I can’t possibly make this stuff up. So anyhow, there’s a discussion going on about Trump supporting women and of course, the liberals are all up in arms because Trump is literally Hitler or some crazy crap like that. So one of these special little snowflakes pops up and says “If he really did he would support equal pay for equal work for women.”
So, facepalming all the way, I posted “It already exists and has for more than 50 years. Have you honestly never heard of the 1963 Equal Pay Act?” And she comes back with:
I just about fell out of my chair. Here’s this special feminist snowflake who has never even heard of the 1963 Equal Pay Act. Well of course not, she’s completely ignorant of history and reality, she only pays attention to the feminist echo chamber, where other ignorant snowflakes know no more about anything than she does.
But this is really typical of the childish regressive left. They have no clue what’s actually going on in the world, they refuse to venture outside of their Tumblr and Twitter safe spaces and picking up a history book to find out what’s actually happened in the past? Heresy! Why bother when they can just rail on about all of the crazy things their side has to say! And you wonder why I rarely manage to have productive conversations with these people, because they’re incapable of understanding anything that doesn’t come from women’s studies courses or feminist authors.
And they don’t care either! This conversation continued for a couple of exchanges and she refused to admit she was wrong. Because all of those feminist “scholars” couldn’t have been lying to her all this time, no! That’s impossible! Therefore, history has to be wrong! The data has to be wrong! Reality has to be wrong! There’s no other explanation. And then she just stopped responding because things weren’t going her way.
I’m starting to remember why I walked away from Twitter, it’s still the same old irrational cesspool that it always was. Trying to engage with anyone there is utterly ridiculous because I find it difficult to find anyone who can actually discuss anything rationally. Take this case for instance.
Someone posted something about the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, that it was so great that girls have an “empowering” character that looks like them. So, stupid me, I have to ask why it’s important that people have an “empowering” character that looks like them. Can’t they just find their empowerment in any worthwhile character? Why does it specifically have to be female? They come back saying “oh, I just meant that it’s great that this wonderful character is getting a movie” as they run for the hills.
That doesn’t answer my question though. That’s also not what they said. They did not say “it’s great that this deserving character is getting a movie”, they said that it was great for girls, specifically, that a female character, specifically, is “empowering,” specifically.
I even agreed, I like Wonder Woman and I’m a man. Am I not allowed to be “empowered” by a female character? Are women not allowed to be “empowered” by male characters? Are blacks not allowed to be “empowered” by white characters and vice versa? Why does everyone need someone that “looks just like them” in order to get anything beneficial out of it? I don’t get it.
And neither does this poster, who as soon as I pushed the issue about empowerment on racial or gender lines, suddenly stopped responding. I get it. They got caught with their pants down and realize there is no winning outcome for their philosophy so they ran away to their safe space to hide. It isn’t like they stopped tweeting, they were active, they were just ignoring me. No surprise there.
So since the feminists won’t address it, I guess I’ll direct the question to the blog audience. Why do people need to have “empowering” characters that look just like them? Why can’t they just be “empowered” by worthwhile characters, regardless of their gender or race or sexual orientation? Can someone explain that to me please? I’d really appreciate it.
I find it funny how many people on the left absolutely worship the dictionary, as though they have no clue what the dictionary actually is. We see this most commonly from feminists who love to quote the dictionary definition of feminism and then… go do something entirely different.
But today I ran into a self-identified liberal who didn’t really like that I was calling out liberals for things he didn’t seem to think were particularly liberal. So he trots out the dictionary definition of liberal, then goes on to present his own positions that are 180-degree diametrically opposed from the dictionary definition.
These people need to realize that the dictionary doesn’t define words, the dictionary provides common usage. The dictionary isn’t proscriptive, it’s descriptive. That’s why dictionaries change definitions all the time and add entirely new words, because the general public changes how it uses words and invents new ones. Therefore, the dictionary doesn’t actually tell you what words mean, that’s done by linguistic etymology, it just tells you the current usage of a particular set of sounds that come out of your mouth.
That means that it all depends on which dictionary you look at as to what definition of a word you actually get. If you find a dictionary published in the 1970s, you’re not going to get a modern definition of “feminism”. There are such dictionaries online, like this one, the Webster’s Dictionary from 1828. Look up “liberal” and compare it to a modern dictionary. The word “feminism” didn’t even exist at that time. It’s interesting to see how words have changed over almost 200 years.
Regardless, just because the dictionary says something doesn’t make it actually so. As I said before, feminists will point to the dictionary definition, then go off and talk about gay rights and transgender issues, none of which fits with the dictionary definition of feminism. They will scream about the “political, social, and economic equality to men” and when it’s pointed out that they already have all of that, they freak out. There simply are no legally demonstrable rights that women lack that men have. The reverse is entirely not the case, but women are, in every single way imaginable, entirely equal to men. These special little snowflakes have just been indoctrinated to believe otherwise and not ask questions because, just like religion, if you ask questions, you’re just asking for trouble.
The dictionary doesn’t actually prove anything. It certainly doesn’t prove that your actions fit any particular dictionary definition. It just proves that lots of people use that word in a particular way. So what? If people started calling dogs “horses”, in a generation, the dictionary definition of “horse” would have a picture of a dog next to it. Does that make a dog a horse? I don’t think so.
Modern feminism screws up a lot, it’s no wonder that so many men are deciding that women just aren’t worth it and “going their own way”. But the feminists complain about that fact, never realizing that it’s their own damn fault, as this article over on Elite Daily clearly shows. So I’m going to take some excerpts from the article and point out just how absurd the whole thing actually is.
There’s no door-holding, no hand-holding and definitely no free drinks. There’s no taking off hats or courting through invitations. There are no smooth moves, no jackets to dinner. There are no flowers, no tables by candlelight. But, most importantly, there are no dates.
And that’s because that’s the way you want it. For decades, you’ve demanded that women be treated exactly the same way that men are treated. Men don’t hold the door for other men. Men don’t buy drinks for other men. Men, at least straight men, don’t court other men. Decades of feminism has taught women not to act feminine and has beat men over the head with the belief that women shouldn’t be treated that way. And now you’re complaining about it?
If you’re a single woman, you probably envisioned your twenties as a roaring social scene full of expensive dinners and lavish nights out. You probably thought you’d have a boyfriend, or at least a few dates a week.
You probably thought you’d meet a guy at a bar and that he’d ask for your number. You probably thought you’d be on your way to dinner next week.
If you’re trying to meet guys in bars, you’re an idiot. Bars exist for pickups. Bars exist for cheap sex. They do not exist for forming long-lasting relationships. Clearly, you’re already doing something seriously wrong. Sitting at a bar getting drunk isn’t an invitation for anyone to get to know you, it’s an excuse to get you into bed for some anonymous sex. Don’t be stupid.
We’re dealing with a new breed of men here and it’s not the kind we grew up dreaming about. It’s the want-what-I-want-but-don’t-know-how-to-get-it type; it’s the sweet and cuddly mama’s boys who grow up terrified of making the first move; it’s the guys who have so much to say but don’t know how to say it.
Because there is a difference between the “kind of man you grew up dreaming about” and the kind of man that has been beaten down by decades of feminist rhetoric, into being literally afraid to approach a woman for fear of being called a misogynist. They’re not terrified of making the first move, they’ve had that ingrained in them by many encounters with radical feminists who have taught them to be afraid. So men, by and large, don’t do that. They don’t go up to random women on the street because they’ve had really bad experiences that come with it. What you have left are the predators at bars who don’t care about relationships, they just want another notch on their bedpost and there are far, far too many women who are only too happy to oblige them.
Anyone notice the problem here? Yet again, women are left to do all the work. We’re left playing both sides of the game because they’ve simply forgotten how to play.
And that’s exactly the kind of attitude that guarantees nobody will want to be with you. Relationships are not a game. Stop pretending that it is.
This leaves women making all the moves. We must tell them what they want if we’re to get anywhere close to the goals we had for ourselves. But it will never be as we fully imagined because, in our dreams, men weren’t timid or scared little boys; in our dreams, men are the ones with the balls to ask us out.
But isn’t that what feminists wanted? Equality? Expecting men to make all of the moves is sexist, according to feminist dogma, but here we have a feminist who wants to be courted, wants to be treated like a woman, yet still spends her time looking down on and insulting men for not meeting her expectations. Make up your damn mind! You can’t get mad at the dog for being timid when you spent all of its life kicking it. You’ve brought this on yourselves.
They’ll never admit it, but you scare the hell out of them. After years of social conditioning, we’ve been duped into thinking that men are the strong ones; that they are the leaders, the protectors and the fighters; that they are the ones that see what they want and go after it.
They are scared of you and it’s all your fault. It’s years of feminist rhetoric that has done it. It’s years of being called names, being accused of being rapists and animals and evil that has done it. You wanted equality, you got it. They no longer take care of you because you wanted to take care of yourselves. Now you’re realizing what it is that you’ve lost and pointing fingers back at the men who are only doing what you said you wanted them to do. Make up your fucking mind already!
Why are men like this? Well, for years they’ve been raised by their mamas, the women who told them they were the best thing God created on this earth. For years, they’ve been given everything on a silver platter — up until the end of college when they were picking up women who just threw up their jungle juice.
Of course, some mothers have raised great men. This isn’t to discredit the generation of mothers before us who raised the myriad of young men we’re dealing with today. But for the select few who didn’t teach them how to properly court a woman, well, shame on you.
Shame on you for not teaching them how to properly approach a woman. Shame on you for giving them the idea that women must go to them. Shame on you for making them believe all they had to do was stand at a bar and wait for a girl to appear on their arm.
Yeah, that’s a problem caused by feminism too. Feminists want to do away with gender roles, they want to raise men to be in touch with their feelings and when that’s actually done under the feminist flag, feminists complain that men are wimps. You made them that way! No, women are not going to teach their sons how to pick up chicks. That’s something that has traditionally been taught by the father, but feminism has no need for traditional families, or even having the father in the picture, it’s no wonder that children raised in these broken homes don’t get the full well-rounded social education that they once did. And again, feminism is to blame, yet the feminists take zero responsibility for their actions.
In a sad, but not all that surprising, report by Nickelodeon UK, men are 11 years behind women in maturity. While women reach maturation by 32, men aren’t fully matured until 43. While this study garnered much attention, women everywhere were less than surprised. Didn’t we already know this?
No, what’s sad is that it takes anyone until 32 to mature. Maturity used to happen by the late teens or early 20s. But again, this is the result of widespread liberalization, where people don’t go out on their own when they’re 18, their parents protect them through college and then the kids just move back in so they don’t have to deal with the reality of life. Liberal parents don’t want to kick their kids out of the nest and this results in a much longer period of immaturity. Don’t blame men, blame liberalism.
To add insult to the few dates you have yet to be asked on, men are also getting married less than ever before. According to a study by Pew Research Center, only 26 percent of Generation-Y is married.
Compared to the 48 percent of our parents at this age, there’s no denying that men just don’t have their sh*t together.
Yeah, because liberalism in general and feminism in particular has forced those changes on society. It’s said women don’t need a man. It’s said men are scum. It’s said that getting married is part of the patriarchy. If you want to have kids, don’t get married, just find a sperm donor. That’s all you need! Any of this sound familiar? It’s no surprise that marriage has been in serious decline since the 1960s, just when modern feminism and the rise of liberalism was getting its start.
We’re dating less and thus, marrying less. And the downfall picks up speed with every failed attempt to ask a woman out.
No, the downfall picks up speed as long as third and fourth-wave feminism continues to exist. It is a social poison that destroys everything. Now that’s not to say that equality is a bad thing, it certainly is not and I fully support equality, but being equal and being identical are not the same thing. Women don’t have to be identical to men to be equal. But you have a sizeable movement within radical feminism, the lipstick lesbians, who think that the only acceptable course of action is to eliminate men entirely. They don’t want there to be men. They want ot turn men into breeding stock and nothing else. And this is nothing new, it goes back to the beginning of third wave feminism. Linda Gordon said “The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” Well, that worked out well, didn’t it feminists? Or how about Sally Miller Gearhart, who said “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” Or Mary Daly, “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” This is nothing new and nothing surprising. This is what feminism is. It’s what it’s been for the past 50 years. And now feminists are figuring out that they don’t like what their ideology hath wrought? And they’re blaming men for it?
You know, I get so sick of this every single day when liberals are continuously racist and sexist and genderist and all the rest of “ists” that they throw around. The most recent example is the furor over Scarlett Johanssen being cast in the live action Ghost in the Shell movie by idiot liberals who have no clue why they’re just wrong about the whole thing. I actually did a video over on my YouTube channel about one of them so for an explanation, by all means go watch that.
But why is it for a group of people who don’t want racism and sexism and all of that, the only thing they can ever pay any attention to is race and sex, etc.? Why is this all they see in everything? Because I’ll tell you, they spend more time bringing up race than the most ardent racist, they spend more time focusing on gender than the most extreme sexist and their abject hatred for white men is legendary. They are the biggest racists and sexists on the planet but they refuse to acknowledge it.
Race and gender and sexual orientation ought to be a complete non-issue. It shouldn’t matter who Hollywood casts in a movie. They ought to hire the best actor or actress and the color of their skin or where they want to stick their genitals should be completely irrelevant. The idea that they ought to hire people from one racial group or another ought to be totally ridiculous. Hire the best people for the job and stop focusing on irrelevant characteristics that honestly mean nothing. But no, you get stupid liberal asshole racists and sexists screaming that if you don’t pick from approved categories (and who gets to approve those categories? Them, of course!), that somehow there’s something wrong with you. No, there’s something wrong with them! I don’t personally care if Hollywood wants to hire a black lesbian dwarf with one leg to play Motoko Kusanagi. It doesn’t matter, so long as she is the best person for the role that they can get. It doesn’t matter if she’s black or white or brown or green or purple for all I care, so long as she’s a good actress. I don’t even care if she’s naturally female, she can be transgender if that’s who is best at the role. It makes no difference to me.
But it makes a hell of a lot of difference to these liberal fucks, who have their little checklist that they go down, who has to have more representation in every industry because somehow, enforced quotas are how you get equality. These people don’t know what equality is. They only know their own racism and sexism and genderism and ableism and anyone who dares to point out what they’re doing, as has happened to me plenty of times in the past, gets peppered with every nasty insult in the book. Apparently pointing out the racism of liberals is, in and of itself, racism. You try to figure that one out.
You might think this belongs on my other blog where I talk about geeky stuff, but I’ve really started to see this more in light of crazy feminists who only look at TV series in terms of the gender of the people they cast. This whole thing came up as I was listening to a podcast on the new Supergirl TV series, which is very good by the way and you should be watching it, and the hosts started making a lot of arguments about how women are treated on television.
Now I’ll admit that women haven’t been particularly well treated on either the big or the small screen and that probably extends to different races as well, but as I’ve said before, there is a form of reverse racism and sexism going on by people with charts and stopwatches who desperately want their particular demographic to be on-screen just as long as other demographics. Instead of having a color-blind and gender-blind and orientation-blind world, they spend all of their time paying attention to only color, gender and orientation. Instead of just hiring the best actors and actresses, they want special interest groups to get equal appearances on-screen whether they are actually good at it or not.
Don’t get me wrong, as I said, Supergirl is really quite good, but the writers keep jumping up and down with signs that say “See! We’re giving feminists what they want!” It’s unnecessary. They don’t need to have characters saying “isn’t it great that there’s a female superhero that my daughter can look up to!”
Beyond that though, they keep bringing up the Bechdel Test, which says that a show must have at least two women who interact with each other and don’t talk about men. Supposedly, Supergirl passes the test, but shows like Arrow and Flash do not. Well, Arrow and Flash are both primarily male dominated shows, made for a male audience. There are plenty of female cast members, but when they talk, they are almost always talking about the male members because that’s what the show is about. But you know what doesn’t make sense? None of these women complain on female-dominated shows, aimed at a female audience, when the men are treated like set dressing and only talk about women. I guess there is no reverse Bechdel Test.
And then you get the other side of the aisle who are mad that they made Jimmy Olson a black guy, just because he’s always been white in the comics. Who cares? Mehcad Brooks is really, really good at it, who cares what his skin color is? I know I don’t, I treat TV adaptations of comics as their own animals. If they made it into Jody Olson and it was a black woman who really knocked the portrayal out of the park, I’d be down for that too. A black, gay, transgender woman in a wheelchair? Give me a good performance and I’m on board. I couldn’t care less about any of that, why is everyone else so interested?
Also shipping. I hate shipping. While this is going to be more for the other blog, I’m just going to stick it here because it drives me crazy. Shipping is what people who are really deeply invested in two characters getting together romantically on a show do. It’s short for “relationshipping”. It’s utterly stupid. Now I don’t care if, in the telling of the story, relationships happen, but more often than not, these people don’t care if it has any impact on the storyline, they just want to see various and sundry characters getting into relationships and honestly, it ruins shows. It ruined Bones, I watched it for the first seven seasons until they did what show creator swore would never happen, that Bones and Booth would never get together, but he relented because all of the whining fanboys and girls demanded that it happened. So they lost me as a viewer because it became more about the relationship and less about solving murders. But when you listen to people talking about these shows, it invariably comes up who ought to be fucking who. Who cares? This is a police procedural or a mystery or a superhero show or a sci-fi epic. It is not a romcom! Stop pretending that it is! If it directly ties in to the plot, fine. If it’s just meaningless fluff designed to keep the fangirls happy, knock it off.
And thus ends the rant. I know it isn’t as weighty as some things I cover, but sometimes, these things just need to be said.
I could have predicted this, in fact I did, and as usual, it came true. I recently did a video about the fundamentalist religion of libertarianism, in which I predicted, accurately, that I’d have libertarians coming out and screaming at me because I’d somehow offended them by making a video all about them and how awful I was because I’d made them look bad.
No, they made themselves look bad and it’s really funny to watch them rant and rave about how bad *I* am that they are reacting the way that *THEY* are. It’s more evidence of the abject emotional insecurity of humanity.
First off, I already said that I was only talking about a particular set of libertarians, I was very specific in my video, but the people who came back at me, one in particular, was screaming that he was not that way at all. Then why is he responding? He already knows, if he watched the video, that I’m not talking about him, but just by his very response, it’s painfully clear that I am and he knows it, he just doesn’t want to be honest about it.
There’s this really weird human reaction that if you use a word that someone uses in relation to themselves, even if you’re clearly not talking about them, even if they clearly don’t fit into whatever you’re talking about, they have to get mad because somehow, your criticism of other people reflects badly on them. This is a very immature reaction.
And of course, it isn’t just the libertarians that do it, that’s just the most recent example. Liberals. Feminists. Conservatives. Christians. Muslims. All of them are equally guilty. They are more concerned with the label they choose to wear than the content of the discussion going on. They don’t even care if what you’re saying is completely accurate, if it makes them feel bad, they drop trou and spray feces on everyone and that’s a problem.
Seriously, shouldn’t the actual content be more important than how the discussion makes you feel? This is why the religious have such a problem having a rational discussion about things like abortion and gay marriage. The idea disgusts them on an emotional level and they are unable to rise above it. The feelings are all that matters. The same goes for libertarians and their claims about statism and natural law and all of that. It doesn’t make any sense, they cannot demonstrate any of it, but if you criticize it, they freak out. Or liberals who can’t talk about feminism or racism or gender politics without throwing around words like “misogyny” in an irrational attempt to smear their detractors. It’s why so many important discussions these days are at a complete stand still, because you have two sides who can do no more than fling poo at each other.
So anyhow, here’s the video, you can go over to YouTube to see the comments if you really want, but I’m sure you’ve run into this plenty of times yourself. It really is sad, isn’t it? Can’t people just talk intellectually without losing their shit?
There are times you look at something and realize just how stupid radical feminists actually are. Ijeoma Oluo has put out a coloring book called the Badass Feminist Coloring Book, in which we find out what a moron Oluo actually is. I mean, beyond the quality of the artwork, which is awful, I’m not sure who this book is aimed at. Certainly, it can’t be kids because there is open profanity in several of the illustrations. I suppose it could be aimed at adult feminists, after all, trying to stay within the lines with their crayons is about their speed, but I wouldn’t think they needed the daily affirmations that this coloring book provides. Maybe this is just their own personal safe space where nobody is going to say anything outside of their comfort zone. I guess there’s supposed to be a kid-friendly version, but why would any other version exist? There’s nothing badass about this book, it’s just dumb.
Seriously, bad artwork and random quotes from feminists of note does not a good coloring book make. Of course, this sucker was on Kickstarter where it was funded many times over by the radical feminists. As always, you can get any ridiculous product through Kickstarter if you spew enough targeted rhetoric. I love how Oluo says in the “Risks and Challenges”, “Provided I don’t suddenly lose my ability to draw – there aren’t many risks to this project.” I guess you can’t lose what you never had. You also have to remember that Oluo is going to be paying the feminists who provided quotes 25% of the take. That means that, assuming they end up around $20k, each of the 12 feminists who provided short quotes will make $417 each for a couple of words. Sure, that makes sense!
This is just more evidence that the loony liberal left has no grip on reality, they just want to live inside their own little bubble and that, my friends, is pathetic.
Even though this particular example is directed at a Christian, it seems to be a problem all over so I don’t want anyone to think this is a religious-only issue. On an atheist forum, a Catholic member asserted that there were more male forum members on atheist forums and more female members on religious forums and was wondering why this might be. Now, it’s an innocuous question but while other forum members were trying to provide possible answers, I took a step back and started wondering exactly how she came up with those statistics in the first place. Having been a member of the atheist forum for a very long time and going to the religious forum she mentioned, there was nowhere that I could see where the members identified their real life genders and besides, even if they did, how would anyone know if they were telling the truth?
So I started asking questions about how this data was determined and how was it tested? I would have actually been satisfied if she could point to anywhere on both forums where gender statistics were listed, but she couldn’t. She said through “observation”. Well how the hell can you observe someone’s gender in an online forum? Guess? Still, she maintained that somehow she had that knowledge, just like she maintained that somehow she knew that God was real. I guess delusion is an equal opportunity liar.
Certainly though, she’s not alone, there are plenty of people out there who claim that they have knowledge they cannot possibly have, there is no end to online debates and discussions where one side will say they know things they can’t conceivably know and when cornered, they will ignore any and all requests for their methodology. They just know. I guess it’s magic. Everything from the feminist’s favorite whipping dog, the patriarchy, that thing they can’t prove exists but they’re sure is real, to various motivations ascribed to large groups of people without a shred of evidence to back it up, This is a huge barrier to having intelligent discussions with people whose confirmation bias not only leads them to cherry picking data that agrees with them over that which does not, but to just make things up when they can’t find any actual data to trot out during the debate. And, of course, they can’t be honest about any of it because that gets in the way of feeling good about their positions. They’re too busy just making stuff up to care about reality.
It’s sad that rationality is a lost art for so many.
Last time, I started looking at an article by a transgender male and, let’s be honest, dyed-in-the-wool radical feminist, who claimed that now that he’s seen both sides of the street, men have much more privilege than women. I already looked at the first 13 claims he made and debunked them all, but he continues through the full 25 and that’s what we’re here to look at this time.
14. I’m allowed to grow old.
That’s not permission, that’s reality. You have no choice whether or not you grow old, it’s going to happen whether anyone gives you permission or not. Women may speak poorly of other women when they get older but that’s hardly the fault of men. Honestly, there are a lot of things he says here that aren’t about male privilege but female cattiness. So many of the things that he complains about aren’t because men get special rights, but because there are a lot of women who are just bitches. I’m sure that’s going to get blamed on men too.
15. I’m allowed to eat without being policed.
You always were. You simply allowed yourself to be terrorized, almost certainly by women who expected an unrealistic body shape, instead of just not caring. You can eat whatever you want to eat. You take responsibility for doing so, either for health reasons or for social expectations. Having some big fat guy is no more attractive to most people than a big fat lady. Welcome to reality.
16. My abilities speak louder than my appearances at work.
And they always should have been. What you’re describing here isn’t male privilege, it’s female privilege. The fact that women have been able to get away with not working as hard or as long as men, just because they’ve got a pretty face or a shapely body is reprehensible, not because it’s sexist toward women but because it’s sexist toward men. But we’re finding that as women are being expected to work all the hours, give up their free time and actually earn their keep every bit as much as men have done since time immemorial, women have started to recognize that it’s hard work and are reporting more unhappiness with their work situation. Of course, if men whined like that, they’d be thought weak. Women get away with things men can’t.
17. The bulk of porn is made with me in mind.
So what? Like with all other products, they are made to appeal to the most likely consumers. The majority of hair care product consumers are female and the packaging and marketing reflects that. Does that make it sexist? Of course not.
18. Older white guys treat me like a best friend.
Maybe you’ve been hanging around with Catholic priests, but I’ve certainly never encountered anything of the sort. There isn’t some grand white male conspiracy that automatically tries to indoctrinate newcomers into the cause. Maybe they just think you’ve got a pretty mouth.
19. I can be a gamer without worry of being threatened, insulted, or demeaned.
Not really since men are attacked in online at a rate much higher than women. Of course, feminists scream and cry that women are objectified, entirely ignoring that men are as well. How many men in video games are portrayed as muscle-bound, running around without shirts, dripping sweat, etc. I’ve honestly heard feminists defending this, saying that these are idealized men, ignoring the fact that the way women are often portrayed is as idealized women. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
20. My comfort comes before anyone else’s.
Only if you’re a dick. People who put themselves ahead of others are called self-centered and egotistical, neither of which are positive traits, at least unless you’re a radical leftist, who seem to think that they get to decide what everyone is allowed to think and do.
21. I have significantly less sexual liability.
Actually, you have about the same but you’re in a particular situation where a lot of the dangers of being a man won’t affect you. It’s estimated that 10% of men are being forced, by law, to raise children, unknowingly, that are not theirs. That doesn’t count legal adoptions, only women who have mislead men to pay to raise children for whom they are not the biological parent. You can be wrongly accused of rape, however, even if it was entirely consensual, because women get to arbitrarily decide after the fact that they didn’t want to have sex and they bear absolutely no personal responsibility for the act.
22. I’m allowed to take up space – and lots of it.
Not really, at least not in New York City. They’re arresting men for taking up too much space on public transportation, you know. But women don’t get that. I’ve seen women putting their purse in the next seat over to keep anyone else from sitting down. Nobody talks about that, do they?
23. I’m not subject to “soft” sexism.
No, you’re subject to hard sexism. Whether you and your liberal feminist cohorts like it, these are the facts:
40-70% of domestic violence is against men however less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men.
Male fatality rates are vastly higher than women’s.
24. People think my successes have been made purely by my own gumption.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. This is very similar to example 16 so I’ll just leave it there.
25. I can say the most ridiculous things imaginable.
You’ve demonstrated that by writing this article, yet nothing you’ve said has been demonstrably true and most of it has been demonstrably false. This is no surprise, honestly, because so many things on the left are just assertions without evidence and nowhere in this entire article has anything been backed up with citations, it’s all vague and subjective claims without an ounce of justification. Anyone surprised?
Now I’m going to reveal what I think is really going on here, assuming that our transgendered writer is being serious in all of this and it’s not a giant poe. The majority of gender identity isn’t genetic, it’s socialized. That means that this guy grew up, whether he knows or or likes it or not, as a woman. His perspective is going to remain that way for a considerable amount of time after his change, perhaps forever. Even though he’s now at least thought of as a man, his perspective remains that of a woman, complete with all the feminist poison that he’s been fed over the years. It’s no surprise that such a perspective, along with the confirmation bias that I spoke of last time, is going to present these views as valid, even thought they are not. It’s like a white guy putting on blackface and thinking he now has a black perspective on life. That’s ridiculous, just as the idea that someone transitioning gender from female to male suddenly makes one’s life experience male.
So what do you think? Does this guy have any valid points or is this just more ridiculous liberal blatherings? Please post intelligent comments below, I’d love to know what you think.
Now Buzzfeed is to accurate news sources what Ken Ham is to science, it’s hard to find a something further from the truth. Of course, that doesn’t stop them from putting up all kinds of ridiculous leftist “news” pieces, like this one from a self-declared transexual guy who think he has 25 examples of male privilege. Now I recognize that this would be an extremely long post if I went through them all so I’m going to split it in half and take on part now and part in a couple of days. He does explain what he means by each of those but I’m leaving that in the original article so by all means, go take a look. What the heck, I haven’t had a good laugh today, let’s take a look at the first 13 off of his list. This ought to be good.
1. I’m suddenly funny.
I’m pretty sure you’re not. Maybe they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you. Maybe they find you sad and are laughing in sympathy. Or maybe, just maybe, your sense of humor is more in line with things that men find funny and not with what women find funny. He says he tried old jokes and got a different reaction, who did he try these jokes on? The exact same people he tried them on before or a different crowd? Here’s a news flash for you, just gaining a dick doesn’t give you a sparkling personality.
2. Yet I’m still taken (more) seriously.
I don’t buy it at all. In fact, I’m going to suggest something that I think ties into most of these examples and that’s confirmation bias. I’d argue that he’s trying to confirm that he made the right decision switching genders and is now seeing positive results in everyday situations whether they exist or not.
3. I rarely get interrupted.
How are you measuring this? I’ll bet it’s just a personal interpretation and not some objective and demonstrable measurement.
4. I get paid more.
Oh, I’d love to see the evidence of this. Are we supposed to think that you went to get your operation or your hormone treatments or whatever and the day you came back, you suddenly had a bigger paycheck? Seriously? I’m calling bullshit. Maybe, like most men, you’re just working longer hours and that would explain your supposed rise in income.
5. It’s easier for me to be poor.
How are you poor if you’re suddenly getting paid more? That makes no sense. Besides, he says that it’s easier when the person doing the hiring is a “white guy”, which really has no application to the claims made. What difference does race make here, except to throw in another typical liberal bugaboo? Or is it only white males that have privilege? What if the hiring manager is a black guy or a Hispanic woman? Is there still white privilege?
6. My clothing is more practical.
And whose fault is that? Let’s be honest, adults get to choose their own clothing, is it somehow a vast male conspiracy to make women’s clothes impractical and expensive and all of the common complaints that I hear feminists making, or is that something that women choose to wear? They also claim that women’s products are more expensive, as if the Illuminati are twirling their mustaches and forcing women to buy them. It is a fact that women are, on average, more willing to pay higher prices for what is essentially the same products as men. We live in a capitalist society and people are going to charge the most they can get away with. If women weren’t willing to pay higher prices, they wouldn’t be charged higher prices. Stop doing it. Likewise, if this guy now thinks that male clothing is more practical, which he’s certainly welcome to think, that’s up to him. There are plenty of impracticalities in male clothing as well though. Take ties. I know that only professionals wear them, which is why I do it all the time, but they are totally impractical and pointless, but expected in the business world. Women have far more latitude in professional clothing than men do most of the time. Personally, except as required by your work, I don’t care what anyone wears so people should just pick something comfortable to put on in their off hours.
7. I get a ton of free passes.
I doubt it, it is typically women who get free passes in society. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 1990 that men had a 20 times higher rate of conviction than women for the exact same crime. They also found that for men and women convicted of the exact same crime, men typically served 3 times longer sentences than women. Men represent 68% of the homeless people in America, they commit suicide at a rate 3 times higher than women, and they work significantly longer hours on average. Women get a disproportionately high amount of spousal support in divorce as well as the vast majority of child custody decrees. Combat deaths are much, much, much higher for men than women, in fact, workplace deaths across the board are minuscule for women compared to men. So where are these free passes for men? I’m just not seeing them.
8. I’m not held accountable for keeping rape from happening.
Guess what? Nobody except rapists is accountable for keeping rape from happening, just like nobody but bank robbers are responsible for keeping bank robberies from happening. This is a typical feminist load of nonsense, that men have to be taught not to rape when only a minuscule number of men actually do.
9. I’m very likely to arrive home safely after walking alone at night.
And so are virtually all women. More violent crime happens to men than it does to women, particularly violent crime committed by strangers, which you’re much more likely to encounter walking home at night. A majority of rapes, which seems to be the perennial feminist complaint, are committed by people the woman knows. According to rape statistics, only about 10% of rapes are committed by strangers. The overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by those known to the woman, in places the woman has felt safe. It is also a fact that more men than women are victims of partner abuse, according to a study by the CDC. By changing genders, the author has made himself less safe, not more.
10. I don’t have to worry about keeping an eye on my drink at parties.
And neither do the majority of people, male or female. Of course, going to parties and acting irresponsibly there, getting drunk, etc. does make you much more likely to be a victim of crime, violent or not. People need to be responsible for their own actions, something liberals seem to have no concept of. Of course, this kind of thing is vastly overestimated anyhow, there really aren’t many cases of date-rape drugs being put into women’s drinks, it’s largely an urban legend.
11. I’m not told by strangers (or anybody else) to smile.
I honestly don’t know where this kind of thing comes from. I have never asked anyone of any gender to smile, nor have I ever seen anyone ask anyone of any gender to smile, except where required by one’s job and there, it’s been evenly applied to both men and women. It is a fact though that more women than men occupy customer service jobs and therefore, will be told to smile as a component of their jobs than men. That’s not sexism, that’s workplace professionalism.
12. I don’t have strangers giving uninvited opinions about my body as I pass by.
You could, maybe you’re simply unaware of it? The author says that he’s short, that’s certainly going to be noticed and commented on, particularly by women. Also, as I’ve mentioned before, women tend to be much meaner to other women than men are. Women can be downright cruel, criticizing weight, makeup, clothing, etc. of other women right to their face. Maybe this could be explained by having changed to hanging around an entirely better class of human being.
13. I’m allowed to have body hair.
Just as everyone else is. In fact, among feminists, having body hair is pretty typical and nobody within the movement says a word, at least not that I hear. But there are social expectations and people have a right to pay attention to those expectations or ignore them and there may be consequences either way. Having pink hair is not typically socially acceptable, especially when it comes to professional careers. That’s life. You make your choice and you deal with the consequences. Welcome to personal responsibility.
I’ve started to notice a trend as these examples have gone on but I’m going to hold my tongue until the very end to see if you can catch it too. In fact, this trend seems pretty consistent across a lot of radical feminists, which might serve as another hint for those who think about it. Anyhow, what do you think so far? Are any of these examples valid? I’ll be back in two days with the last of the list and my conclusions, hope you stick around.
This week, we look at the fallout from the Irish gay marriage vote, especially those who still oppose it. Mike Huckabee proves he has no place anywhere near the White House. The Supreme Court agrees to take on redistricting and what it might mean. Lobster tails and injustice, oh my. Then we talk about the end of portions of the Patriot Act and whether this is a good idea.
Every time I think that radical feminists can’t get any more stupid, I’m unfortunately proven wrong. Take this case, where feminists are petitioning a band, an all-white, all-male band, to change their name because somehow, it’s racist and sexist. The name of the band? Black Pussy. Feminist heads have now officially exploded.
You know, there was a time when if you didn’t like something, you just didn’t pay any attention to it. If there was a band I didn’t like, I just didn’t listen to their music. If there was a TV show I didn’t like on TV, I didn’t watch it. It was a simple and elegant solution. But no, modern liberals can’t do that, they have to turn everything into a mission for the social justice warriors, because everyone is a professional victim who thinks the world can be changed by putting up a poll on Change.org.
The band, of course, doesn’t give a damn, I would imagine they think it’s funny and are celebrating the free advertising that they’re getting. It probably results in more success for them, just like the Christian outlash against Last Temptation of Christ made it a much bigger movie than it ever would have been on it’s own. And the band isn’t trying to be offensive, the band name came from the well-known Rolling Stones song “Brown Sugar”, which was originally named “Black Pussy”. According to the band, they consider the name to be appropriate because it “encapsulates exactly what the band is: a sex-charged, ’70s-influenced, hide-your-daughters-because-they’re-coming-to-town rock ‘n’ roll band that sounds like Tarantino directing a Thin Lizzy video in the low desert.”
But no, feminists are just shitting themselves because something they don’t like exists out on the planet somewhere and damn it, they’re going to stop it or drop dead trying, and even if they did, it would be some old, white man’s fault, wouldn’t it?
The band has put up a statement on their website that reads: “Black Pussy does not condone or endorse any sexism, racism, ageism, violence, or any other douchebaggery that has been spoiling the party since the party started. If you are offended by the band’s name, please refer to the following video… http://youtu.be/gHywzQon6tc“. It’s probably easier to just present the video here, it’s by comedian Doug Stanhope and is a good idea for these crazy feminists to listen to, although let’s be honest, they won’t because it falls outside of their absurd dogma.
So any votes for what the next load of feminist stupidity will be? What kind of thing are they going to get whiny and bitchy about next time? I mean there’s a whole world of crap they can pretend is offensive, it’s anyone’s guess what they’ll pick, then decide they have the power to make everyone else change so their precious little feelings aren’t hurt.
Only in a place like San Francisco would you find such an absurd liberal load of horse shit taking place. We’ve all heard of the Girl Scouts, right? And their younger counterparts, the Brownies? Well here’s a group, based in Oakland, right outside of San Francisco, one of the major hubs for liberal lunacy, who isn’t out in front of Walmart selling cookies, they’re out selling social justice, and racist social justice at that!
Yes, these little girls are spreading the “black people are better” message that racist liberals are so good at and, like religion long ago realized, if you get these kids young, when their rational mind isn’t developed, you’ve got a disciple for life. Get ’em thinking about racism and sexism and other liberal chestnuts quick!
And seriously, who the fuck names these idiots? What imbecile would name their kid “Coatlupe”? Only a loony liberal.
This is just more evidence that these idiotic social justice warriors are little more than a political cult, they’re indoctrinating young children into their mental poison and these little girls today are going to be the S.C.U.M. of the next generation. This is where radicalism starts folks, it’s no surprise that these are named the Radical Brownies.
But of course, you get the loony liberal atheist fringe who decry religious indoctrination at a young age, yet are standing on their chairs and cheering when this kind of stuff goes on. It’s like the Christians who complain about Muslim madrassas and then stick their kids in religious schools and dump them at Sunday School every weekend. Now certainly, most everything that parents do when their children are young is indoctrination, it’s how we teach language, inculcate them into societal norms and educate them through schooling. The first few years of a child’s life, they are an open sponge that soaks up knowledge. Complaining about one form of indoctrination while engaging in another is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think? Of course, there ought to be limits and we ought to be doing what is best for the child’s future life and development. I don’t think having a bunch of girls pushing social justice outside of Walmart is doing what’s best for the kids, it’s just stroking the egos of the idiot parents. Oh, and note that in the story, nobody mentions the fathers of these girls. Think any of them are in the picture? Me either.
I recently had a kerfluffle with an Internet liberal feminist, although even though she self-identified as a feminist first and foremost, it could have been with any number of social justice warriors on the far left. I responded to her demand that we as a society do more to recognize and celebrate the contributions that women have made to history and science. I questioned her further and she also agreed that “people of color” and “homosexuals” ought to be equally lauded for what they’ve done for the world. Hey, great, I have no problem with that, we ought to celebrate everyone who makes their mark in the world and helps the planet be a better place to live.
That was, until I asked her what skin color, gender and sexual orientation actually had to do with some of these discoveries. Take Alan Turing for example. He was a brilliant mathematician who became the father of modern computer science. I probably couldn’t be writing this article if it weren’t for Turing. There is no doubt that he was a genius and set the stage for significant improvements and innovations for mankind, but… what did his sexual orientation have to do with his work? What is it about the work he did that couldn’t have been done had he been straight. His homosexuality had absolutely no bearing on his historically significant work. So why do these liberals spend so much time focusing on things that had no impact whatsoever on the ideas, inventions and innovations that we remember them for?
The same can be said of famous black scientists whose scientific accomplishments had fuck all to do with their being black. Or female historical figures whose gender meant nothing to their feats. These people are remembered fondly for their actions, not their genetic attributes. The idea that we have a “Black History Month” or a “Woman’s History Month” or whatever to pay special attention to the skin color or gender of people whose actions had nothing whatsoever to do with their skin color or gender is really quite absurd. When do we get to have a “Mustache History Month” to pay homage to those who were historically notable and just so happened to have a mustache?
Of course, this was right about when she started calling me a racist and a sexist and ran away to be comforted in some feminist “safe space” where she didn’t have to actually think about the absurdity of her belief system. That doesn’t make my questions invalid though. We don’t give special attention to people with blue eyes or big feet, why should we give special attention to people with dark skin or who are attracted to the same gender? You know, for people who proclaim that they want equality for all (even though they clearly don’t), they sure want people on their side to feel special and get extra recognition.
The fact is, history is made by people. Not black people, not white people, not males and not females. It isn’t made by gays or straights. It’s made by people who went out and did something worthwhile. Marie Curie didn’t discover radium because she had a vagina. George Washington Carver didn’t discover amazing things to do with peanuts because he was black. His brilliance came from inside, not from his skin color.
I honestly have no idea why the liberal SJW crowd can’t get this through their tiny little heads. To them, everything is race. Everything is gender. Everything is sexuality. They cannot imagine a world where people are not seen first and foremost for their physical characteristics instead of being acknowledged for their skill and intelligence and ingenuity. That doesn’t matter to them, no matter how many times they pretend that it does. They spend all of their time looking for excuses to blame racism and sexism, to proclaim that there must be discrimination against those who do not perform well instead of just acknowledging that when it comes to merit, you actually have to earn it. These people don’t want to earn anything, they just want to be granted special rights and abilities and recognition because of how they look.
If you want to know the real racists and sexists and bigots, you have to look no further than the social justice warriors in the liberal camp. History isn’t sexist or racist, you liberal morons, you are!
On a recent Atheist Experience, the last caller of the day asked about Islam and the validity of hating Islam and Russell and Lynnea both did exactly what I expected. Now given my ongoing disagreement with their philosophical position on a great number of things, this isn’t surprising, in fact, when they launched into an example, I could tell where it was going. They criticized who I am going to assume is Elliot Roger, the guy who shot up a college because he couldn’t get laid, leaving behind links to some MRA websites. Now certainly you can and should criticize the guy for what he did, but they argued that some unnamed people were pointing to this guy’s mental illness and not his imagined “men’s rights” ideology and presumably they thought those people were idiots. Yet their side does the exact same thing when it comes to radical feminism! It’s never the ideology, if anyone says something wrong or does something wrong, it can’t be the ideology to blame! If anyone on their side does something idiotic, as they do so often, feminism could never have anything to do with it!
Of course, none of this is true, the website that Roger had been going to was called PUAHate and in the thread in question, it asked if you could come up with a virus that killed all the men, other than yourself, would you do it. Presumably this was to give women no chance but to consort with you because you were literally the last man on Earth. That has nothing to do with men’s rights whatsoever, in fact it’s the exact polar opposite of men’s rights, they’re talking about virtual male genocide. But hey, tell that to the crazy radical feminist liberals that populate TAE.
Then Lynnea claims that there is an ongoing rash of sexual harassment at atheism conferences. Really? Produce one. Show that this is true. It isn’t. It never has been. In fact, all of the classical cases that are claimed are just absurd over-reactions by feminists, starting with Elevatorgate and going onward. There has never been a single case that I am aware of, and please correct me if I am wrong, where any woman has ever been demonstrably sexually harassed at any atheist conference. Go ahead. Impress me. I’m not holding my breath. Unfortunately, these people consider anything they dislike to be harassment, but that’s liberalism for you.
I really can’t be surprised at this anymore, it happens pretty much any time anyone brings up any non-extreme-liberal position on TAE. All of a sudden, the hosts start shouting over the caller, refusing to let them speak, threatening to put them on hold and often hanging up on them. Clearly, they are uncomfortable with anyone who disagrees with their particular flavor of Kool Aid. Isn’t that exactly what theists do? They just throw things at anyone who disagrees, faster than the other person can answer, they stifle their ability to speak and after they blow off their opponent, they insult them when they can’t be responded to.
You liberals are no better than the theists you pretend to be superior to, but it isn’t just the hosts of TAE, it’s a huge majority of liberals I see on a regular basis. It’s their modus operandi. It’s meaningless threats, Gish gallops, authoritarian nonsense and post-discussion grandstanding. Welcome to the liberal playbook. Wish I could say I was surprised.
I wasn’t going to write about this, I think I’ve spent a lot of time writing about crap that pisses me off on the Atheist Experience, although the majority of it comes from callers and not the hosts. This time though, it was a host dog-pile on someone who called in and questioned whether atheism and feminism ought to be closely linked. Earlier in the show, another caller had questioned whether atheism and gay rights ought to be linked as well and my response to both is no. Atheism is about one thing, feminism is about one thing and gay rights are about one thing. There is no need to put them all in the same pot and mix well. I was in the UStream chat room and while there were others who agreed with me, it became obvious that the chat moderator was getting personally emotionally involved and kicking people so I just gave up.
My position, as I’ve said many times before, is that atheism is about not believing in gods, it is not just another word for liberalism. Atheism+ is an idiotic idea, you have atheism and then you have other things. You don’t have to Krazy Glue all of your personal positions together into a single overarching label. You can be an atheist and a feminist and a gay rights supporter and a stamp collector and a baseball enthusiast, all without having to push them under the same umbrella. I have no idea why so many liberals and atheists can’t understand that simple point.
I’ll be honest, I virtually never engage anyone in the Atheist Experience chat, both because I find UStream’s software obnoxious and I find that the moderators are entirely inconsistent. There used to be a link to chat rules but that link has vanished and now, they just assume that people either know the rules, or they just make up rules, and kick people for the heck of it. Some moderators are worse than others. It’s just not worth my time. But I had answered someone’s question earlier before the show started so I was already logged in and sometimes, I just say things without realizing how pointless it is. It seems to me, and I could be completely wrong, that the guy who called was also in the chatroom and got kicked by the moderators while trying to defend himself. I was paying more attention to the show than the chatroom for most of it so don’t quote me.
Anyhow, back to the call. I personally agree with the guy, feminism has no part in atheism. Atheism is atheism, feminism is feminism. You can be both. You can be one or the other. You can be neither. Being one does not imply the other. That’s how it is. However, lots of people in the highly liberal atheist community presume that anyone who declares themselves atheist must also check off all of these other boxes and share this collection of views or they get to attack them, which is exactly what they did with this guy. They pulled out the equality of outcome claim that is so critical to liberals without recognizing that many people want equality of opportunity. They played the quota game, where people have to be the same percentage in every industry as they are in the general population. CEOs have to be 50% male and 50% female. Journalists have to be 50% male and 50% female. And for those industries that are more than 50% female? They don’t talk about those. One thing they will never acknowledge, and I will admit that both Martin and Russell were being complete assholes on the show, shouting at this guy and never giving him a chance to make a point, is that they’re only interested in gross percentages and quotas, not in how many people actually want to do those jobs. They don’t acknowledge interest or qualifications. If a company has 100 jobs and 90% of the applicants are male and 10% are female, it should come as no surprise that there will be more men working there than women. That’s not what they care about though, it has to be 50/50. The same always goes for racial mixes too, blacks need to make up 20% of the workforce and if they don’t, it’s racism. Maybe there just aren’t that many black applicants? Has anyone done a study on that? I haven’t seen one. Someone please point one out that passes statistical muster.
As I said, I wasn’t going to bother responding, it isn’t like I haven’t talked about it before, but I started running into similar things elsewhere. Of course, if you go to the show thread over on their blog, Russell is still attacking anyone who falls outside of his little comfort zone and it wasn’t worth getting into it. Also, over on VJack’s blog, he had a thread about trigger warnings and higher education, which was quite good, but I made the comment that there seems to be a lot of similarity between liberals and theists when it comes to censorship. Both of them want to keep opposing opinions that they find offensive out of the narrative. It happened on Atheist Experience, it happens on liberal college campuses, it happens with gay rights and extremist feminism, this is not any different than the religious who declare anything that disagrees with them to be blasphemy and they want people punished for saying they’re wrong. Same shit, different label. The second I said something, people started jumping on me for mentioning liberals, as though the whole damn post wasn’t about liberals doing objectionable things. I said that I found it funny that someone who rather commonly finds things to disagree with in the liberal position continues to label themselves a liberal. While that’s probably a discussion for another post, what the heck, I’ll do it here. There are a lot of people to whom labels mean more than ideologies. If anyone insults their chosen label, whether it be liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, they leap on people for daring to say anything critical about the label, even if the criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual position. People, if it has nothing to do with your actual ideology, why are you whining? Personally, I go after everyone, liberal and conservative, atheist and theist, black and white, male and female alike. If someone says something stupid, I don’t care what labels they apply to themselves, they’re fair game. I don’t care if someone out there criticizes conservatives. I’m probably right there with you, assuming it’s an honest criticism. There are no sacred cows, nor should there be. It shouldn’t be about labels, it should be about ideology. It should be about positions. Then again, there are far too many atheists who are more interested in being part of the crowd than in ideological clarity. I have a problem with that.
Before I drift too far afield, let me get back to the Atheist Experience. I’m not defending the guy who called and I’m certainly not defending the Gish Gallop that Russell and Martin were clearly guilty of during the call. There should be no MRAs and there should be no feminists. There should be no white-apologists or black-apologists, there should be no straight rights or gay rights. There should just be equality for all, but equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Anyone should be able to get into any field they want with no regard for their race, gender or orientation and nobody should be keeping track of who gets jobs and who does not. Nobody should be making charts and saying more people of this particular demographic ought to be working here. It ought to be wholly irrelevant, so long as nobody is being kept out and until it can be shown with a solid evaluation that people are being kept out specifically because of their gender, race or orientation, liberals need to shut the hell up about it. It’s not helping anyone. It’s just making you people look like idiots.
There’s apparently a big bruhaha going on over a Subway commercial where women are told to stop eating burgers and presumably eat Subway so that they’ll fit into sexy Halloween costumes. There are women out there whining about how sexist it is that they’re expected to wear sexy costumes! How dare anyone suggest that! Well, nobody is suggesting it, they’re simply acknowledging the reality, that there are an awful lot of sexy costumes out there that women choose, yes CHOOSE, of their own free will, to put on. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to wear these costumes, in fact, nobody really gives a damn if you wear a costume at all. You make that decision for yourself and now you’re whining about it?
Holy shit, what is wrong with you women? Is the very existence of a costume reason for you to bitch and whine that someone ought to stop it because you don’t like it? Grow the fuck up! Seriously, this is just another stupid feminist nonsensical cause to get riled up about. Wear what you want. Wear a bag over your head, it can only help some of you. Just shut the fuck up about ridiculous invented controversies that mean absolutely nothing.
The more that I see feminists complain about stupid stuff, the more that I see them want to boycott and control the language, the more laughable they are. Do these people ever stop to think how pathetic their antics make them look? Why is anyone going to feel sorry for these poor women who are convinced they are being forced at knife-point to put on a slutty Cinderella costume and parade around with their tits hanging out, especially when nothing of the sort is going on? If you don’t want to wear it, guess what? You don’t have to wear it! Get over yourself!
So here’s the “offending” Subway commercial. I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with it, except in the tiny little liberal heads of uber-feminist idiots who think everyone ought to do what they’re told and pretend that there’s a vast male conspiracy to make them look like a slut. Most of these women dress that way anyhow, what are they complaining about?
I got into an argument this morning with my breakfast cereal. No, wait, that’s a George Carlin bit. Start again. I got into an argument this morning with a feminist. That’s better. She was complaining that, now that she was recently married, she had to take her husband’s name and she was sitting online whining that it was her “slave name” or some nonsense like that.
So I asked her if it was a “slave name”, why did she do it? Why did she get married at all if she thinks it’s an act of slavery? After all, it isn’t imposed on her against her will, she has to actually sign the documents to get a marriage license and change her name, she doesn’t have to do it and I don’t think anyone cares if she does. In fact, she agreed with me and said that women should never have to change their names (regardless of the fact that they don’t “have” to do it now). Look at Hollywood! Most married actresses in Hollywood keep their maiden names, that must mean that’s the way it’s supposed to be! Well, no. First off, Hollywood is a special circumstance, the Screen Actor’s Guild requires people to work under a single name and I would assume, although I have no data to back it up, that it would be very difficult, if not close to impossible, for an actress to change her name on screen every time she gets married and divorced, which in Hollywood seems to happen every other day. For all we know, though, many actresses actually do change their legal names on their marriage certificates, they just maintain the name they’ve always been known by professionally. If someone would like to enlighten me on how it works, by all means do.
So anyhow, we return to the reality that women choose to change their names, it’s not imposed on them. Sure, you can argue that it’s traditional, but isn’t it up to the woman and her husband whether or not they’re going to observe the tradition? Then I had to point out something obvious that she had never even considered. She was whining about taking her husband’s name when the name she gave up was almost certainly her father’s. I think her head exploded at that point, she was trading one “slave name” for another and didn’t even realize it. Whichever way she had gone, she’d lost. It shut her up for a while anyhow.
This is just more ridiculous extremist feminist nonsense. Nobody cares if you get married. Nobody cares if you change your name. Do what you want to do, work it out with your significant other, but take responsibility for your own actions for crying out loud. I couldn’t care less if you change your name to Felicia Gnu-Firework-CumulusCloud-Smith, whatever turns you on is fine with me, but at least own it! Don’t make a decision, then spend your time whining about the decision you made. That’s just stupid, which pretty well describes most extremist feminist thought.
Here we go again! This week, Fox News falls for a 4Chan hoax, or do they? Egypt outlaws unlicensed Imams and we wonder where you get an Imam license? Christian persecution, a new study shows it’s nonsense but the Christians probably don’t care. Pat Robertson encourages children not to involve the authorities in domestic abuse. Plus, we have a long discussion on where religious debates go wrong and why apologetics fail but it’s really just the tip of the iceberg. Give it a listen!
There are a lot of really awful things that happen under the umbrella of Islam, people getting raped, stoned, having their hands chopped off, etc. There is a lot of oppression that can occur in the Muslim world and in the west, a lot of feminists have seized on the idea of wearing traditional Muslim garb, be it burkas or hajibs or whatever, is a symbol of the inherent oppression of women by men within the Muslim religion.
However, I saw a bunch of pictures of Muslim women go by on Tumblr where they were holding signs saying they are not oppressed, they are wearing these things by choice and I think that’s something that a lot of western feminists really miss when they claim it’s all oppressive. It’s that these women choose, of their own free will, to go by the standards and beliefs of Islam. They choose to do the things they do. A link to the Tumblr posting that I saw, where this and many other similar pictures reside, is here.
And isn’t it their right to make their own decisions about how they dress and how they act? Isn’t freedom supposed to be one of the things that western culture values above all else? After all, we have no evidence that Muslim men are holding women at gun point and forcing them to put on these clothes against their will. The women believe in Islam just as strongly as the men.
In fact, what a lot of western feminists are doing is demanding the “right” for Muslim women to behave like western women. Well guess what? they’re not western women! What western feminists want is for non-western women to reject their own culture and beliefs out of hand so that the western feminists feel better about western culture. It isn’t so much that they dislike how these women are treated, it’s that these women haven’t jumped on the western culture bandwagon and started acting like western feminists.
Now I have no love for Islam, I think it’s as idiotic as every other religion, but the people who practice it have the same right to do so as people in the west have not to. If they want to dress in a burka, so be it. It’s not my place to tell them they cannot. You are not being inherently oppressed by a religion that you choose to practice, just because it goes against what other people believe. According to a lot of Muslim women that I’ve seen, what happens to women in the western world is oppression too. It’s all a matter of opinion. And that’s the thing, opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and, at least according to the people who disagree, they all stink. Maybe instead of criticizing someone’s choices because they’re not what you might have chosen, maybe you should worry about people who are actually being forced to do things against their will. That’s oppression. Not wearing a particular piece of clothing.
This time out, we talk about the latest move in Christian moviemaking, the movies that make them feel persecuted. We watch Ken Ham’s head explode once again following the latest episode of Cosmos. Feminists reveal their sexism as they hate male-only schools, but a female-only school? You have to keep that! The fallout from the recent Joliet, Illinois court case begins and we see that the Catholics are still hiding pedophile priests. They’ve changed? Like hell they have! And we talk about the common claim that atheists are afraid to insult Islam by insulting Islam a lot. All this and more in this week’s episode of the Bitchspot Report Podcast!
There seems to be a lot of this going around, I’ve seen posts go by on blogs and Tumblr, people, almost always liberal males, who are complaining that women don’t make as much money as men. This seems to be yet another case of the equality of opportunity vs. the equality of outcome that we see so often and I’ve written about before.
I, and most true conservatives, want everyone to be able to work hard and achieve the equality of opportunity, they all have the same chance, regardless of their gender, race, religion or sexual identity, to make something of themselves equally. On the other hand, liberals seem to want everyone to reach the same outcome, that everyone, regardless of their level of skill, energy or input, should get the same rewards for their efforts. I wholly reject the liberal model, that’s like getting a trophy just for showing up. It doesn’t even address equality, it just acknowledges that some people make more money than other people without looking at the reasons why, it just asserts that the liberal mantra of discrimination must be the cause.
However, the issue isn’t blind equality, everyone makes exactly the same, just because liberals want it to be true, people need to earn it and, in general terms, in business men tend to work longer hours, work harder and are more dedicated to their companies than women are. Therefore, if men happen to make more, they make more because they’ve earned more. That’s not a slight against women, it happens to be a demonstrable fact that, in general terms, women take more time off, leave earlier and work less hours overall, usually because of their children. The reason for it really doesn’t matter though, nor should it be taken into account because it doesn’t matter. There needs to be one and only one standard and everyone, male and female, black and white, gay and straight, needs to abide by it.
Whether women like it or not, if a man works twice as hard and twice as long, they deserve to be paid more. Companies do not pay people because they have a penis but because they produce money for the company. Companies are not in business to give their employees an excellent standard of living, but to provide a reward for those who make the company the largest profit. That’s what companies exist to do, even though liberals tend to have an problem understanding it.
Even among men, the ones that work the hardest get the greatest rewards. I’m diabetic. If I decided to stay home from work every time I didn’t feel all that great in the morning, I’d be behind someone who was there every single day. If I decided that I had to go home at 5pm every day to be with my family, I’d be behind someone who was willing to work as long as there was work to be done. I accept that as an axiom, it is how business works. I get ahead by being willing to do what needs to get done to make my employer as much money as I can make them and they, in turn, reciprocate and give me a nice salary. If I worked less, my paycheck would be smaller. There are people ahead of me and behind me and almost entirely, the reasons are effort and results. What people have between their legs doesn’t figure into it at all. Unfortunately, liberals don’t tend to break things down in order to eliminate other possible causes, they leap from the raw data past all the other possibilities to the conclusion they want to push. That’s why they’re so fond of lies, damn lies and statistics. They’re asserting a cause, not demonstrating one.
After all, it isn’t like people getting hired by McDonalds get paid differently by gender. Men don’t make $9 an hour and women $8. There’s no actual data to suggest any of that is true. What people do is take averages and where women average less than men, it is asserted that women are being denied higher salaries because of their gender, not because of their effort. I’ve seen people claim “I know women who work really, really hard” and that may be true, I can say the same, but that doesn’t prove that it’s true over a wide range, anecdotes are just that, they don’t actually prove a damn thing. Let’s stop comparing apples to orangutans and start with apples to apples. Show me people who put in the exact same effort, who put in the exact same hours and bring the exact same skill to the table and produce the exact same results, then show me that the one with the vagina makes less. Do this for a wide variety of cases. Then I’ll agree that you have a point. When you have a point, when you can prove that it’s gender bias instead of effort that causes the disparity, then I’ll be right behind you saying we should prosecute these industries or companies or whatever to the fullest extent of the law, but not until.
It never ceases to amaze me, or disgust me depending on your perspective, how some groups of people can declare that they are being abused and then turn around and abuse others in their mad dash to entitlement. We’re seeing a growing number of hotel chains offering women-only floors, based on the unfounded feminist nonsense that all men are inherently predators and women need to protect themselves from these potential rapists. Women apparently love it, but let’s be honest, if anyone suggested a men-only floor, these women would shit their panties.
What ever happened to equality? Alright, you can stop laughing now, we all know that modern-day feminists don’t give a damn about being equal, it’s all about being superior. They want special treatment and extra privileges that men simply cannot get, all the while screaming bloody murder if a man ever has a right that a woman doesn’t get.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that businesses were not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender. If you cannot have a male-only floor, you shouldn’t be able to have a female-only floor. Should we start introducing white-only floors or black-only floors next? How about gay-only floors or straight-only floors? Would any of that fly? I don’t think so. And what happens if the hotel is booked, except for rooms on the female-only floor? Would a male traveler be turned away while a female would would be allowed to stay? Wouldn’t that open the hotel to a massive discrimination lawsuit?
The whole idea behind this is just ridiculous, it’s more liberal feminist entitlement nonsense. They do not deserve special treatment, in fact, it is patently illegal for them to receive it based solely on their gender. So why do we put up with it? I’d love to see major accounts tell these hotels that they are pulling their support and sending their travelers to other hotels that are not discriminating against men. I wonder how long these gender-biased floors would survive when millions of dollars in room-nights are going to the competition? Not long, I’ll wager.
Feminists have lost any moral high ground when they start accepting unequal or superior treatment while screaming about equality. Equality goes both ways. Either people are equal or they are not. Some are not more equal than others and that seems to be exactly what feminists really want.
I’ve recently given up entirely on The Non-Prophets Podcast, which may seem a little strange considering they just came back from a very long hiatus, but I hate to say it but I’ve lost any and all respect for the people involved and if I can’t respect the hosts or their views or opinions, why should I pay attention to their podcast? At issue here was a long and absurd rant on MRAs and feminism and how one is valid and the other is not. Primarily at issue here is Jeff Dee, although everyone else chimed in and sorry, after this load of nonsense, I’m through.
Now as everyone knows, I’m not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I belong to the MRA side. I am in favor of equality across the board on both sides. I actually consider a lot of people who wear either label to be fundamentally sexist, I see no point in calling oneself pro-female or pro-male when I’m pro-everyone. I’d also not call myself pro-black or pro-white when race is irrelevant to me and everyone ought to have equal rights in everything.
But that’s not what happened, in fact, they went off railing against an e-mail, suggesting that just because women are behind on equality around the world (this is really not the case in most first-world nations, it’s primarily in the third world where these first-world-feminists have no say whatsoever), that men ought not seek to correct inequalities where they’re actually behind, because overall, they’re still ahead. So… you shouldn’t worry about specific inequalities because there’s some imaginary scorecard where you have extra points?
Bullshit. Now as I said, I’m not MRA, but the people that I know that are, they are specifically in response to the feminists. They are protesting against shortcomings in men’s rights because feminists seem to only care about the rights of women. The majority of people I know of who are MRAs are not only for men’s rights, they want equality for all, they just don’t want one side being left behind because all the attention is being paid to the other. I don’t necessarily agree with how they do it, but the goals seem admirable, a lot more admirable than the third-wave feminist fucks that we see on the Atheism+ side. They don’t care if men live or die. In fact, some of them actively want to stab men in the back. That is not the way a logical, rational person ought to deal with the world.
I don’t play this game with a score card. I don’t tick off when one side is ahead of the other. So far as I’m concerned, if either side is ever behind, we’re losing. That goes for gender, that goes for race, that goes for sexual orientation, etc. This is not a dick-waving contest, the only goal here that makes any difference is equality for all and when we find a place where inequality reigns, we need to stomp it, no matter who is “ahead” at the moment. If you don’t, then you’re sexist. I don’t want anything to do with sexists.
Therefore, I’m just opting out of the Non-Prophets podcast entirely. I have no interest in wasting my time listening to people that I fundamentally disagree with. I know they don’t care and frankly, I don’t care that they don’t. They’ve proven they’re part of the problem and unfortunately, I don’t think they even realize it or care. However, I do and it matters to me so I take action.
Toodle-loo, go with God and don’t take any wooden nickels.
22 down, just 11 to go in my refutation of the supposed 33 reasons to be a feminist and so far, I’m just not impressed. In fact, I’m noticing that many of these reasons are inherently sexist on their face, they worry only about the problems of women and entirely ignore the problems of men that may be as bad or worse. The unfortunate reality is that many self-identified feminists who outwardly decry sexism are among the worst sexists themselves. Funny, huh?
23. Because approximately 3 million girls are victims of female genital mutilation every year.
I agree, that’s a horrible thing, but it’s totally out of context. In the United States alone, 56% of all males born are circumcised before they ever leave the hospital. In 2011, the last year I could find records for, there were 3,999,386 births. Assuming an equal number of male and female births, that makes 1,999,693 males born and 1,119,828 circumcisions done in this country alone. I could find no data that any female circumcisions were done at all in the U.S. in 2011. However, other countries have a much higher rate of male circumcision. Islamic countries, where most female circumcision is done, circumcise boys at a rate above 70%. I was unable to find any records of how many total Muslims are born per year, but certainly since Muslims tend to breed at a relatively high rate, that number must be high and 70% of all boys are circumcised, dwarfing the number of female circumcision. Yet the feminists aren’t making any noise about male genital mutilation, are they?
24. Because there are approximately 2 million victims of sex trafficking each year. 85% of the victims are women.
And 15% are men and they’re not too worried about them, are they? The reality is, studies have shown that many women voluntarily get involved in sex trafficking so they can travel the world. It is relatively rare that women are simply kidnapped from poor countries against their will. This kind of thing is very rare in the western world. In 2008, there were reported 83 cases of sex trafficking in the U.S., but only 9% of these cases were legitimate. While I’m right with you in opposing human trafficking and slavery of all kinds, I don’t have to be a feminist to do it.
25. To spread awareness and knowledge about what feminism works for. Equality. Everyone who has a mother, sister, daughter, son or a friend would want them to have respect and rights, right?
Except it’s not. I’ve already shown multiple cases in these posts that they are not after equality for all, they’re after equality for women and where women have more rights, they want to keep it unequal.
26. Because this is a real commercial for American Apparel.
Yes it is, so what? It’s a woman wearing a men’s shirt. She’s not naked. She’s not being abused. What is the problem here and why? I know feminists are going to throw out some vague “objectivization” nonsense, but come on, give me a real, well thought out answer. What specifically is wrong with that image? Do you think they don’t do exactly the same thing for women’s products? In fact, here’s a shot from another clothing commercial. this time for Scultz Jeans in the UK. Is that an offensive ad? If not, why not? Again, a lot of this has been addressed in previous points, women seem to think that if a woman is portrayed scantily clad, it’s offensive, but if a man is shown the same way, it’s empowering. Make up your mind, we only need one standard.
27. Because domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more than car accidents, muggings and rapes combined.
Domestic violence goes both ways. Male-on-female violence is certainly a problem, but there’s just as much female-on-male violence that largely gets ignored in our society. Some studies have shown that women who assaulted their male partners were more likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts police. Others have suggested that women who batter their male partners were more likely to be seen as the victims instead of the instigators. Police officers will often treat female-on-male violence as an insignificant crime and treat male victims as “pathetic figures”, ignoring the fact that violent women are more prone to use weapons in their assaults and thus, cause proportionally more damage to a man than a man would to a woman. Experts estimate that 62% of women in shelters are just as violent as the men they escaped and that judges tend to disregard a history of physical violence by women, even in cases of violent murder of a male partner.
28. Because this is a fact: In 31 states, if a woman has a child as a result of rape, her rapist can sue for custody and visitation rights.
There is no law anywhere that specifically grants rights to rapists. This is a completely misleading claim. Men have a right to sue for custody and visitation rights for their own children. In these 31 states, they haven’t specifically closed the loophole for rapists. However, even if a rapist does sue, the chances the courts are going to grant visitation or custody are pretty much non-existent. If the rapist is convicted of rape, it’s almost certain that anyone whose name is on the sex offender registry is never going to get legal contact with a child, even his own. Besides, the woman is entirely free not to record the name of the father on the birth certificate, making it very difficult for the biological father to even take the case to court and, as I said, winning court is a virtual impossibility anyhow. This is a patently dishonest statement.
29. Because we need to be aware of the sexism that surrounds us and say NO to it.
Apparently this only refers to male sexism toward women because among feminists, there’s a lot of female sexism toward men and that’s fine and dandy. In fact, it seems that women are far more sexist these days than men are if you apply a single standard to both sides. I’ve seen people complain that women on TV are often scrutinized for their choices of fashion and their makeup, but news flash for you, it isn’t men, by and large, that are doing that, it’s other women! For things like the Emmys or the Oscars, feminists complain that a woman’s dress may be criticized while a man’s suit is ignored, but the women are the ones who are paying absurd amounts of money, having famous designers make them something that stands out, specifically because they want to be noticed! It’s a simple fact that feminists have made gender their number one priority, something that is, by it’s very nature, sexist. If the goal is to have a gender-blind society, they are failing the test miserably. Gender is all they pay attention to. It’s all about quotas. It’s all about keeping up with the proverbial Jones’. They complain that the United States has never had a female President, yet ignore the fact that women have gotten significant traction in just the last couple of years. Maybe if there were some women ran that were worth voting for, we’d have one. Feminists are aware of every instance of perceived sexism around them, except for the clear and present instance right in their own front yard. Interesting, hmmmm?
30. Because we need to change the way women are being portrayed in video games, etc.
Video games have traditionally appealed to a predominantly male audience, it’s hardly surprising that the character models, both male and female, would be designed to appeal to that demographic. Today, lots more women are playing games and in those genres where they are more prominent, the models are not nearly as bad. Take the newest Tomb Raider game, Lara Croft, who was traditionally depicted with big breasts in a halter top and shorts has been re-envisioned as a more realistic character in both body type and abilities. If this isn’t a strong female character, I don’t know what is. How about characters like Jade from Beyond Good and Evil? How about Samus from Metroid? What about Cortana from Halo? Or Jill Valentine from Resident Evil? These same kinds of characters can be found in movies and television as well but they’re routinely ignored in favor of any female character that’s even the remotest bit sexy. Feminists want something to complain about, not something to point to as a positive advancement.
31. Because female fetuses are being aborted in China because they are not wanted.
Once again, how are feminists in the U.S. going to change the culture in China again? Exactly what impact does declaring oneself a feminist have on Chinese cultural traditions? None? Just as I thought.
32. Because women who are seen, who stand up for their rights and express their opinions often get threatened and hated.
If this wasn’t so absurdly hypocritical, I’d be laughing. News flash for you people, *EVERYONE* who stands up for their rights and expresses their opinions gets threatened and hated. Welcome to reality. Where this gets ridiculous though is the fact that men who are seen, who stand up for their rights and express their opinions, especially when those opinions oppose those of feminists, get some of the most vile threats and overwhelming hate I’ve ever seen. Ask the MRAs. People need to learn to stop being such delicate little flowers and deal with the reality around them. You don’t see the MRAs setting up “safe zones” where they can feel “protected”, that’s the schtick of the feminists. They want an echo chamber where only their own views and opinions are heard, then they go out and attack anyone who dares to speak out in a free and open forum.
33. Because three men in Sweden walked free after raping a girl with a glass bottle until she started to bleed.
This is a bizarre entry, it refers to a single event and seems absurd as a reason to adopt a feminist worldview. After all, there’s no way to correct this “injustice” no matter what position you adopt. Truth be told, I wasn’t able to find much information on this particular story, there really wasn’t a lot of data on the criteria the judge used to make his decision, therefore I cannot speak to whether this was a good judgement or not. However, I see feminists simply leaping to the conclusion that it must have been a bad decision because it isn’t one that makes them happy and I don’t see that being a very worthwhile position to take.
In the end, absolutely none of these 33 reasons is a legitimate reason to be a feminist. I think that there are many women (and men) who currently identify as feminists, who really don’t understand what it means. They will claim that they want equal rights for all and that’s a good thing, an idea I heartily support, but that’s not feminism, that’s egalitarianism. Wanting equality across the board is a good thing, male and female, black and white, gay and straight, everyone deserves to have equal rights and equal protection under the law. It simply makes no sense to identify as a feminist, which is an inherently sexist position to take, just as you wouldn’t declare yourself to be for racial equality and then join the KKK. You cannot bring about equality for all by only focusing on the issues of one group, it is inherently irrational.
Let’s not forget what feminism really stands for and who better to remind us than the women who are largely responsible for starting and organizing modern third-wave feminism. These are your leaders, gals. These are the concepts that you support by defining yourself as a feminist.
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
Is this what you really believe? If it is, you’ve lost all respect from me, although I doubt you care. If not, then only you can do something about it. Stop labeling yourself as a feminist and join me as a decent human being who wants equality for all and superiority for none.