“Women Are Afraid of Men” Is Bullshit

A thesis has made the rounds recently in the feminist blogosphere and the gynocentric media over the last few months in conjunction with #MeToo slacktivism. It’s based on a statement made by Margaret Atwood during a lecture in 1982:

“Why do men feel threatened by women?” I asked a male friend of mine. … “They’re afraid women will laugh at them,” he said. “Undercut their world view.” Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, “Why do women feel threatened by men?” “They’re afraid of being killed,” they said.1

Naturally, this is absolute bullshit.

Women have always been sexually aroused by the male capacity for violence.
During the Roman Empire, women purchased the sweat of gladiators, the lethal entertainers and celebrities of that period, for use as an aphrodisiac.2 Some Roman women, not content with the secondhand bodily fluids from trained killers, preferred to use more direct methods of collection by bribing guards of the gladiator camps for entrance and a sweaty evening with the day’s winner.3 The second century poet Juvenal’s sixth satire, the story of Eppia, the senator’s wife, who ran off with the gladiator Sergius, who Juvenal described as having “sundry deformities in his face: a scar caused by the helmet, a huge wen upon his nose, a nasty humour always trickling from his eye. But then he was a gladiator! It is this that transforms these fellows into Hyacinths!”4

The female arousal for male violence continues into the present, despite male violence being far more controlled than in Roman Empire, particularly with the fascination of women with men who do violence on behalf of the state, otherwise known as ‘men in uniform.’ During the reign of King George III, this affinity for state-sponsored killers was referred to as the ‘scarlet fever’ a reference to the red coats issued to infantrymen in the royal army. The 19th century English journalist, Henry Mayhew noted that to serving women of that period:

“A red coat is all powerful with this class, who prefer a soldier to a servant, or any other description of man they come in contact with.”5

One hundred years later, during the First World War, the disease of ‘scarlet fever’ transmogrified itself into ‘khaki fever’ though the symptoms remained the same: a mania for violent men in uniforms. Contemporary essayist Catherine Hartley noted that:

“war turned men into heroes, while women thought the war was going to be so fine they could do anything to help; they wanted their share, each one to have a stake for herself, and the easiest way to gain this was the ownership of a soldier-lover. It prevented the feeling of ‘being left out.’”6

A report of three studies prepared by Hannes Rusch, Joost Leunissen, and Mark van Vugt stated that Medal of Honor recipients tended to sire more children than regular veterans. There is also evidence that women find men more sexually attractive if they are war heroes (i.e. the most successful killers).7 The female lust for government-sponsored killers is not always so patriotic. In France, there are estimated to be 200,000 ‘war children’ whose fathers were German occupation soldiers World War II, accounting for nearly a quarter of all of the children sired by soldiers of the Wehrmacht in German-occupied Europe.8 Women fall easily into the arms of conquering men, even before the war is lost.

Women’s attraction to the dangerous man is exclusive not to those whose violence is approved by the government. Plenty of blood and ink has been spilled on the female infatuation with ‘bad boys.’ Men on death row and famous serial killers have no trouble acquiring female attention, despite committing heinous crimes against female victims.9 Further down the food chain are the ‘good girls’ who become molls for their ‘bad boy’ boyfriends. These women may come from middle-class backgrounds. At best, they associate with violent criminals, knowing what they are. In other situations, they facilitate their boyfriends’ criminal activities, hiding their boyfriends’ weapons and contraband, or actively participating in crimes themselves. Teenage girls view these criminals as exciting and prestigious and protective of them.10
Continue reading

Advertisements

Aziz Ansari: A Modern Romance Between The Male Feminist and The Empowered Woman

So. Woke male feminist bae Aziz Ansari has gotten himself in a bit of a pickle. He tried to fuck a woman and she was less than awed by his rampant manhood or sexual prowess. Now he’s been #MeToo’d.

This is the part where feminists’ brains shut off in unison and assume this is a full-throated defense of Aziz Ansari.

Sorry. There are no saints in this story, only sinners.

I’m not going to go point-by-point through the article. It’s linked below for your edification.

Grace: The Sexually Dysfunctional Empowered Woman

Grace is a portrait of the sexually dysfunctional modern Anglo-woman prude. She can chatter about universities, old cameras, and pictures of food she’s eaten. When it comes to sex, she expects men to instantly know not only how and when to pleasure her, but to do so with no little-to-no input from them. “Let’s chill” is not instructive of anything.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Grace that she moved away from him in the apartment. She claims that she gave non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable she was, went to the bathroom, came back and mumbled some.

You know what the best ‘non-verbal cue’ is that you aren’t interested? Putting on your clothes and walking out of the door. I’ve done it. I’ve had it done to me. It has a 100% success rate of all of the leading ‘non-verbal cues.’ As far as verbal cues go, a hard ‘no’ followed by ‘I’m leaving’ has no ambiguity whatsoever.

It wasn’t until she retreated to the safety of her tech/girlspace bubble that her verbosity returned, which in turn allowed her to draft that ridiculous text-message-cum-essay to Aziz about the sanctity of her female tears. Men should understand that when you are dealing with a woman, you’re not dealing with just that woman; you are dealing with her entire collective of female friends and collaborators.

This is why women eagerly take to collectivist ideas like Feminism, Socialism, Communism, corporatism, cults, fads, etc.: Women do not have a moral center. A woman’s “morality” is based on the opinions of those around her. Women cannot do the ‘right thing’ (even when it is actually the right thing) unless they have an army at their backs.

And women admit to it. Listen to the dearth of women who squat on these allegations of sexual impropriety for 10, 20, or 30 years and then say ‘well, I was afraid of not being believed/afraid of men/afraid of whatever’ but now that there is a hashtag (read: other people) women can do the ‘right thing.’

Validation is the core of a woman’s life and thinking. The center of all female interactions is the acquisition and maintenance of that precious commodity called ‘validation.’ Women don’t have the capacity to tell right from wrong without the validation of others.

Aziz Ansari: The Sexually Dysfunctional Male Feminist

I’ve already given some thoughts on male feminists that don’t require a full repetition here. I’ll just restate the conclusion:

Men become feminists because they are genuine fools, or disingenuous power-seekers.
Ansari, like most of the male feminists being swept up by #MeToo, is an example of the latter. He says what he thinks will gain him favor with women so that they will give him money and sex.

The article notes that Grace was excited to meet with a successful comedian and celebrity. We don’t know what the text messages leading up to the date contained (strangely enough, Grace didn’t feel the need to screencap and publish those texts), however, there was a difference in the social status of the two. I lack sufficient information to categorize Grace as a starfucker, but allow me a little realistic speculation:

Aziz Ansari is a skinny, 5’3″ man who looks like a Tamil bobblehead. Despite what the guys at r/incel and lookism might think, being short, skinny, or average looking are not a sexual death sentence. But if Aziz Ansari weren’t famous or a comedian, 22-year-old photographer would likely not approach him or make goo-goo eyes at him all night.

Bad sex is always hilarious when it happens to other people. And this is some particularly bad sex. There are some issues of sexual etiquette here. His most glaring error was that Ansari moved in with a move that I hope is remembered forever in infamy as ‘The Claw.’ He tried to stick his fingers in her mouth and then finger-pop her vagina. A man should not fingerpop a dry pussy, especially with more than one finger. Sticking your fingers in her mouth, especially to start with, is porno stuff and generally you don’t hit square girls with porno moves unless your sexual value to her is just that high. Finally, just stripping a chick down and then telling her to wait while you get the condoms is a bit tawdry.

In Aziz Ansari’s book, Modern Romance, he states that part of his comedic motivation is a preoccupation with “douchebag bro culture” and those white cis-hetero jocks who had an “unfair advantage” during his childhood because he lacked social media to show women how witty and smart he is. But when placed in a situation where sex was all but assured, he showed neither wit nor intelligence; only the frustration of a beta poseur lacking sexual competence and social skills to convert his social status into sexual attraction.

Grace is no better. She is an example of a woman who has been fed this commercial, prepackaged, pop culture girl power feminism. It is cheap empowerment in the internet age that requires no courage and no growth; it is bravery born from the distance and numbers of Twitter; it is the heroism of women putting their money into other people’s pockets to watch Wonder Woman; it is the valor of wearing a black dress to a place surrounded by armed security guards.

As shown by this Aziz Ansari incident, when a “strong, empowered woman” is cut from the safety of her herd of female cohorts and deprived of her electronic security blanket, she shrinks back down to her proper size: A mumbling, bumbling, overgrown teenage girl being chased by an overgrown, sexually-frustrated, teenage boy with a fetish for white women.

Just another instance of how the male feminist and the empowered woman deserve each other.

Source

P.S. I’m in no danger of Aziz Ansari ever reading this, but for the love of Aqua Buddha, the most holy and benevolent of all the divinities, buy a damn shirt that fits around your neck. When you’re rich, there’s no excuse to have that much gap between your collar and your neck.

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

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

The horror.

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

Her feelings.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh? Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

God bless America and California über alles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent work, dumbasses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck that.

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

Archived Source

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

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

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

Oh, this ought to be fantastic.

The initiative includes:

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

This seems benign.

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

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

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

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

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

Why not just wear pink pussy hats?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh? How is that?

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

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

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

Better to speak righteously than rationally, right?

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

Personally, I want them to do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived Source

Shaila Dewan and the Credibility of Rape Accusers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This ought to be fun.

The victim doesn’t act like one.

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

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

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

But victims behave in a wide variety of ways.

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

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

She stayed friendly with her abuser.

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

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

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

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

She did not come forward right away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her story does not add up.

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

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

She didn’t fight back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source

Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: Matthew Facciani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, fuck you, you hypocrite.

Source