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

Advertisements

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

A Response to ‘The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido’. Additionally, Stephen Marche, Will You Please Go The Hell Away?

You can’t see my face, but my palm is firmly attached to it right now. Stephen Marche, a Canadian writer and male feminist who can’t lower himself far enough in the dirt for the sake of feminism, has put out a new hatchet-piece in the New York Times. I strongly suspect this is causally linked to the recent investiture of Jessica Bennett as the ‘gender editor’ of the paper, but I can’t prove it. Nonetheless, Stephen Marche has, as he has done so many times before, written something lamentably stupid and I am going to point out why it is stupid.

After weeks of continuously unfolding abuse scandals, men have become, quite literally, unbelievable. What any given man might say about gender politics and how he treats women are separate and unrelated phenomena. Liberal or conservative, feminist or chauvinist, woke or benighted, young or old, found on Fox News or in The New Republic, a man’s stated opinions have next to no relationship to behavior.

Sort of like how the statement “feminism means equality” has no relationship to the behavior of feminists in trying to disqualify men from jobs through quotas or due process through Title IX hearings and ‘Listen and Believe’ blathering in rape cases.

Through sheer bulk, the string of revelations about men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein to Louis C.K. to Al Franken and, this week, to Charlie Rose and John Lasseter, have forced men to confront what they hate to think about most: the nature of men in general. This time the accusations aren’t against some freak geography teacher, some frat running amok in a Southern college town. They’re against men of all different varieties, in different industries, with different sensibilities, bound together, solely, by the grotesquerie of their sexuality.

Except it’s not a variety of men. The particular men being accused are a very narrow group: Men in the entertainment industry. Men who used their status as decision-makers and stars to get something vaguely resembling sex. Unfortunately, they ignore red pill truth number 1: You cannot negotiate attraction. You can negotiate sex and that’s fine.

Men arrive at this moment of reckoning woefully unprepared. Most are shocked by the reality of women’s lived experience. Almost all are uninterested or unwilling to grapple with the problem at the heart of all this: the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.

Feminism means equality…but, MEN ARE EVIL!!!!

For most of history, we’ve taken for granted the implicit brutality of male sexuality. In 1976, the radical feminist and pornography opponent Andrea Dworkin said that the only sex between a man and a woman that could be undertaken without violence was sex with a flaccid penis: “I think that men will have to give up their precious erections,” she wrote. In the third century A.D., it is widely believed, the great Catholic theologian Origen, working on roughly the same principle, castrated himself.

Let’s hit the first and easiest deception in this paragraph: It is unknown whether or not Origen castrated himself or not. The story comes from Eusebius of Caesarea, who, while an admirer of Eusebius, like had the tale from Demetrius, the Bishop of Alexandria who was an enemy of Origen and ran him out of the city. Also, Origen interpreted the Gospels as allegory, so it is unlikely that he would suddenly hit Matthew 19:12, read the word “eunuch” and after interpreting the other three books as allegory, decide that this part is literal, and then cut his own dick off.

As for Andrea Dworkin, Marche left out the rest of the Dworkin quote, which I will reproduce here:

“I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love together … men will have to phallocentric personalities, and the privileges and powers given to them at birth as a consequence of their anatomy, that they will have to excise everything in them that they now value as distinctively ‘male.'”

Unless Stephen produced those kids of his by artificial insemination and is letting wifey stuff a strap-on in his ass, it doesn’t seem like he has given up on his ‘precious erection’, his ‘phallocentric personality’ or his ‘privileges and powers.’

Fear of the male libido has been the subject of myth and of fairy tale from the beginning of literature: What else were the stories of Little Red Riding Hood or Bluebeard’s Castle about? A vampire is an ancient and powerful man with an insatiable hunger for young flesh. Werewolves are men who regularly lose control of their bestial nature. Get the point? There is a line, obviously, between desire and realization, and some cross it and some don’t. But a line is there for every man. And until we collectively confront this reality, the post-Weinstein public discussion — where men and women go from here — will begin from a place of silence and dishonesty.

Funny. And yet, feminists get aghast when men quote Andrea Dworkin’s own novel, Mercy, of her psychopathic misandry against heterosexual men.

“I’ve always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you’d need good silver.”

Stephen will never give females the credit of having a line between desire and realization. He has the same view of female nature that the jurors in the Lizzie Borden and Minnie Foster trials did. Females simply do not have the ‘bestial’ nature as men, or, put simply: Women are wonderful.

The masculine libido and its accompanying forces and pathologies drive so much of culture and politics and the economy, while remaining more or less unexamined, both in intellectual circles and in private life. I live in Toronto, a liberal city in a liberal country, with Justin Trudeau for prime minister, a half-female cabinet and an explicitly feminist foreign policy.

That’s right, the masculine libido has driven culture, politics, and the economy in Western civilization.

You’re welcome, women.

And no, you couldn’t have done it better.

The men I know don’t actively discuss changing sexual norms. We gossip and surmise: Who is a criminal and who isn’t? Which of the creeps whom we know are out there will fall this week? Beyond the gossip, there is a fog of the past that is better not to penetrate. Aside from the sorts of clear criminal acts that have always been wrong, changing social norms and the imprecision of memory are dark hallways to navigate. Be careful when you go down them; you might not like what you find.

So much easier to turn aside. Professionally, too, I have seen just how profoundly men don’t want to talk about their own gendered nature. In the spring, I published a male take on the fluctuations of gender and power in advanced economies; I was interviewed over 70 times by reporters from all over the world, but only three of them were men. Men just aren’t interested; they don’t know where to start. I’m working on a podcast on modern fatherhood, dealing with issues like pornography and sex after childbirth. Very often, when I interview men, it is the first time they have ever discussed intimate questions seriously with another man.

That’s right, men are not interested in self-flagellation or living in constant repentence for having a penis. And despite all of the decades feminist whining and haranguing and required training, men in general are sick of it. Men are not going to smack this feminist nonsense down for two reasons: First, the average man does not have the power to do so. This dives into the second reason: Feminism benefits the powerful. Feminists have helped make Americans less-free as they always have since their inception (the first-wave feminist movement died on the hill of alcohol prohibition).

A useful feature of our ‘toxic’ masculine nature is that we have the capacity to work around people and things we don’t like.

A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. There is sex education for boys, but once you leave school the traditional demands on masculinity return: show no vulnerability, solve your own problems. Men deal with their nature alone, and apart. Ignorance and misprision are the norms.

Male nature must be “dealt with” sort of like how cancer has to be dealt with.

But, feminism means equality, not man-hating.

Which is how we wind up where we are today: having a public conversation about male sexual misbehavior, while barely touching on the nature of men and sex. The (very few) prominent men who are speaking up now basically just insist that men need to be better feminists — as if the past few weeks have not amply demonstrated that the ideologies of men are irrelevant.

No, feminist ideology is irrelevant for the same reason that all ideologies rooted in socialism are irrelevant: Socialists cannot distinguish between coercion and persuasion. They jabber mightily about ‘mass movements’ but ultimately, they would rather seize the mechanisms of legal force and threaten your compliance than to win you to their cause.

Liberalism has tended to confront gender problems from a technocratic point of view: improved systems, improved laws, better health. That approach has resulted in plenty of triumphs. But there remains no cure for human desire. (“It isn’t actually about sex, it’s about power,” I read in The Guardian the other day. How naïve must you be not to understand that sex itself is about power every bit as much as it’s about pleasure?)

I wasn’t aware that human desire was something that required a “cure” Comrade O’Brien:

“The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party.”

Acknowledging the brutality of male libido is not, of course, some kind of excuse. Sigmund Freud recognized the id, and knew it as “a chaos, a caldron full of seething excitations.” But the point of Freud was not that boys will be boys. Rather the opposite: The idea of the Oedipus complex contained an implicit case for the requirements of strenuous repression: If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers.

I’ll see your Oedipus Complex voodoo psychoanalysis with a Westermarck Effect. Also, Freud’s theories have be unverifiable by contemporary psychology.

Freud also understood that repression, any repression, is inherently fluid and complicated and requires humility and self-searching to navigate. Women are calling for their pain to be recognized. Many men are quite willing to offer this recognition; it means they don’t have to talk about who they are, which means they don’t have to think about what they are. Much easier to retreat, into ever more shocked and prurient silence, or into the sort of reflection that seems less intended as honesty, and more aimed to please.

Yes. Silence is the ultimate response to feminists like Stephen Marche and females in the West screeching about how oppressed their are on the IPad 6s from the comfort of the local Starbucks. More men are realizing attempting to please females is not a solution; it only invites more screeching and more demands.

Sex is an impediment to any idealism, which is why the post-Weinstein era will be an era of gender pessimism. What if there is no possible reconciliation between the bright clean ideals of gender equality and the mechanisms of human desire? Meanwhile, sexual morality, so long resisted by liberals, has returned with a vengeance, albeit under progressive terms. The sensation of righteousness, which social media doles out in ever-diminishing dopamine hits, drives the discussion, but also limits it. Unable to find justice, or even to imagine it, we are returning to shame as our primary social form of sexual control.

Shame for men. Only men.

The crisis we are approaching is fundamental: How can healthy sexuality ever occur in conditions in which men and women are not equal? How are we supposed to create an equal world when male mechanisms of desire are inherently brutal? We cannot answer these questions unless we face them.

‘Healthy sexuality’ in Marche’s opinion appears to men acting like lesbians with penises, or rather, lesbians without tits and large, flaccid clitorises.

I’m not asking for male consciousness-raising groups; let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can.

And Stephen Marche ends with the typical, boring call to action that all of these advocacy puff-pieces ends on: Men, you are bad and evil and you should be ashamed to have a penis. Reflect on your evilness, then tie your white good-boy cape and pledge eternal servitude to WYMYNKIND. The man conflates ‘masculinity’ with ‘monstrosity’ and imagines that men are supposed to take his bullshit seriously.

Now, if Stephen wants to confess to monstrosity, that he needs to start taking the strap-on and wants to fuck his mother, that’s his business. But this is how he gets to write for the New York Times: He is the successfully re-educated class enemy of feminism, who loudly and publicly denounces others to prove his loyalty to Stalin and the Party and to buy mercy for himself. He spouts meaningless, mindless doctrine, using his hated class as a male as authority to speak on the subject of men while denouncing all things masculine as monstrous.

Source

Feminist Equates Men with Terrorists

Another day, another Feminist writing garbage.

Today’s big winner Jean Hatchet, who would like to conflate “domestic violence” with terrorism and equate “terrorist” with “man.”

And then feminists wonder why some of us don’t like them.

Terrorism affects our lives with quite miserable regularity at present. Most days we wake up with the niggling fear that somewhere in the world a man will have driven a car or lorry into a crowd. Or a man will have walked into a pop concert with an explosive. Or a man will have reversed his car into a protesting crowd. We are afraid of men in airports. We are afraid of men while on demonstrations and marches. We are afraid of men on public transport. We are afraid of men while we walk around cities.

MUH FEELZ!

Your paranoia is neither my fault or my problem.

Some men, and some women, will be bristling angrily already while reading this. I am using the word “man” they will be thinking. They will probably be shouting in annoyance, “that is sexist!” “Women kill too” they will protest.

Yes, women do kill too. Mainly, they kill children and each other.

Truth isn’t sexist. All of the men who have committed all of the most recent acts of global terrorism are men. All of them.

Except for the ones who were female.

Britain’s first ‘All-female terrorist gang’ at Old Bailey – two allowed to hide faces

Female terrorists and their role in jihadi groups

Indictment against female terrorist who stabbed Israeli Arab in Jerusalem

Greece to Extradite Belgian Female Terror Suspect

Beware the Women of ISIS: There Are Many, and They May Be More Dangerous Than the Men

It was therefore frustrating to see Jason Burke in the Guardian at the weekend finding all sorts of different links between the perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks except the one that was blindingly obvious. They are all men. Violent men.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is the same line of reason in which an abundance of Jews in Hollywood = Hollywood is controlled by THE Jews.

But okay, let’s ignore the culture, ethnicity, and the…religious ideology or political ideology of terrorists and just chalk it up to them having a penis.

By the way, who initiates the majority of the divorces in the Anglosphere?

70%+ women? That must mean vaginas inevitably lead to divorce.

Joan Smith wrote here about the other notable link amongst other recent male terrorists. They frequently, so frequently that it is impossible to exclude its relevance, have a history of violence against women. Often the violence is against women they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unless the men in question hit the women in question over the head with a stick and dragged the women in question back to their man-cave, she knowingly selected this man to associate with.

Men present value; women accept value.

If a woman picks a man with a tendency for beating ass, that’s her fault.

Since that article one of the suspects in the Barcelona attack has been shown to have a history of domestic abuse. James Alex Fields Jr. the murderer in Charlottesville had a history of domestic abuse of his own mother.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

James Fields is a diagnosed schizophrenic, but let’s leave that crucial fact out. Don’t want to fuck up this anti-male narrative we’ve got going on here.

The World Health Organisation report ‘Violence Against Women. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women’ in 2016, showed that globally 30% of women will experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.

Let’s think about that. Terrorism is horrific. But 30% of the global population will not experience directly an act of terrorism that harms them physically. 30% of women will.

That’s a shame. Sounds like they should have picked a better dick.

On my project ‘Ride for Murdered Women’ the other day the woman I honoured on bike ride 72 was a 43-year-old, qualified solicitor by the name of Alison Jane Farr-Davies. Alison had been beaten to death and thrown downstairs naked by her boyfriend.

James Dean, her murderer, hit her like a rocket or a bomb. It could be said that he was her war. Being in a relationship with a violent man is similar to being in a war. It hurts like war. It is perpetual lived terror. It hurts like terrorism.

Ha. Now for some fact that are inconvenient to Hatchet’s narrative: First, the guy’s name is DEAN JONES, not James Dean. I’m not even English and figured that out in 30 seconds. Huffpo, tell your bloggers to step their game up.

Second, Farr-Davies was a drug addict. She was an addict prior to her relationship with Jones, who is also a drug addict.

Like attracts like. Farr-Davies met Jones, accepted the value he presented (fellow druggie), and consented to a relationship with an unstable drug addict who ended up committing manslaughter on her (the court agreed that he did not intend to kill her).

Feminists can blather on about “domestic violence” until they are blue in the face, but they cannot talk their way out of basic sexual economics and the fact that while men may express interest, ultimately, women choose men, especially in the world of the “liberated woman.”

And when a woman chooses a man who has some blatant, obvious moral defect, then she gets what are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of entering relationships and having sex with morally defective men, whether it is losing their money, getting their skulls cracked, or ending up dead at the bottom of the stairs.

Violence and abuse of women is committed in such numbers that it is, and should be seen as, terrorism. It is designed to create terror in women specifically and to stop them going about their daily lives in safety.

Interesting. Allow me to pull a few numbers.

From the 2015 Uniform Crime Report prepared by the FBI:

Total murders reported for 2015: 13,455.

Total number of male victims of murder: 10,608

Total number of female victims of murder: 2,818

From the UK’s Office of National Statistics for the year ending March 2015(Caveat: The UK jukes its murder stats so they aren’t really reliable)

Total number of male victims of murder: 331

Total number of female victims of murder: 186

Let’s try another. From Juristat in Canada for 2015:

Total number of male victims of murder: 428

Total number of female victims of murder: 175

Getting the point yet? Allow me to make it unambiguously. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence, up to and including murder, than women. And now feminists want to expand the already overbroad umbrella of “terrorism” to cover their demonstrated inability to pick a morally upright man? They want to raise the hue and cry when women are less likely to be murdered, both in total and per capita, than men?

Absolutely not.

It does. It should be tackled as a priority as high on the list of global governments as any extremist terrorist threat. There should be a COBRA meeting, or its global equivalent, called every day that a woman dies. A woman dies like this somewhere in the world every day.

Call the meeting.

When a woman dies, there needs to be a Cabinet-level meeting. When a man dies, just broom his corpse off the street and continue with business as usual.

Explain this feminist definition of “equality” to me again, because I, for the life of me, am not getting it.

Wait a minute, I think I’ve got it now: In Feminism, equality means that women are sacred and men are disposable.

Source

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

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

What angle is this asshole trying to work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not my kid; not my problem.

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

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

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

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

I repeat: Not my kid; not my problem.

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

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

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

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

Patriarchy Acts. Rape Culture Teaches. Sexism Wants.

The Devil Is A Liar.

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

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

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

Source

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