Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber With Commentary

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

One guy mistakenly believed that Google’s suggestion box really wasn’t a paper shredder with a funny post-it note attached and had the audacity to actually voice his thoughts. The author has to make the sign of the Cross against the greatest evils of our time: sexism, stereotyping, and exclusion, before screwing up enough courage to actually present an argument.

TL:DR

·Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

But you don’t understand! You are morally impure and they are morally pure! So, when they shame you and harass you and silence you, it’s okay because they have only the best of intentions!

Per the political correctness fanboys and social justice enthusiasts, there are no bad acts. Only bad people. Which is why it is “oppression” and “triggering” when you do it, but it’s “empowering” and “advocacy” when they do it.

·This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

Some might even call them sacred cows.

·The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Silly goose, discussion was never the point, only compliance.

·Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Dear white man, when you win, it because MUH OPPRESSION and TEH PATRIARCHY. When they win, it is because GRRL POWER.

Really, how hard is it for you evil oppressors to understand? It is impossible that you actually succeeded over a woman based on your own merits.

·Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression.

Utopia is just a stone’s throw away if we just give the proper well-meaning philosopher-kings absolute power over our lives.

It might even work out this time, unlike all of the other times it’s been tried.

·Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

BLASPHEMER! Is this evil male daring to suggest that two wrongs actually DON’T make a right?

What disgusting thing will he utter next? That equal treatment does not necessitate equal outcomes?

Will this madness never cease?

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Yeah, gonna have to stop you there. People don’t have invisible biases. They might have unexamined biases. They might have unreasonable biases. They might have unadmitted biases. But to suggest that someone just doesn’t know that they dislike men, or women, or whites, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, is complete nonsense. People will freely admit their biases so long as they believe that the person they are talking to isn’t sitting in moral condemnation of them.

Unfortunately, the political correctness brigade has no other tactic but moral condemnation.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Uh-oh. This cannot possibly end well.

Left Biases

·Compassion for the weak
·Disparities are due to injustices
·Humans are inherently cooperative
·Change is good (unstable)
·Open
·Idealist

The political left’s biases? Oh where to start.

Compassion for the weak: The Left does not have compassion for the weak; they have a disdain for the strong, specifically for anyone who gains anything outside of their oppressor/oppressed framework. It is why certain black men, like Dr. Ben Carson can be freely maligned, despite being “oppressed” as black men, Hillary Clinton, despite being a life-long member of the political and financial elite, can be praised.

Disparities are due to injustices: The Left takes that quote of Honore de Balzac, that behind every great fortune lies a crime, to the extreme that behind every success lies oppression.

Humans are inherently cooperative: The opposite is true; humans are inherently competitive. Humans are only cooperate when their interests are aligned.

Change is good (unstable): Not even remotely true.

Open: ???

Idealist: The idealist imagines he is creating the shining city on a hill when he’s just laying down fresh asphalt on the road to hell.

Right Biases

·Respect for the strong/authority
·Disparities are natural and just
·Humans are inherently competitive
·Change is dangerous (stable)
·Closed
·Pragmatic

Respect for the strong/authority: In the civil society, the strong have a responsibility to use their strength wisely, and authorities have a duty to use their authority justly.

Disparities are natural and just: Disparities are natural. Stephen King will never win a 100 meter dash. Usain Bolt will probably never work in astrophysics. They are both men and each owes the other the civility that comes with being men and the laws of men should regard neither as better or worse than the other.

Humans are inherently competitive: This true. Our first contests were likely for food and sex.

Change is dangerous (stable): Edmund Burke opined on the dangers of change for the sake of change far better than I could.

Closed: ???

Pragmatic: Pragmatism, like Idealism, should be tempered to avoid becoming destructive. Both can lead the holder to certain ruthless calculations that disregard the wills and desires of individuals.

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Holy smokes! Did this guy actually appeal to facts as reason? He’d better start cleaning out his desk.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
· They’re universal across human cultures
· They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
· Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
· The underlying traits are highly heritable
· They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Utopians will never let a silly little thing like biology or evolutionary psychology keep them from creating paradise on Earth, regardless of how many bodies they leave in their wake.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:
· Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
· These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
· Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
· This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
· Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Women are sensitive to their place in any social hierarchy, likely developed because fertile women were so dependent on the labor of others for their survival during significant portions of their childbearing and child-rearing years. So, they’re extroversion and gregariousness and even their neuroticism is a constant effort to maintain the favor of those with power and resources to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Men hunt, women gather. Goes back to our most primitive days. Some men didn’t get to come back from the hunt.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
· Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
· We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
· Women on average are more cooperative
· Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
· Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
· Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
· The male gender role is currently inflexible
· Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
· Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
· A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
· Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
· Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
· Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Diversity for its own sake is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If you have a commitment to facts and reason, it should not matter what the source is. If your best team of programmers is all white men, it shouldn’t matter if their product is good.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

Protect the eggs? Male disposability? This guy…this guy here is dangerously close to ingesting a red pill.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Let’s call “political correctness” by its true name: crude thought-policing. It is motivated by the same idea where kings made it a crime to insult or criticize them. Lèse-majesté has transformed into lèse-victimé.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.

·As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Yep.

Stop alienating conservatives.

· Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
· In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
· Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Never going to happen. Progressives would never deign to sully their pure minds with even the suggestion that someone has a valid reason for holding an opinion contrary to their own.

Confront Google’s biases.

· I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
· I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

And you will run into exactly the same issue that pollsters in the 2016 Presidential election ran into: people are not going to truthfully state their political positions to Progressives who will use the information to harangue them or mock them. Any conservative who has somehow managed to sneak into Google is certainly not going to out himself or herself.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

· These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

· Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
· There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
· These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
· I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Of course there is very little information as to the efficacy forced diversity programs because the reasonable inference is that these programs have not had the desired effect.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

· We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
· We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
· Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

Here’s the problem: The representative viewpoints are already available. The arguments have been argued. The positions have been laid out. But there is no room for dissent at Google.

De-emphasize empathy.

· I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Empathy is a virtue, but it is not empathy that the author’s cohorts want: It’s sympathy. They want you to allow them to emotionally manipulate you into giving them what they want. They want to say “Look at how beautifully I suffer! Oh, look how I bleed! Won’t anyone come save me from these troubles?” and for you to throw all reason to the side and submit to their will.

Prioritize intention.

· Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
· Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Oh, the “speech = violence” trope is far more sinister than the author believes. The “speech = violence” trope gives the party offended by speech license to do actual violence to the offending party and call it self-defense. They will claim that your words alone will justify their violence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

· Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

· We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
· Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
· Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

Source

Feminists Want Money and Outcomes. A Response.

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

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

Nope.

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

But still, they want more things.

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

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

Health: From gains to wait-and-see

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

MONEY.

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

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

Sexual and domestic violence: Still too common

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

OUTCOMES.

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

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

Paid family leave and childcare: Behind other countries

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

MONEY.

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

Abortion was legal then and now. But …

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

MONEY.

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

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

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

‘Equal pay for equal work’

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

MONEY & OUTCOMES.

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

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

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

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

OUTCOMES.

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

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

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

Women are not a monolith

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

OUTCOMES.

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

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

Archived Source

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