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

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

Dear American women,

Dear Stephen,

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

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

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

And shill that book, too.

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

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

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

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

Let it go.

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

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

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

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

6 ways to deal with hating your boyfriend’s friends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Have you tried being more like a woman?”

And simultaneously admonishes:

“Stop punching yourselves, stupid men!”

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

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

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

Archived Source

Dissecting the Feminist Hamster: The Christian Feminist, or “Not All Feminists Are Like That”

I crowd-sourced from my feminist friends, and came up with a list of things we wish you knew about us.

Sound of cracking knuckles

Well. Let’s get this party started. I could use a little rhetorical exercise.

1. First of all: there are many feminisms. What you learn about what feminist, or one feminist tradition, does not necessarily extend to cover all feminists or feminisms. So proceed with caution.

The author starts nicely with a pleading of plausible deniability. It’s the Hamas/Fatah model (or the motte-and-bailey, or the bait-and-switch): One feminist says or does something outrageous, destructive, or disruptive (men are evil! We must have gender quotas! We must have programs! And grants! And subsidies! The Patriarchy! Rape apologists!)

When called on their bullshit, Feminists retreat to “look in dictionary! Feminism means Equality! You’re not against equality, are you? You hate your mother, don’t you? I’m not like THOSE feminists!”

One feminist does the damage; the rest reap the rewards while pleading absolute ignorance to the harm done.

2. We don’t hate men. Hating men is nowhere written into any existing feminist tradition or text. Some of us like men quite a lot, to be honest – even if we loathe the patriarchy. Now, it is true that a particular feminist might be angry at men. If she is, it’s quite possibly because she has been a victim of abuse or rape. Her anger is personal – maybe even a self-defense mechanism – not a feminist statement. And we hope that instead of just saying “hey, I’m not like that!” – you’ll prove that you’re not like that, by listening to her when she speaks up about injustice.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” — Susan Brownmiller

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” –- Catherine Comins

“I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene.” — Germaine Greer

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” — Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

Misandry is written into quite a bit of feminist text and tradition. But as the prophet Jeremiah wrote (this is a “Christian” feminist after all):

“Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear…”

Jer 5:21

Your “personal anger” means nothing to me. I have “personal anger.” Your cross is not bigger than mine, or heavier, or have more splinters. I would rather bear yours than you would bear mine.

But I don’t have the right to visit my “personal anger” on those who are not the cause of it, just as I don’t have the right to beat those who did not beat me, or rob those who did not rob me. A personal grievance is just that: personal. It is was caused by a person, and is held by another person. I will not stand still and be accused of things I did not do and I will not be an emotional punching bag for some feminist with a bug up her ass.

All have not sinned and fallen short of the glory of Woman.

3. We don’t particularly want to be like men – or at any rate, wanting to be like men is nowhere central to a feminist creed. Sure, some of us prefer a more androgynous or masculine aesthetic. I personally avoid wearing dresses and skirts, on the principle that you never know when you’ll have to climb out a window or jump on a horse and gallop away, but this is not due to any submerged penis-envy. Yes, we may do logic and manage money; we may fix cars or cut down trees or go hunting. None of these make us “like men.” They just make us women who are good at logic, or cutting down trees. In fact, many feminists specifically prefer to emphasize NOT being like men, with the idea that acting like men is harmful to the culture.

So…you don’t hate men…but “acting like men” is harmful to the culture…which is a Feminist position.

“Men” = “Harmful to the culture.”

Conversely…

“Women” = “Beneficial to the culture.”

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

4. We don’t love abortion. There are pro-life feminists. There are pro-life feminists. There are pro-life feminists (repetition, because I want it to sink in). Nearly all my feminist friends are prolife, as I am. But it’s also the case that pro-choice feminists do not think abortion is awesome, either. Even “shout your abortion” (a slogan that makes many of us deeply uncomfortable) is not intended to say “abortion is so awesome” – but, rather, to remove the stigma from talking about it.

I’ll just let the Jezzies take care of this:

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Pro-Life Feminist’

And then we had the vanguard of feminism (Women’s March) unceremoniously exclude the “Pro-Life Feminists” from their hen party.

5. We don’t think women are superior to men. This is in fact, the opposite of the usual feminist view. There are certainly feminisms that argue for the superiority of a female worldview, but feminism tends to emphasize equality.

Are you back to pleading plausible deniability again?

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” — Elizabeth Cady Stanton

“It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men. — Op-ed, New York Times, April 19, 1912

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”– Congressman Barbara Jordan

6. You can be a feminist and be Christian. And being a Christian feminist, or a feminist theologian, doesn’t mean you’re some kind of dangerous heretic.

Since this is a “Christian” feminist argument, see Matthew 6:24: No man can serve two masters (maybe a woman can since she is of two-faces and two-minds) for either he will hate the one, and love the other.

Christian Feminist. Muslim Feminist. Jewish Feminist. Buddhist Feminist. Hindu Feminist. Who is the master they will hate? Who is the master they will love? I say it is Feminism and if two are ever in conflict, they will disregard the master they hate (religion) to serve the master they love (Feminism).

7. We don’t hate motherhood and marriage. Most of us are interested in the flourishing of families, in healthy marriages, and the well-being of children. Some feminists love being domestic, even. And while others may be happier not getting married and starting a family, this is simply because they are being true to themselves. And while yes, there are branches of feminism that are critical of the institution of marriage, when you look at the history of the institution of marriage, you can hardly blame them.

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“It is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this marriage. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of that institution.” — Sheila Cronin

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” — Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois

“All sexual intercourse even consensual between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men…. All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. (from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November, 1971).

It appears that some rather important feminists do hate motherhood and marriage and domesticity and are of the opinion that it should not be an option available to women. Imagine that, feminists trying to deprive people of the right to choose. I thought they were all on this “Pro-choice” trip.

But marriage is indeed a terrible thing. The institution wherein a man is legally obligated to subsidize a woman and her brood (law states that a man is responsible for children produced during the duration of a marriage, even if they are demonstrably not his offspring) and even if the marriage ends, his status as servant does not end as evidenced by his liabilities in the form of alimony and child support. This makes the marriage contract more akin to peonage or indentured servitude.

8. We’re not necessarily aligned with any political ideology or group. Feminists come in many political, as well as religious, flavors. And being feminist doesn’t, or shouldn’t mean neglecting other political or social issues. That’s what being “intersectional” means.

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon

Feminism was born from Socialism. The man who coined the term and originally devised the ideology (Charles Fourier) was a Socialist of the Communalist stripe. Feminism, from its inception, is aligned with a political ideology. Unlike the “Armed Doctrine” that emerged from the Paris Commune, Feminism could be described as the “Cancerous Doctrine” for the reasons the author states: It is a thing that can append itself to any other group, ideology, religion, or society, and convert it from its normal form and processes to abnormal form and processes that it cannot sustain. Feminism operates in much the same way, infiltrating, attacking, and converting healthy, non-feminist social organs and ideologies until they become feminist and ultimately die.

“Intersectionality” is merely a vector by which the disease of Feminism attacks the host.

9. Just because we’re angry about injustice, this doesn’t mean we aren’t happy and grateful for the good things in our lives.

“Injustice”, whatever your definition of that word might be, is not a license to act in whatever way you want without consequence.

10. Yes, men can be feminists. Okay, this one is up for some dispute, for various reasons: some feminists prefer to think of sympathetic men as allies. Some allies are wary about identifying as feminists, NOT because it will make them “less masculine” (massive eye-roll) – but because they have seen too many men claim to be feminist in order to try to take advantage. This strikes me as a pretty feminist perspective, actually, and I appreciate it. Personally, though, I believe men can be feminists – and should be feminists. This is not only because male support is valuable, but because entering into discourse with male feminists can add a lot to our understanding about how humans best relate and understand one another, what societal structures are harmful, and how best we can dismantle them in a way that is wholesome, not destructive.

“Male feminists” or “male allies” can be dumped into two categories: Quislings and Puppeteers. Some call quislings by other titles: White Knights, Eunuchs, Beta Males. In this instance, Quislings most closely captures the substance of the pathetic creature in question. In the quisling category are men who will gladly throw over another man for female approval. Some quislings hope that female approval will buy him access to vagina. That hope is as childish and short-sighted as the kid who spends 20 dollars buying tokens at Chuck E. Cheese to play games, and win enough tickets for a prize that retails at 2 dollars. Sex is cheaper to buy outright than win through games of chance or skill. The other quislings are men who put women on a pedestal as their goddess-victim. Woman, to this quisling, is at once more wise, and pure, and moral than men. At the same time she is ever in danger of being torn down from her lofty pedestal and ravaged by these inferior beings. Woman, to these quislings, is an idol made of glass: a god of his own imagination who cannot help him and cannot save herself.

On the other side, we have the puppeteers. The puppeteers are smart enough to use Feminism to their own ends while claiming the mantle of “feminist” or “ally.” The author, at the start of her article has a picture of First-wave feminist Doris Stevens, a member of the National Women’s Party. The National Women’s Party, for all of its proto-“GRRL POWER!” posturing and protesting, did not accomplish its goal of obtaining suffrage. That “honor” goes to Carrie Chapman Catt and the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Catt set aside her pacifist principles (proving they were not principles at all, but preferences) and threw the weight of her 2 million woman organization behind Woodrow Wilson’s war in Europe. Similarly in England, the Order of the White Feather, founded by Charles Fitzgerald and eagerly supported by the Pankhursts clan, shamed and cajoled men, many of whom could not vote themselves, to sign away their lives to the British Army. Once 100,000 American men and millions of other men were sacrificed on the altar to European stupidity, and a breach had been created that International Socialism and National Socialism, the Feminists of Britain and the United States were rewarded with the vote for their collaboration in sending thousands of men and boys to their deaths.

Get enough men killed, and you too can obtain the vote.

Back to Doris Stevens and the National Women’s Party. The NWP was headed by Alice Paul, a militant feminist and great admirer of the Pankhursts and their campaign of feminist terrorism in Britain (for example, see the attempted assassination of Prime Minister Harold Asquith). Alice Paul was a close friend and ally of Howard W. Smith, Democrat Representative for the state of Virginia. Smith was segregationist, but he was also a supporter of feminism. The reason? Alice Paul, like many feminists of the time, eagerly offered up “women’s rights” as a bulwark against blacks obtaining political power. The statements and speeches and quotes are numerous. I have reproduced them elsewhere and will not do so here. For 20 years, Smith annually sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment, the pet legislation of the NWP. In 1964, he sponsored an amendment to add “sex” to the list of protected classes in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that “white women” would suffer greater discrimination than black men if not included.

The argument won the day.

These are just two examples of puppeteers using the unprincipled and amoral grasping for power of Feminists to further their own ends, whether it be for increased power for a totalitarian state or to advance white supremacy. It also demonstrates that the political power of feminists is wholly dependent on their relationship to powerful men and not any courage or virtue of their own. Put another way, Feminists in the hands of a puppeteer show that they would rather be the master’s most favored slave on a plantation than embrace freedom from being ruled and if they must sacrifice the lives and freedom of men, they will gladly do so.

And the causes of women are a seemingly bottomless chasm into which tax dollars may be poured, bureaucrats hired and deployed to study and write papers, a photo-op for disreputable politicians, and a talking point for propagandists and moral scolds to argue over whose heart has been broken into more pieces by the sight of female suffering.

Any man who espouses feminism, or the grievances of women as a class, is either an idiot or a manipulator.

Postscript: we really, really wish you would take a little time to educate yourself on the history of feminism, and on different feminist traditions, before making any magisterial statements about them – or us.

This whole thing was one long paean to NAWALT. What cupcake does not notice or care to address is that the exception, even if it exists, does not disprove the rule. And it smacks completely of insincerity given the history and practices of Feminism.

I understand Feminism all too well. That’s why I stand in opposition to it. I will not bow to a female supremacist movement.

Source

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Erin Keane

Yeah. You already know what it is.

More nonsense about the “Women’s March” on Washington. It’s pretty typical fare. A Feminist showing open disdain for men while demanding that men offer up themselves to serve Feminism.

The Women’s March on Washington, like all responses to the election that made Donald Trump our next president, has incurred no shortage of close readings as Americans and those watching us attempt to make sense of where we are culturally and politically in the wake of 2016 and in the dawn of the Trump presidency.

Nothing suggests rationally trying to make sense of a fact like putting pink wool cat ears on your heads and waving signs around. In fact, this is the very height of reason.

It began, as things do these days, on social media. Facebook drove its early momentum much in the same way that activists galvanized protests against police brutality in Ferguson and Baltimore on Twitter in 2014 and 2015 as the Black Lives Matter movement took shape.

Which has accomplished approximately…NOTHING.

What started with a couple of unrelated posts tapped into widespread desire for a show of solidarity and strength in opposition to Trump’s inauguration. Now organizers are bringing thousands of people together to descend on Washington on Jan. 21, with concurrent sister marches planned in cities across the country.

Bus rental companies across America are rejoicing.

And as with any initiative that begins with individuals and not with a focus group, there have already been growing pains. On Jan. 9, the New York Times examined the “contentious racial dialogue” that the march’s organization has sparked, somewhat along generational lines between “the personal is political” approach, which often ends up benefiting affluent white women the most, and those who highlight more intersectional concerns. Among other internal clashes over feminism, race and class, a quote posted on the organizing page by feminist scholar bell hooks about “confronting the ways women — through sex, class and race — dominated and exploited other women” apparently put some white women off the march and the movement around it.

Nothing says “solidarity” like accusing your supposed allies of inherent moral defect based on their ancestry and/or race.

Conversations like this are necessary — painful, perhaps, for women on all sides of the discussion, but very necessary — as the brand of female empowerment that Hillary Clinton came to symbolize for the women she most visibly represents (and I resemble that remark myself) is interrogated and expanded and refined for the more inclusive and, we can only hope, more successful feminist future. If the march is going to organize an effective feminist response to the current political and cultural climate, it’s good to start off on a less self-indulgent foot than Pantsuit Nation, another Facebook-grown collective now turned into a puzzling publishing endeavor, did.

“Conversation” being the latest Progressive/Social Justice buzzword for a Struggle Session, wherein you stand in the circle as Feminists accuse you of various unspeakable privilege-crimes like being

1) White

2) Male

3) Wealthy

4) A FUCKING WHITE MALE!!

It would be great if activists didn’t have to pause their work to have these conversations with women whose feelings are hurt by an intersectional focus to help them figure out how to move past their personal responses. But if we were already there as a country, we probably wouldn’t be in this position to begin with. As it is, women definitely have enough on their plates without having to make sure that men also feel sufficiently included and excited by the event to join in with their full and active support.

It would be equally great if Feminists didn’t excuse themselves from civil discourse while on their Holy Pussy Jihad. But in intersectional feminist la-la land, when you are an “oppressed class” you are free to behave in any way you deem fit against an “oppressor class,” no matter how personally accusatory or objectively offensive that behavior may be.

But heaven forfend that you even suggest that a woman let you grab her by the pussy.

The people who profess that they are working for “equality” have one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for those not in their tribe.

Might I suggest — lightly, so I don’t hurt any men’s feelings and give them another excuse for opting out — that this is not an invitation to a second cousin’s wedding, but an opportunity to participate in an organized effort to salvage our ravaged democracy? And that there is a certain amount of “get over it” they need to hear and act upon?

1. I cannot “opt out” of something I was never a participant in to begin with.

2. America is not a democracy; it is a republic. No matter how much you and your ochlocratic ilk would like to put individual rights up on the altar of the howling mobs, you cannot wish the Constitution away.

3. Donald Trump won. Get over it. Donald Trump defeated the warmongering, lying, corrupt, plutocrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

GET. THE. FUCK. OVER. IT.

Gosh. I love “get over it.” It’s such a brief, yet clear exercise in sneering contempt and handwaving in place of good faith argumentation.

Perfect for a Feminist.

Dear men of America: If you have been waiting for your engraved invitation to participate in this march, please consider it delivered. Imagine me slipping an envelope under your door late at night, like a bid to an exclusive social club instead of a public protest. There are conditions on this invitation, however. You will not automatically be put in charge, which might be a shock to some of your systems. You are being invited instead to do what women have done for generations: Show up and ask “What can I do?” You will be put to work.

You can offer up all of the imaginary invitations, engraved, verbal, written, you like. What you, nor anyone associated with this overwrought hen party has done is offered up a good reason why I, or any other man, should be involved this.

You have nothing going on that entitles you to any man showing up and asking “What can I do?” Your cause is not worthy of any honest or decent man’s contribution of time, intellect, or strength.

I am truly sorry that our culture has conditioned you to automatically reject anything branded as a “woman thing,” out of fear of violence and/or social rejection.

This is a highly compressed nugget of bullshit.

First, Keane has spent the last three paragraphs laying the snide condescension men like a cement mixer. Now, she has switched gears to phony sympathy with a bit of shaming (I’m sorry you’re “scared” of violence/rejection i.e. less than a REAL MAN(tm)).

A “Real Man” to any particular female, is one who does what is most useful to her at the particular moment in which said female challenges your manhood.

The only “rejection” that Western culture has trained men to fear is rejection by women.

But now is not the time to be a quiet and passive supporter of women. Perhaps after this march you can have your own painful and necessary dialogues about why you waited for women to organize a powerful show of resistance and then, instead of being grateful for the opportunity to participate, some of you pouted about not having a seat at the planning table.

Because females are “Strong and Independent and Don’t Need No Man.” I am a man. I do not render aid or service where it is not needed. I don’t waste my time or effort on the demonstrably ungrateful or the outright spiteful.

Perhaps you can have your own painful and necessary dialogues about being in thrall to superficial branding over substance, because this march and the movement it is galvanizing are about women’s lives, not our lifestyles, and deserve to be treated with accordant gravity.

I’ll pass, thanks. I don’t fetishize hurt feelings quite like Feminists do.

Please, do talk amongst yourselves on these issues. But don’t lean on women to educate you, unless you are hiring them in a professional capacity to do so. Women are busy; they don’t have time to lead you gently by the hand through this process.

I’d rather talk to other men about how fucking daffy and arrogant Feminists are to expect men to come and accept second-class status, based on sex, in the Feminist milieu as “Equality.” I would rather laugh at the outright hypocrisy Keane displays in expecting men to voluntary surrender their time and labor to Feminist idiocy while demanding that men hire Feminists to defend their ideology against questioning.

Men are busy. We don’t have time to listen to you, follow you, or lead you gently by the hand ANYWHERE. (I hope you noticed the pivot back to snide condescension.)

In the meantime, if you believe the ideals a Trump presidency is sure to shore up will be toxic for the country, show up. March alongside and behind your partners, mothers, daughters, sisters, neighbors, colleagues and fellow citizens. I assure you that your masculinity will remain fully intact — it may well be enhanced! — even if you slip on a pussy hat for the event.

So wait, is this the pro-Women March? Or the anti-Trump march? Didn’t a bunch of females vote for Trump? Did they get their V-cards pulled for voting the wrong way?

But, on the topic of cards, I know what card you won’t be pulling; my masculinity card for your own petty political benefit.

Archived Source