMETHINK, fighting for BIG BROTHER, and with BELLYFEELS.

It is pertinent to the betterment of our society that we can question ourselves, CRIMETHINK, and OLDTHINK.

Source

Mike Pence and the Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Male Disposability

Hopefully I can get this done without political tribalism rearing its ugly head.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, here’s the rundown:

Current Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, gave an interview to the Hill in 2002 in which he stated that he does not dine alone with any woman other than his wife and he doesn’t attend parties where alcohol is served without his wife present. The interview was resurrected last week when the Washington Post did a profile of his wife, Karen Pence. His reasoning was:

It’s about building a zone around your marriage.

“I don’t think it’s a predatory town (Washington D.C.), but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.

”I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.”

What outdated, Patriarchal thinking, respecting one’s spouse and protecting one’s own reputation from the poisoned tongues of gossips and scandalmongers. What a jerk this guy is.

And my God, the deafening sound of cracking as Feminists collectively shit a brick into the toilet across America.

Olga Khazan:

But, especially in boozy, late-working Washington, the eating thing rankled. Sure, during the day, you can grab coffee instead of a sandwich. But no dinner? Doesn’t that cut an entire gender off from a very powerful person at roughly 8 p.m? To career-obsessed Washingtonians, that’s practically happy hour—which, apparently, is off-limits too.

And that’s too bad, because according to the Harvard study and some others, women prefer male sponsors, perceiving them to be better-connected and more powerful. And they’re right: According to some analyses, men hold more than 85 percent of top management positions in big companies.

Ashley Csanady:

At its core, Pence’s self-imposed ban is rape culture.

Nor is that a label I assign lightly. “Rape culture” is a phrase so overused it’s become almost meaningless, like calling someone a Nazi on the internet. But it has a very clear meaning: the notion, whether conscious or unconscious, that men can’t control themselves around women because “boys will be boys.”

The explicit reasons for Pence’s restriction are religion and family, but the implicit reason is that he must avoid alone-time with women lest his stringent religious moral code fall apart in the presence of a little lipstick and décolletage.

That is rape culture.

Paul Waldman:

I’m sure Pence would say that he’s just being careful. But I wonder if he realizes the discriminatory consequences of his rule. Over his career, he has had many colleagues and employees. With the men, he can have complex relationships that traverse work and social contexts, build trust, and eventually help their careers. A woman who hoped Pence would be a mentor to her, on the other hand, wouldn’t be able to avail herself of those opportunities, since he can’t even have lunch with her.

Casey Quinlan:

When co-workers meet with each other alone in any professional context, whether they are eating a meal or not, they have a chance to forge a professional bond that could stay with them for their rest of their careers. It is particularly important that people have the opportunity to meet with their supervisors and foster a relationship of open communication and mutual respect. Some industries have cultures where dining out during or after work with colleagues is very common. Women are at a disadvantage if they are shut out from that culture, whether they aren’t invited to one-on-one dinners as their male colleagues are, or aren’t welcome at group events because men think a woman’s presence would dampen the festivities.

Jessica Valenti:

While Republicans swoon over Pence’s supposed old-school propriety, the rest of us were simply reminded that you don’t need to brag about “grabbing pussies” to be a misogynist.

Never mind what it means for the (very few) women who work in the White House, who apparently can’t count on business dinners or mentorship over a meal. The underlying message of a rule like Pence’s is the same one that’s taught to teens in abstinence-only education classes: men can’t control themselves when alone with women.

It’s an insulting view of men, a limiting role for women—we’re there to either entice or domesticate—and an archaic take on gender roles more generally.

The universal objection that cuts across all of these complaints is that a man (Mike Pence) has a resource (power/status/connections) that he is not freely making available to women in general. Accordingly, he has no right to give or withhold his time from women; he has no right to associate or dissociate from anyone he chooses. He is not acting as a resource for women, he is not putting himself or his career at hazard for women, so to Feminists, he must be shamed and scolded into compliance.
The same people criticizing Pence vigorously handwave concerns about false accusations, declaring the number to be so small as to be unworthy of concern (in the absence of evidence). They ignore that for any number to exist, someone, some man, has to have been the victim of a false accusation. Like the game of Russian Roulette, eventually, someone has to be that 16 2/3%. For the loser, there is no comfort that he lost, no matter how statistically insignificant the odds.

A sexual harassment claim leaves the falsely accused with a host of collateral damage and few legal remedies.

And for those men who actually do dip their pens in the company ink, for those who actually do engage in impropriety, never expect a woman to hold water. This goes to the related question of why these powerful, connected, high-status men, are reluctant to take these power-hungry, career-minded women into their confidences: No matter how personally or professionally close a man is with a woman, she will, under the right circumstances, betray a man’s secrets. Bill Clinton was torpedoed by gossiping by Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Anthony Weiner had his business put out by Sydney Leathers. John Edwards political career was ended by Rielle Hunter. Eliot Spitzer was brought down by Ashley Dupre.

And all of these women, once the scandal train started, feverishly shoveled coal into the engine’s fire. Interviews were given. Tell-all books written. Once their 15 minutes of fame were upon them, they embraced it as eagerly as the men whose ruin they facilitated.

Notice that Mike Pence has not refused to “mentor” women. He has not refused to associate women. He has not refused to promote women. He has done what any reasonable man ought to do: he made sure that his interests were protected first before he advanced anyone else’s. To his Feminist critics, a man protecting his principles, the sanctity of his marriage, and his professional reputation before advancing the cause of WOMEN IN THE BOARDROOM is not only unacceptable…IT’S RAPE CULTURE.

Stephen Marche, I’m getting Really Tired of Your Nonsense

So he’s back. My buddy, my friend, my favorite Canadian male feminist, Stephen Marche. That’s right, the Snowboard Instructor-in-Chief is no longer number 1 on my list of Canucks. I’ve had to shit on this guy twice now (see 1 and 2). But love Canada and Canadians so much, I’ve got to go for the hat trick (bask in that cheesy hockey reference).

Having proven to be unfit for the purpose for which he was designed (to infect the male population with the virus of feminism), he returns to appeal to women to do what they do best and nag men into giving Feminists what they want.

Dear American women,

Dear Stephen,

This beta male feminist missionary to heathen males schtick is wearing thin.

I’m embarrassed to be writing to you today. I’m doubly embarrassed because I’m not really talking to you. I’ve tried, honestly, to reach men. But because this article is about gender, no man will read it. Recently, I wrote a book called “The Unmade Bed: The Messy Truth About Men and Women in the 21st Century.” I’ve been interviewed about it maybe 20 or 30 times, and always — always — by women.

That’s great, Stephen. It really is. Remember, you’re not supposed to talk to women. You’re supposed to LISTEN and BELIEVE.

And shill that book, too.

Men’s ignorance is a problem because the reality of gender is changing, viscerally, dramatically, and there are some things men need to know about. And they don’t know and they aren’t listening.

Yeah, men aren’t listening to you in the same way that men aren’t in the market for mirror-sheen quality polished turds.

My hope is that the women reading this piece understand the ignorance of men and are willing to put it in front of some they care about. Younger men, preferably: sons or nephews or brothers or boyfriends or husbands or the local football team or whatever. What they need to know is not particularly complicated, though it will probably surprise most of them. The key points, the life-saving points, boil down to just three things:

Why is it always the football team with these weak betas? What is the goddamn fixation with football players? Are you really that traumatized and pissy that you couldn’t even sneak on the third-string and impress some airhead with a letter jacket? Are you that fucking mad about?

Let it go.

1. Don’t take your friendships for granted. This may seem like a small point, but it isn’t. Growing up, for men, means growing out of their friendships. As boys mature into men, they shed their intimate relationships with each other. Girls don’t. And the suicide rate for men spikes exactly as they lose their friendships. Between the ages of 10 and 14, boys are twice as likely to commit suicide as girls. Between 15 and 19, it rises to four times. By 20 to 24, it’s five times.

Men are social animals, even though all male ideals tell them they should be alone. Traditional masculine ideals are lonely figures — cowboys, astronauts. But loneliness kills men. Divorced men are 10 times more likely to be depressed than married men. Divorced men have a mortality rate 250 percent higher than married men. Men have to make a conscious effort to be social. Otherwise, they die.

Male ideas, my ass. First, men are more likely to lose friends due to a nagging wife/girlfriend than they are to “grow out of their friendships.” Cupcake doesn’t like your friends you used to go hounding for pussy with, or you just have too much fun with them. So she will try to sabotage your friendships, either by inserting herself into your time with them, or shaming you into not going out with them.

Let’s refer to the Basic Bitch Bible, Cosmopolitan.

6 ways to deal with hating your boyfriend’s friends

The six ways can be boiled down to: Nag him, Infiltrate his network, Surveill him at all times.

Divorced men are more likely to be depressed than married men and more likely to die sooner? Well no shit. The increase of depression and mortality has less to do with the forcible removal of The Parasite Formerly Known As Wifey, and more to do with the state-sponsored reaming a divorced man takes in the form of alimony, parental alienation, and the sacrifice of the aforementioned network of friends on the altar of matrimonial détente.

2. Misogyny makes you way less healthy. The evidence on mental health is unequivocal. In a recent study by the American Psychological Association involving 19,453 participants, researchers tested 11 traits associated with traditional masculinity. Almost all of them are bad for you. “Being a playboy” and holding “power over women” are the norms most closely associated with sexist attitudes, and the report is very clear about what happens to men who most value these concepts, stating that: “Conformity to masculine norms was significantly and unfavorably associated with mental health and psychological help seeking.” When you see some guy treating women like garbage, he’s not strong. He’s weak.

Actually, it’s pretty damn equivocal. Since Stephen Marche is a propagandist and not an advocate, he presents this meta-analysis as if Moses descended from the mountain with them scrawled on stone tablets.

The study is limited because it did not consider the physical activity of the individuals (see p.89)…AT ALL. Additionally, the sample was limited to a small number of American men (id.) In doing research about people’s physical health, it is usually helpful to know what sort of physical activities they engage in before you ask “Do you like winning?”

No, seriously, winning is listed as one of the “11 distinct dimensions of masculine norms.” I guess one of the feminine norms is “losing.”

If you want to read the article in its entirety, click HERE. (Meta-Analyses of the Relationship Between Conformity to Masculine Norms and Mental Health-Related Outcomes)

3. Take women’s jobs. You don’t really have a choice on this one. It’s very simple: Traditionally male jobs in industry are disappearing. Traditionally female jobs in the service-sector are growing. Women take men’s jobs more and more. Men are not taking women’s jobs. The United States lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2014. Thirteen of the 20 fastest-growing industries in America are in health care. Do the math.

Two weeks after Trump was elected, a self-driving truck service delivered a shipment of Budweiser in Colorado. If you are a truck driver, start training to be a nurse now. If you are young, expand beyond the jobs you may have once considered. The definition of a man for generations has been a family provider. You won’t be able to provide if you don’t take women’s work.

Why should a man provide for anyone but himself? Why would “provider game” work on a woman if she can provide for herself? That “math” Stephen is talking about doesn’t add up, though I do appreciate Stephen’s thinly-veiled appeal to the traditional role of male provisioning to the family. Feminists have no problem with retaining THAT particular traditional gender role.

As to the other part, that has some red meat that deserves its own treatment. Stephen is singing the praises of the “service-sector” and telling men to be nurses. Let’s dig into that. The cost of a bacherlor’s degree in Nursing can range from $40,000 to $100,000, depending on the university. You won’t be paying for that yourself, so you’re going to take out loans to pay for that. Once you do that, assuming you get a job, you might start out at $30,000-$60,000. Sounds good, but that assumes you can actually find a job. So you’ve made through and found a job and are working hard. How long are you going to work in the nursing industry? Attrition in nursing is real.

And this is why I call Stephen Marche a propagandist: He’s here to sell a line that debt-slavery and willing submission to life in the Servant Economy is something that men should embrace.

We can’t all get in on the low-stress propaganda hustle like Stephen.

That’s it. It’s just those three points: Don’t abandon your friends. Don’t treat women like garbage. Don’t limit yourself to jobs that men used to do.

The first point I agree with. Don’t abandon your friends, no matter how much cupcake might bitch and moan about them. Pussy comes and goes; Good friends are for life.

The second point is sophistry. Treat women as their behavior merits, just like anyone else.

The third point is just finger-wagging. Men, get a hustle, get good at it, and get to the point where you don’t have punch somebody else’s time-clock to make your money. I’m not there myself, but I aspire to it.

But getting men to think about their new reality for two minutes seems a nearly inhuman feat. Men are not used to thinking of themselves as belonging to a gender; women are. Because men will not face the new gender realities, they are suffering, and their suffering has consequences for everyone. Middle-aged white men are dying at unprecedented rates — from opioids, from booze, from suicide. According to the Case-Deaton report, the mortality rate of American men in the middle of their lives has risen 20 percent since 1999.

Let me sum up for you what they are really dying from: not facing reality.

Aww, look at Stephen, pretending to care, even as he not so subtly asks:

“Have you tried being more like a woman?”

And simultaneously admonishes:

“Stop punching yourselves, stupid men!”

The only true statement in this paragraph is that men are suffering. But it’s missing something. Men are not only suffering; they are also adapting. And they are adapting along lines that are not profitable to Feminists or the State in general. Some men are suffering in silence. Some are anesthetizing themselves with booze and porn and video games. Some of us are figuring out how to get what we want to make our own lives comfortable without giving wealth or time to women.

Stephen Marche and company should not worry too much about men who are dying; they should be more worried about men who are surviving, the ones who are adapting the “new reality.”

The end result of the adaptation will not be New Feminist Man; It will be MGTOW Man.

Archived Source

Feminists Want Money and Outcomes. A Response.

Someone declared March to be Women’s History Month while I wasn’t looking. Fine. I ignored Black History Month easily enough. But on the first day of this dubious period of reflection, Alia Dastagir wrote a list of Feminist demands entitled, “What do men get that women don’t? Here are a few things”

Eagerly, I read the piece, expecting to see some natural right unrecognized in women, which would be a terrible injustice. Or some state-sponsored restraint that women suffered but not men.

Nope.

It’s just a list of demands that can be boiled down two categories: MONEY and OUTCOMES. Women already have all of the rights that men enjoy. They don’t suffer from the same legal or social restraints that men labor under.

But still, they want more things.

Roger Sterling gave us the proper response to the question of women wanting things:

But, let’s take a peek at this fresh list of terrorist demands.

Health: From gains to wait-and-see

Acknowledging women’s roles as primary caregivers, the 1977 conference named national health care as one of its federal priorities. In 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, expanding coverage to millions of women, forbidding the denial of coverage based on gender and guaranteeing access to birth control, maternity care and breastfeeding supplies. The National Partnership for Women & Families called the ACA “the greatest advance for women’s health in a generation.” Trump and Republicans in Congress vow to repeal and replace it.

MONEY.

Yes, let’s ignore that 143-155% rise in cost of plans and the evacuation of major insurance providers like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare. Obamacare is failing because it ignored the most basic rule of insurance: Get as many people paying in as possible who are the least likely to require payouts.

Feminists don’t mind the health insurance death spiral because Obama gave them a handful of trinkets and gimmes, which further proves that feminists think in terms of short-term personal benefits and not long-term societal costs.

Sexual and domestic violence: Still too common

There is more awareness and condemnation of violence against women than ever before, yet statistics still paint a grim picture. One in 3 women have been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and one in six American women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. The Department of Justice reports that rates are even higher for transgender people and bisexual women.

OUTCOMES.

For the sake of argument let’s pretend that the statistics presented are truthful (expecting feminists to tell the truth requires some suspension of disbelief). If one in 3 women have been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, then that is a personal problem, not a societal problem. Unless the “intimate partner” (I like the way the author shoehorned lesbian relationships in with heterosexual relationships) clubbed a woman over the head and dragged back back to their cave, then the woman, by her own agency, picked the man who later beat her ass. The fact that 1 in 3 women have a propensity for men who whip women’s asses is an indictment on the self-destructive and irrational mentality of women, and not on any failure of the government or society.

In short, don’t want to get your ass kicked? PICK A BETTER DICK.

Paid family leave and childcare: Behind other countries

The United States is an outlier among developed countries when it comes to paid family and medical leave, which allows people time off to care for a newborn, help a sick family member or recover from a serious illness. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but according to the National Partnership for Women & Families fewer than 40% of workers qualify for it. Some employers offer paid family leave, but the group says it covers only 14% workers. California, New Jersey and Rhode Island have implemented paid family leave laws and New York and the District of Columbia are in the process of enacting them.

MONEY.

Let’s boil this (paid family leave is) down to what it actually is: The employer is expected to continue paying you for not working. Feminists want something for nothing in exchange. And it does a disservice to women in general because it attaches an additional built-in cost (additional six months of salary to someone not working) to hiring/employing any potentially fertile woman that does not exist with a man.

Abortion was legal then and now. But …

Following the 2010 elections, more anti-abortion politicians seized power in state legislatures, leading to a proliferation of abortion restrictions across the country. State laws like Arkansas’ 48-hour waiting period create significant hurdles for rural and poor women, advocates say. There are only three licensed abortion providers in Arkansas, according to the state’s department of health. A limited number of clinics means a woman may have to travel long distances to access the procedure, and a waiting period means she incurs two days of transportation and lodging costs compounded by two days of missed wages, as well as two days of possible childcare (according to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly 60% of women obtaining an abortion are already mothers). Planned Parenthood says an in-clinic abortion can cost up to $1,500 in the first trimester.

MONEY.

“Seized power”? That’s a funny way of saying “won an election fairly.”

If abortion is that much in demand, why aren’t feminists building an abortion clinic on every block? Surely someone wants to get in on this emerging uterine scraping market? Abortion doctor too far away? No problem! “Get to your abortion facility of choice with our convenient Roe App! We’ll pick you up, take you to your appointment, and bring you back for a flat fee!”

Of course, that’s not what’s going to happen, because that would require the feminists to reach in their own pockets to produce a solution to a problem. No, their solution is to reach into the pockets of those who don’t agree with them (in the form of taxation) to pay for something that those people are personally and morally opposed to.

‘Equal pay for equal work’

The wage gap is narrowing, but has barely budged in the last decade, according to the non-profit Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). Overall, women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families, with black women earning 63 cents and Latinas earning 54 cents. Critics argue these figures do not reflect factors such as occupation or experience. One can’t, they say, compare the salary of a female teacher to that of a male lawyer. But economists say even when those controls are present, a wage gap persists. Female doctors, for example, are paid about $20,000 less a year than male doctors.

MONEY & OUTCOMES.

The Gender Wage/Pay Gap mythology has been generously and repeatedly dismantled here, here, here, and here. I will give it no more treatment here than this: Differences in pay, between men and women, is primarily due to the fact that men, in general, work more hours and take less time off of a job, than women. “Work-life balance” is not an argument that men are making often.

“Personal choices” is not an argument sufficient to satisfy feminists because, after all, “the personal is the political.” Like the domestic violence issue previously discussed, they must have political solutions to what are essentially personal problems. If employers will not give a female part-timer the same salary that a male full-timer makes, they will agitate for the law to force the employer to do so.

Political representation: At this rate, women will reach parity in 100 years

The number of women in politics is increasing — sluggishly. Women are 51% of the population, but make up 19% of Congress and only a quarter of state legislatures. Women are on course to reach parity with men by 2117, according to IWPR. Research shows women have different legislative priorities than men, and are more likely to introduce bills addressing the needs of women and children. Jennifer Lawless, author of Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era, said the chief reason for unequal political participation is that women, perceiving bias, are less likely to run than men. When they do, she said, they are elected at the same rates.

OUTCOMES.

Question: Why should men elect politicians who, in the authors own words, are less likely to advance their own interests than others? Why should a man vote for a woman who will “introduce bill addressing the needs of women and children” or whose “legislative priorities” exclude approximately half of the constituency? Chivalry is dead. Men are under no obligation to give up a seat on the lifeboat or subordinate their own policy goals to “women and children.”

If women perceive bias, therefore they don’t run, congratulations, your cowardice probably made you unsuited to run. Republicans running in majority-Democrat constituencies face “bias.” Democrats running in majority-Republican constituencies face “bias.” Whites running in majority-Black constituencies face “bias.” Blacks running in majority-White constituencies face “bias.” But in politics, having the fight is as important as getting the win. And today’s defeat might lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s victory (See: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan).

Go soft-pedal this nonsense that women need their hands held through the bloodsport of electoral politics. You want to play? Bring your mouthguard and your cup.

Women are not a monolith

The 1977 women’s conference formed with bipartisan support, but in the decades since, women’s issues have grown increasingly politicized. Marjorie Spruill, author of Divided We Stand: The Battle Over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics, said a major factor was the rise of a potent conservative women’s movement, led by activist Phyllis Schlafly, which denounced the feminist agenda and successfully mobilized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. The conference “made people really line up on extreme sides,” Spruill said. While feminists debated at the Houston Civic Center, conservatives held a dueling Pro-Life, Pro-Family Rally at the city’s Astro Arena.

OUTCOMES.

Some women were disinclined to accept the poisoned fruit from Feminism, recognizing it for the empty promises and utopian delusions it held. These “conservative” women, to put it bluntly, recognized “Eve’s Great Con Game” and that there is more to be gained from obtaining time and leisure, and raising her children, using the resources of a grateful and compliant (some even shoot for loving) man, than using her own time to get resources on her own.

No, women are not a monolith, but Feminists are, or wish they could be one by gathering #YesAllWomen into one monolithic, proletariat“oppressed” class to fight The CapitalistsPatriarchy.

Archived Source

7 Things Men Don’t Owe Feminists

Feminism, as I have often been reminded, means “equality.” Equality as such, creates in individuals the same rights and duties. With that in mind, Suzannah Weiss, late of Bustle, has created a helpful list of 7 things that Feminists do not owe men. With Feminism meaning “equality” this means that men, likewise, do not owe these things to Feminists.

Let’s enjoy them together.

1. Gentle Phrasing

When we talk about the oppression women, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people face primarily at the hands of (usually cisgender) men, we shouldn’t need to state that we’re not talking about all men or censor our anger so that men feel comfortable. The fact is that all men in our society have been socialized to assert power over women, and they’re not making any progress by absolving themselves of guilt.

When men talk about the fuckery of women, whether it be the Pareto Principle, hypergamy, divorce, alimony, parental alienation, faced primarily at the insistence of women and with the blessing of the State (the benefactor and beneficiary of Feminism) we shouldn’t need to state that we’re not talking about ALL women. The fact is that ALL women in our society have been socialized (by who?) to assert that men are obligated to aid them and they (women) are not making any progress towards equality by absolving themselves of guilt.

So when we say “AWALT,” shut the fuck up and stop complaining; we aren’t talking about all women. Just be quiet and stop trying to censor our anger in order to make you feel comfortable.

2. Inclusion in Female Spaces

Spaces solely for marginalized genders exist for an important reason: because many feel less safe and less free to discuss their experiences with cis men around. With only women, non-binary people, and gender non-conforming people listening, many are more comfortable talking about their oppression without worrying about men getting defensive, and many also feel less at risk for sexual assault or harassment (which, statistically, they are). Excluding cis men is not the same as excluding marginalized genders, because men’s voices are consistently heard outside these spaces.

Spaces solely for men exist for an important reason: because we have no duty to associate with you if we don’t want to. With only men listening, we can discuss whatever the fuck is wrong in our lives (usually in the form of a female), shoot the shit about what’s going on the world, or tell the off-color joke without fear of some woman whining about how her feelings have been hurt and go put on a pink pussy hat or some other irrational gesture of her outrage. Excluding women is not the same as excluding men, because, we typically don’t want to be in feminist spaces, but for some reason, feminists want to be in male spaces.

Probably because we’re just better.

3. Special Recognition

No, we don’t need an International Men’s Day or a Men in the Workplace group. Why? Because every day is their day and the world is their group. Designating events and organizations to elevate certain people doesn’t encourage inequality. Things are already unequal now, and such efforts exist to balance them out.

We don’t need an International Women’s Day or a Feminist fight club. Why? Because every day is their day and civilization is largely built for the comfort and leisure of their group. While Feminists complain mightily about the lack of women in C-suites, they are quiet as mice in church about the lack of women on the backs of garbage trucks, or on oil rigs, or in coal mines, or paying alimony, or paying child support. Things are already unequal now. Events recognizing the issues faced by men exist to balance things out.

Equality.

4. Pats on the Back

 

Yes, it’s great for men to be feminists, but it’s not noteworthy. It’s the decent thing to do, as is respecting sexual consent, taking care of children, and other behaviors that are often considered exceptional for men but shouldn’t be. Men should be working toward feminist causes because they believe in them, not for their personal gain.

Yes, women bend over backwards for THEIR men, i.e., the men that tickle that little nerve running from their lizard brains down to their vaginas. For those of you who are not THEIR men, you are indistinguishable from tissue paper. You are a utility, to be used and disgarded without complaint or even a nod to your existence.

Which why, as I have noted before, self-proclaimed “male feminists” fall into two categories: Quislings and Puppeteers.

5. Their Affections

This should really go without saying, but given how many men tout their feminism to get laid, it’s worth noting that nobody is entitled to sex or love from anyone. If you think women owe you their affections because you’re a “nice guy,” you’re actually not being nice at all. You’re being coercive.

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul? Likewise, what does it profit a man to acquire mediocre feminist pussy and lose his self-respect?

It’s funny that feminists are so terrified that a man would have the audacity to profane feminism in order to get access to their most valuable resource: Pussy. I refer back to my two categories: male feminists are either Quislings or Puppeteers. The Quislings actually believe they can buy pussy with “good boy points.” The Puppeteers (Hi, Hugo Schwyzer) can spit enough Feminist jargon to get past the bitch shields to the vagina. (Quislings and Puppeteers)

Women do not owe men sex or affection. Very well. Men do not owe women affection, or money, or time, or effort because she’s offering pussy. If she is using pussy, or the promise of pussy, she’s being coercive.

6. Leadership Roles

Men’s role in feminism shouldn’t be to decide what is best for women, non-binary, or gender non-conforming people. It should be to listen to them and spread their message to others, especially other men, who may not listen to oppressed genders. It makes sense that feminist organizations and movements would give leadership positions to the people whose voices are most important in feminism.

Feminism means equality. As in that state of “equality” women have no duty to listen to men, but men have a duty to listen to women.

Therefore, all things being equal, men have no duty to listen to women, but women have a duty to listen to men. It makes sense that organizations and movements give leadership positions to those best suited to leadership (who, strangely enough, usually end up being men). Probably because men understand that a leader can only lead so far without the consent and respect of his followers.

7. Education

Since many cis men haven’t experienced sexism themselves, it’s understandable that they’d like to hear the perspectives of people who have. And usually, I’m more than happy to share them. But don’t ask us questions Google can answer for you (like “What is feminism?”). Don’t ask us to prove sexism exists with data when there’s already a ton out there (and doubting our own accounts is insulting). And don’t treat us as unpaid private tutors. We’ve got bigger things to worry about — like protecting our own bodily autonomy — than catering to people who already have every right and more.

“Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit.”

“The burden of the proof rests with the one who asserts.”

When a feminist asks why I am against feminism (which means “equality”) I have no duty to answer her question. All I have to say to is, “Google can answer for you.”

You see, I have no duty to explain myself to you. Under Feminism (which means equality) you should just believe what I say, as I say it, without any demonstration of my credibility or facts to support my assertions. Don’t ask me to prove misandry exists when there are tons of examples (and doubting me is insulting because my credibility should be beyond question). To ask me to prove my arguments is calling me an unpaid private tutor, despite the fact that I demand your labor, unpaid and unrecognized, in support of feminism.

We men have got bigger things to worry about, like protecting our own bodily autonomy. We simply don’t have time to cater to women who already have every right that men do, but demand more.

I feel more liberated already, not owing things to Feminists.

Archived Source