Tag Archives: sexism

The Bechdel Test and Identity Politics

I will never understand it.  Everywhere I go, I see people talking about how horrible it is that women aren’t in every leading role in every movie, that blacks are not represented in every TV show and that gay people aren’t prominently and positively portrayed at every turn.  And my question to you is… who cares?

I was listening to a podcast and they started arguing about the Bechdel Test for Godzilla movies and I spent the whole time just shaking my head.  What difference does any of it make?

Because here’s the thing.  I don’t care.  I don’t give a damn about the sex or skin color of the people in my entertainment.  As most people know, I’m a big fan of Japanese dramas.  I watch a ton of them and review them on my other blog.  Not once have I ever given the slightest shit that there are no white people on screen.  Not once.  Because I don’t care.  And if you do, why?  Explain it to me. Rationally.

I just finished playing through Rise of the Tomb Raider and it didn’t bother me a bit that the only option I had was to play a woman.  Big deal.  Is that supposed to hurt my feelings?  Or in games that I’ve played where the main character is black, am I supposed to fall into an existential funk because they’re not just like me?  Or am I just supposed to play the game and not give a damn?  Because I fall into the latter camp.

So why do I not care and the identity politics fanatics on the left get butt hurt because they can’t personally identify with the characters in movies, TV shows and video games?  Why do things have to look or act or sound just like them in order to be worthwhile?  That comes off as terribly racist and sexist to me, but then again, that’s exactly what the left is.

The reality is, a lot of the movies that they complain about, the games they make teary-eyed videos about, those are things that are intended for and generally consumed by men.  It is the demographic that typically spends the most money to consume that content.  So it’s no surprise that the majority of lead characters in those games and movies are going to be men.  But you can hear the whiny feminists screaming whenever they notice this, can’t you?  You know what you don’t hear?  Men complaining about the content of chick flicks.  Men don’t get offended when women are the leads in movies and games and TV shows intended for women.  Oh no.  Men don’t scream because male actors are treated as eye candy. Men don’t care. Or at least most conservative men don’t care.  What the hell is wrong with liberals?

This is why I keep objecting to identity politics, because it’s mindless leftist stupidity.  I mean, probably the first time I recognized this was way back when I was a kid and people were insisting that they make black Barbies for black girls because they don’t want to play with white dolls.  It struck me as stupid then, it strikes me as stupid now.  I’m fine with them making whatever might sell, but to do so on racial terms because little black girls are being trained to only care about black people is ludicrous.  If a white kid wants to play with a black doll, good for them.  The reverse is also true.  If they complain that they only want to play with a doll that’s the same color that they are, get them out of that liberal indoctrination center that they’re clearly attending.

I find the whole thing to be terminally idiotic.  Why everyone else doesn’t as well is beyond me.

Racist Liberals can Read Your Mind!

Has this ever happened to you?  You explain to racist liberals that you’re not racist, that you don’t care about a person’s skin color, that you don’t take their race into account in making any decisions about an individual, and they just tell you, flat out, that you do.  Because apparently, they know you better than you do.  Somehow, liberals have developed great powers of mental telepathy, they know what you actually think and believe, even if they have no clue who you are.  They’re just amazing like that.

The problem here isn’t that people are racist, it’s that the liberal mindset tells them that people have to be.  Whether they are or not is irrelevant, their racist ideology makes it necessary to pretend like the world hates blacks and women and gays anyhow, reality be damned.  And when they run across people for whom that isn’t the case… well, that’s the case anyhow.

But it doesn’t stop there.  Another self-identified liberal decided, and I quote:  “In general, blacks face a greater chance of being discriminated against based solely on skin color.” Okay, that’s a claim, now back it up.  Please show us this data, explaining how you eliminated other potential factors that might skew your findings.  And yeah, as expected, not a peep.  They have no evidence.  They have no data.  They just have claims that they think ought to impress people because they said so, as if their say so is enough to convince anyone of anything.  I don’t care how much you want it to be true, it’s only actually true if you can prove your claim with objective evidence.  So why don’t you even bother trying?

And I wouldn’t say if it was just one guy, but it was 4 guys in the same thread, trying to tell me that they know how I think better than I do.  Another one said “Almost everybody says that. Most people are kidding themselves. You may be one of the relatively who actually acts that way, but if so you are indeed rare.”  No, I’m one of the ones who caught you in your empty and frankly offensive lies.  People who are not racist don’t fit into your liberal narrative, hence you refuse to accept that anyone who isn’t racist actually exists.

It’s like that execrable Ghostbusters remake.  Now that it’s actually out and people have actually seen it and, almost without exception, said it’s a horrible, awful movie, the SJWs are still scrambling to defend it because… women.  Every male reviewer who says bad things about it is a misogynist, no matter why they say they don’t like the movie.  And the female reviewers?  Well they don’t exist, unless they liked it, at which point they’re heroes, but if they have anything bad to say, the SJWs refuse to even acknowledge they exist.  Women cannot possibly hate the movie because… you know… women.  It just makes my head hurt.

But all of this makes my head hurt.  Dealing with these liberal idiots running around in circles trying desperately to rationalize their ridiculously false narrative ought to make everyone’s head hurt.  Facts don’t matter.  Reality doesn’t matter.  Only their precious and delicate little feelings mean a thing.  And that’s just stupid.

Why Can’t Liberals Stop Being Racist?

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.

Feminists and TV

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.

There is no Male Privilege Pt 2

Male Privilege

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:

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

Men pay 97% of Alimony

Men make 94% of work suicides.

Men make up 93% of work fatalities.

Men make up 81% of all war deaths.

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

80% of all suicides are men.

77% of homicide victims are men.

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

Men are over twice as victimised by strangers as women.

Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.

Males are discriminated against in school and University.

Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls.

60-80% of the homeless are men.

Women’s Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men’s

At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud.

One third of all fathers in the USA have lost custody of children, most are expected to pay for this.

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.

This is Going to Come Off Racist

Radio TowerI am well aware that this post is going to come off racist to some but it’s a serious question that I think ought to be addressed.  The talk radio station that I listen to, the one I’ve talked about a lot in the past, is a supposedly conservative talk station.  Most of its hosts are very conservative, although virtually none are particularly religious.  I’m actually surprised at how critical the majority of them are of religion and how readily most of them are to say they aren’t religious.  Most of the hosts are white, although there are several Hispanic hosts and two black hosts, all of which can be verified by going to their web site and looking at the host pages.  It’s the black hosts that I want to talk about right now though.

Before I begin, I’ve started to pay attention to how all of the hosts that I  hear, and granted I hear some a lot more often than others, based on when I happen to be in the car, talk about race, particularly their own.  I have yet to hear any of the white hosts spend any appreciable time talking about “being white”.  I have yet to hear any of the Hispanic hosts talk about “being Hispanic”.  I have, however, heard constant references by the two black hosts about “being black”.  It seems to be a major part of their schtick.  Last night, for instance, one was on and spent the entire time I listened, probably close to an hour, talking about “how black people think”.  Isn’t that kind of racist, in and of itself, asserting that all people with a particular range of melanin in their skin all have to think the same way?  So far as I’m aware, I’ve never heard a white host talking about how white people think, I’ve never heard a Hispanic host talking about how Hispanic people think and, even though I don’t know that I’ve ever heard an Asian radio host, I can’t imagine them spending valuable air time talking about how Asian people think.  It’s an absurd concept, why did this particular host think that all black people think alike?  It immediately strikes me as the old canard that you can’t tell black people apart.  That’s just racist.

And these hosts didn’t grow up in the hood, they were both, based on what they’ve said on the air, college educated and raised in at least middle class households.  So why do they spend all their time playing the race card?  What is it about a lot of black personalities that makes them automatically identify with skin color?  Personally, I just don’t get it.

Unfortunately, just noticing such things is enough to get you cast as a racist.  I guess pointing out the facts, especially when they are inconvenient facts, is enough to get you demonized.  My crime, according to some, is just noticing, just like realizing that feminists, who are supposedly for a gender-neutral society, spend all of their time pointing out how different men and women are.  But no, point that out and you’re a sexist!  They want you to do as they say, not as they do.  The fact is, when someone tries to group people together by the color of their skin, they are being racist.  It’s absurd to think that all black people think a certain way, just as it is to think the same of white people.  People are people.  People’s choices, positions and beliefs ought not be determined by their skin color and if they are, that’s really a problem.  I don’t go running around identifying myself by my skin color but there are a lot of people who do and no matter how they try to justify it, they’re still wrong.  It’s still racist.  Identifying race as a defining factor is, by definition, racist.  Oh, I know, blacks can’t  be racist, had another person tell me that today, because blacks have no power.  Tell that to our black president.

I just get so sick of the hypocrisy, where blacks and feminists and other liberal crusaders think that the rules don’t apply to them, they get to be racist and sexist and then they get to shout down anyone who points out their failures as being racists and sexists.  Can’t we all just stop paying attention to skin color and gender and just live together in harmony?  Hell no, that’s how these people make their living!

And that’s a shame.

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #62

Bitchspot Report New Icon

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!

More Outcome vs. Opportunity

ScalesThere 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.

Am I The Only One Who Thinks This Is Sexist?

Female Astronaut
Anna Lee Fisher (NASA STS-51A, November 8, 1984)

While out poking around today, I came across a Tumblr page dedicated to female astronauts.  It’s all female astronauts, all the time.  Personally, I find that sexist and discriminatory.

Of course, I don’t think that the person who put up the blog intended it to be sexist, I’m sure he or she was simply directing well-deserved attention to some of the heroes of space that we’ve had in the past 50 years, specifically those heroes who just happen to be female.  I’m not accusing them of being sexist or discriminatory or anything of the sort, don’t get me wrong. However, the very concept of only looking at a group of people because they are female or because they are black or because they are gay, is inherently discriminatory on it’s face, even if it isn’t purposely designed to be that way.

The recent debacle with Atheism+ and radical feminism has made me much more critical of anyone who tries to tie race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. to anything.  I don’t think we need a site dedicated to female astronauts any more than I think we need one dedicated to black astronauts or gay astronauts.  If we had a sit that only looked at male astronauts, white astronauts or straight astronauts, people would be up in arms, yet reverse it and it’s supposed to be the greatest thing ever.

I call bullshit.

Equality is equality, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If the goal here, as so many feminists and social justice advocates tell us, is gender-blindness and color-blindness and sexual-orientation-blindness, how can we keep having these cases where society is only blind from one particular viewpoint, but from every other viewpoint, race, gender and orientation are paramount and presented dead center?

We’ve had some spectacular and brave astronauts.  Full stop.  It doesn’t matter if they’re male or female.  It doesn’t matter if they’re black or white.  It doesn’t matter if they’re gay or straight.  Their gender, skin color or orientation had nothing to do with their accomplishments.  Anna Lee Fisher isn’t a female astronaut, she’s an astronaut that just so happens to be female.

Can’t we just measure human accomplishments without regard to what genitalia one has between their legs or what amount of melanin one has in their skin or who they are attracted to?  Why is this so hard, especially from the crowd that complains everyone ought to be doing it?

You Don’t Solve Sexism By Being Sexist

EqualityIt’s been a while since the ranting radical feminist lunatics at Atheism+ worked to take Justin Vacula down, a move which had him give up his position as co-director of the Secular Coalition of America’s Pennsylvania branch.  Since then, I’ve seen him make moves that could be interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself into the feminist movement, he’s talked at length about attending women-specific conferences, he’s tried to join feminist organizations with various degrees of success, he’s spoken positively about various women’s groups and he’s tried to distance himself from various men’s-rights groups and websites.

Frankly, I don’t see the point in doing any of that, the very fact that he has a penis is enough to discredit him in the eyes of a lot of radical feminist circles and since he hasn’t become an emasculated koolaid swilling feminist wannabe, the chances that he’ll ever be accepted as one of them are somewhere between, well… none and none.  Yet now I see him speaking out against a group that he says he initially supported called Secular Woman, whose goal is to “amplify the voice, presence, and influence of non-religious woman.”

Why would anyone want to do that?

See, I don’t support any of these groups.  I don’t support feminist groups, I likewise don’t support masculinist groups, like A Voice For Men.  I’m sure that at least some people involved have their hearts in the right place, but you cannot achieve a gender-neutral society if everyone is only fighting for one side.  These organizations are inherently sexist.  They promote discrimination based on gender.  They promote action based on what a person has between their legs.  They might think they have reason to promote one  gender over the other, that doesn’t change the facts.  They’re still sexist.  The same applies to organizations that promote one race over another, like the NAACP.  They’re just as racist as the KKK.  They might have relatively admirable goals, with association to their chosen racial group, but they’re still racist.

What’s worse, most of the people who espouse these viewpoints are utter hypocrites.  See, there’s this conference called Women in Skepticism.  It’s touted as addressing the role of women in the skeptical community.  Why is the role of women any magically different than the role of men?  If someone had a Men in Skepticism conference, these people would shit themselves.

You cannot fight injustice by being unjust.  You would think that people who had, at one time, been discriminated against based on their skin color or gender, would not just turn around and create organizations dedicated to doing just that against others, wouldn’t you?  But apparently, they didn’t get the message.

As far as I’m concerned, there should be no sexist conferences at all, not Women in Skepticism nor Men in Skepticism.  We should all just be skeptics.  There should be no “voices for men” or “voices for women”, just all of us raising our voices for people or all genders, all races, all sexual orientations, etc.

Because in the end, that’s what we all are:  people.

I don’t want to Coexist!

I saw someone on Twitter advocate the bumper sticker to the left and while I will admit it’s a cool design, as I tweeted back to him, “Cute bumper sticker, bad message”.

I don’t want to co-exist with religion, any more than I want to co-exist with murderers or child molesters.  All of these are anti-social behaviors and generally unacceptable ideas.

Well, except to people who engage in them.  If you ask someone involved with NAMBLA if sex with young boys is a bad idea, they’ll say no, of course not, and give you tons of stories about how wonderful it is.  Oh sure, they’ll say, there are some bad eggs, the same position of many Catholics regarding priest sex abuse, but in general, it’s a good thing that people ought to support, if we just ignore the few problem priests.

I just don’t buy it.  I don’t think we ought to encourage irrational beliefs no matter what they are or how popular they may be.  I don’t think we ought to praise people who believe ridiculous things, nor should we refrain from telling them believe ridiculous things when we come across them.  This goes down the line, we shouldn’t want to coexist with white racists or black racists, male sexists or female sexists, etc.  These are all absurd positions and ought to be soundly rejected by all rational people for what they are.  Ridiculous religions are ridiculous religions no matter what “good” might be found in them.  Extract the good, reject the religion.  Racism is bad no matter the skin color of the person who holds it.  Sexism is bad no matter the genitalia of the person who holds it.  Why should we seek to coexist with any of them?

Of course, this new design is a lot different than the ones you usually see when you’re out driving around, the wholly-religious version that demands religious tolerance even when the religion is intolerable.  Perhaps this version wants people not to coexist with religions, but with alien species?  Can our planet coexist with other planets?  Can the Milky Way galaxy coexist with the billions of other galaxies in the universe.  Hey, for all I know, it’s a call to to believe in and accept our reptilian alien overlords, more popularly known as the Raelian movement.  Who knows, I’ve seen stranger things on the Internet.

And you know something?  I oppose coexisting with that too!

Update:  As I was looking around today, I found the perfect explanation for why coexistence is a pointless gesture and I’d like to share it with you.  Great job for whoever came up with this.

Feminism Supporters are Frustrating

I suppose I shouldn’t act like it’s only feminism supporters that bug me but they’ve been top of my shit list lately.  After I wrote this post, I got several e-mails, as well as a couple of tweets, by pissed off feminists that asserted that I didn’t care about women’s rights.

Let me make this perfectly clear.  I am for women’s rights.  I am for men’s rights.  I am for black rights.  I am for white rigths.  I am for gay rights.  I am for straight rights.  To make it simpler for everyone to understand though, I’ll just condense it all down to a single statement:  I am for human rights.

What I am against are blacks lining up on one side of the fence and whites lining up on the other side and both working on their own issues separately.  Tear down the damn fence and have all of them work on the same issues together.  I oppose men and women lining up against opposite walls, like in a high school dance, each side whispering about how awful the other group is.  I say get your asses out there and dance!  Work out your mutual differences!

The feminist movement isn’t getting rid of sexism at all.  Oh sure, they’re achieving equality alright, they’re becoming equally as sexist!  Aren’t we supposed to be achieving a color-blind, gender-blind and orientation-blind society?  How can we do that when one side spends all their time waving their arms around and calling race, gender and orientation to everyone’s attention?

Going back to what I was saying before, I am for women’s rights, but not to the exclusion of men’s rights.  I am for men’s rights, but not to the exclusion of women’s rights.  The same goes down the line.  The problem is, radical feminism doesn’t care about men’s rights, they don’t care about men, in fact, some of the most radical want to do away with men altogether.  Certainly not all feminists fall into that  camp because not all feminists are radical, but there are enough that do, and enough people take those that do seriously, that it’s clearly an issue that needs to be addressed.  In fact, it’s difficult not to draw parallels between feminism and expansionist Islam.  No, most Muslims are not terrorists, most Muslims are peace-loving people who would oppose open terrorism to any degree.  There are those, unfortunately, who do listen to the terrorists, who read their mantras, who embrace their aims, if not their methods.  There are those who buy into the goals of terrorism, the expansion of Islam through virtually any methods necessary, considering the ends just might possibly justify the means.  That’s where it gets dangerous.  When you get to the tipping point, where “I really want to achieve this goal, it is the most important thing I can imagine” to “the only way to achieve that goal is violence” is a single step, it spells trouble.

Now feminists, for the most part, don’t support violence against men, or anyone else, but there are those who advocate it.  They are present in the general feminist movement and they do get a certain amount of traction, especially as women get more fanatical in their beliefs and frustrated in their goals.  It’s unlikely to lead to women strapping on bomb vests but any movement where violence is seen as a viable option, even by a minority, is potentially dangerous.

So please, let’s do away with feminism.  Let’s do away with masculinism.  Let’s just all be human and treat each other fairly and equally, based on critical thinking, evidence and logic.  If nothing else, Atheism+ did show us that a group of people,  bound together by ideological purity, will tend toward fanaticism.

Fanaticism sucks, period.

The Flip-Side to Feminism

We all know that the radical feminists are out there and treat men as slime that ought to be subservient to women.  The most extreme talk about the genocide of men once women figure out how to breed without us.  It is absurd to see members of one half of the human species seething with hatred against the other half and I’ve spoken out to some degree against this in the past.  However, that’s really not what this piece is about.

It’s interesting that, in recent months, I’ve started seeing a backlash against not only radical feminism, but general feminism, in that some women are vocally speaking out for men’s rights.  While I will be the first to agree that feminists tend to entirely ignore men’s rights, I will say that I fundamentally disagree with both sides, we should not be concerned about equality for men or equality for women, but equality for all.

This is especially bad when I start seeing signs suggesting that some of these women are approaching what I would call radical masculinism, the view that men are just better than women, men always get screwed over by women, women are slime, etc.  I guess I could better understand it if it was men doing this, but women?  Well, there are men in the radical feminist movement who seem only too happy to whack off their own balls to fit in, I suppose it’s only natural that the reverse be true but I see it as a trend that we really shouldn’t be having.

See, I don’t think there should be feminism, I don’t think there should be masculinism.  I don’t think there should be black pride or brown pride or white pride.  I don’t think people ought to be proud of being gay or proud of being straight.  It seems absolutely ridiculous to be proud of something over which you had no direct control or influence.  It’s about as absurd as claiming blue-eyed pride over  green-eyed pride, or brown-hair pride over blond-hair pride.  People shouldn’t be concerned about the equality of the black man or the brown woman, it shouldn’t matter if you’re white or red or yellow, to use classic terminology often considered racist.  Racism shouldn’t be a part of the human vernacular.

To be honest, in this day and age, it’s a bit absurd to see that it’s mostly the liberals who are racist, sexist, orientist, etc.  Aren’t we supposed to be going for a gender-blind world?  A color-blind world?  A sexual-orientation-blind world?  Yet if you look at the people making the biggest fuss about all of them, it’s the liberals.  Blacks are over-represented in the ghettos, it must be racism!  They don’t stop to consider the demonstrable fact that the ghetto sub-culture is precisely what puts them there and keeps them there.  Women aren’t paid as much as men are, it’s sexism!  Except that, given equal education, equal skills, equal time on the job, etc., men and women perform generally equally.  Even among atheists, who I’d hope were more rational, you see them complaining that there just aren’t a lot of open black atheists, it must be racism, ignoring the very real possibility that blacks tend to be more religious overall and often live in very religious neighborhoods where being an open atheist is detrimental.  They complain that there aren’t enough women at atheist conferences, forgetting the possibility that women don’t tend to be interested in this type of activist activity.  They want enforced equality of outcome, they want quotas whether the people involved want to be involved in those numbers or not.  You don’t see people on the right doing that.  When’s the last time you heard someone religious declare “there just aren’t enough Baptists at this conference”?  It just doesn’t happen.

It’s about time we do away with race and gender and sexual orientation as means of measuring reality and just try supporting human rights and human equality across the board.  Is this human equal to that human?  If not, fix it.  There ought not be women’s rights or men’s rights, gay rights or straight rights, black rights or white rights, there ought only be human rights.  ’nuff said.

Thinking vs. Reality

It’s been well established that atheism means a lack of belief in god(s) and there’s no automatic assumption that said lack of belief came from well-reasoned or rational means.  It’s also established that, even if you did come to that conclusion rationally, that doesn’t automatically mean that you use reason or intelligence in any of your other positions.  Atheism does not imply a more rational individual.

That’s getting clearer and clearer to me as time goes on, especially in this feminist debacle.  Take the debate that’s been going on over at Atheist Revolution, where you’ve had one woman who has really been trumpeting Rebecca Watson’s cause.  Even after a lengthy response as to why people don’t take Watson’s claims seriously, this woman came back with “if she felt sexualized then she was sexualized.”

Wait… what?  Being sexualized is not a solo activity.  Someone has to sexualize you or you have to sexualize someone else.  You can’t decide on your own that you’ve been sexualized any more than you can decide on your own that you’ve been raped.  You either have been or you haven’t been.  You don’t get to call a cop and point to a random guy on the street and declare “he raped me!”  When it turns out that he never even touched you, you can’t demand “well, he was thinking about it!”  You don’t get to declare your innermost feelings to be reality if it’s not actually reality!

It’s sad that we get women who, instead of being strong, self-sufficient and self-empowered, sit around going “waaaah, he’s touching me!”  Am I the only one who sees how pathetic that is?  Yes, women are typically not as physically strong as men are, that’s a matter of biology, but there are plenty of women who could kick my ass, should I shiver in my boots because of that?  I’d wager the entire women’s contingent from the London Olympics could overpower me if they wanted to.  I can’t say I ever worry about it though.  It’s no different than being afraid if a black person was in that elevator instead of a white person.  You can cite all the statistics you want for black-on-white crime and prison statistics, but if you’re afraid of black people in a way you’re not afraid of white people, you’re being racist.  Or sexist, as the case may be.

In fact, this is nothing new in feminist circles.  For many years, harassment in the workplace has been this way.  If you feel you’ve been harassed, even if you cannot produce a shred of evidence that you’ve been harassed, then you’ve been harassed.  A guy can be fired if a woman asserts that she’s been harassed, even if the guy has done nothing wrong.  In fact, that happened once in my office, although not to me, where a woman who notoriously wore super low-cut blouses that showed off her assets, complained because she claimed someone looked at them.  Well hell lady, if you didn’t put them out on display, nobody would have a reason to!  She complained to HR and luckily, HR wrote her up for violating company dress code.  She was so upset that she quit and we later found out that she had pulled the same thing at the previous 3 companies she had worked for, hoping to get some hush money to avoid a lawsuit.

Now I assume this is the extreme exception and not the norm and thankfully, I worked for a company that actually valued truth over shivering in their boots regarding potential lawsuits.  Unfortunately, there are lots of women, and probably some men, who use “harassment” as a code-word for pay-day.

See, as I said above, there’s something that these people haven’t thought of or would like to forget.  If you react to someone differently based solely on their gender, you’re a sexist.  If a black man, for instance, had gotten into that elevator and they had reacted differently because he was black, they’d be racist.  Clearly, we have someone here who is a sexist.  She reacted in a particular manner based entirely on the gender of the person in the elevator with her.  She’d desperately like to portray it as “being safe” but that’s ridiculous.  In both cases, hers and Rebecca Watson’s, they were both going back to their hotel rooms in the early morning after being out drinking.  And now they want to claim they were “being safe” by over-reacting to a harmless guy in the elevator?  How about not staying out until 3-4am and stumbling home impaired?  It’s like walking down a dark alley late at night with $100 bills hanging out of your pockets and then freaking out when you see a black guy emptying his trash.  Sorry, you put yourself into a potentially vaguely dangerous situation of your own accord, don’t come crying to me when you over-react to an innocent situation. If you want to be safe, go back to your room early, sober, and with a friend that you trust.  You can’t just pick and choose safe behavior.

I just don’t get how people can make these illogical, irrational arguments, they really are no better than the ridiculous apologetics that come out of the mouths of theists.  We remain at a seeming impasse, where feminists are grasping at a very few straws, cases that are so minor as to be laughable, to support their agenda and the second anyone points out how silly these cases are, they go on the rampage.  If they had actual examples of women getting attacked at these conferences, of women being openly discriminated against, not allowed to speak or attend, I’d be out there banging the drum with them.  They just don’t.  They have weak, insignificant examples, some of which are no more than emotional hand-wringing, and they try to get everyone to jump on their bandwagon in the name of liberal solidarity.

And these people want to be well-respected leaders of a movement that purports to be rational, logical and evidence-based?  Seriously?  You’d better agree with them or they’ll accuse you of sexism.

Equality is a Two-Edged Sword

My wife and I did a marathon session of Non-Prophets episodes over the weekend, now that they’ve finally put up the audio podcasts, and in one of the most recent episodes, while talking about the sexism kerfluffle, Matt Dillahunty told a story about a friend’s sister, many years ago, where they had an attraction to each other and, while he was too nervous to make an advance, eventually she wrote on a window “want to fuck?”  And apparently, they did.

What I realized that illustrates is the inherent double standard of the modern women’s right movements.  What the sister did above is entirely acceptable to most people, but had the situation been reversed and Matt had written that on the window, many women would have seen that as harassment.  So which is it?  If you want equality, you can’t treat one situation any differently than you do the other.

But do they want equality?  That’s a question that seems to hover over various rights movements.  I’m convinced that for most, they don’t.

See, I think we do best with just one standard.  There should only be one standard for men and women, we ought to be a gender-blind society.  There should be only one standard for people of various races, we ought to be a color-blind society.  There should be only one standard for people of various sexual preferences, we ought to be a preference-free society.  The problem, however, is that there isn’t, and many of these double standards are not put forward by the dominant group, but by the group that has fought for their equality, then doesn’t want to be equal, they want to be better!  Not only do they want equal rights, they want special rights on top of them to “make up for” all the time they didn’t have those rights.  In looking at the above example, a feminist might not only want the right not to be harassed, which I entirely agree with, but they might want the right to harass and show their sexual freedom, because they had to go without for so long.  That I have a problem with.  Either harassment is right or it is wrong, but it must be the same for everyone, regardless of gender.  If it would have been wrong for Matt to suggest sex on a window, it should also be wrong for the sister to do the same thing.

Equality isn’t always a positive thing either, with the good will always come the bad.  Now while I have seen some women, especially women in the military, want the same treatment as men, most, and especially liberal women, do not.  They don’t want to be front-line combat troops.  They don’t want to be drafted.  They want the good, they don’t want the bad.

It’s all or nothing though.  Take it or leave it.  You want to be equal, be equal.

In fact, another example that just occurred to me, my wife and I watched the G4 coverage of San Diego Comicon a while back and the co-host was John Barrowman, former Dr. Who companion and the star of Torchwood.  He’s also gay.  Now I have no problem with John, I’ve talked to him many times, I think he’s a nice guy.  However, the whole time he was on TV, he was going “look at the ass on that guy!”  Lots of people laughed, the first dozen times he did it.  If he had been straight and going “hey, look at the tits on that chick!” he’d have been thrown off the stage.  Serious double standard.

I’m all in favor of equality, but only if it’s actual equality.  If it’s okay for a man to do it, it’s okay for a woman to do it.  If it’s not okay for a man to do it, it shouldn’t be okay for a woman to do it.  That’s equality.  One standard, it’s all we need.  We can do the same between blacks and whites, gays and straights, atheists and theists, you name it.  Everyone ought to be equal and nobody ought to get different treatment to make up for something in the past.

Equality starts today.  Either want to be fully equal or stop whining about it.

Sexism: Dealing with Reality

We’ve been listening to the first podcast from Non-Prophets for the year and they talked pretty extensively on the whole sexism in atheism nonsense.

Apparently, there was a Top 5 list out there somewhere and Matt Dillahunty won.  While I certainly think he ought to be high on the list, he does a lot of good for the atheist community,  the problem was, according to many people, the list was flawed because there were no women on the list. Continue reading Sexism: Dealing with Reality

Battle of the Sexes

I guess I’ve written on this in the past tangentially, but over on Atheist Revolution, he’s handled it a couple of times and I thought that I ought to step in and examine it more in depth.  The question is, why are there more male atheists than female atheists and are female atheists being “abused” because they are female? Continue reading Battle of the Sexes

Sexism and Doctor Who

I got a book for my wife for her birthday a couple of months back called Chicks Dig Time Lords, a “celebration of Doctor Who by the Women Who Love It”.  It’s a collection of articles by various female fans explaining what it is about Doctor Who that they like.  I was paging through some of it, it’s all a bunch of fangirl pap, no better or worse than the fanboy nonsense I’ve seen over the years, up until I got to an article by Shoshana Magnet, assistant professor in the Institute of Women’s Studies at the University of Ottowa.  She writes an evaluation of the new series, looking at each new companion and discussing what’s either done right or wrong with them.  Are they post-sexist?  Are they post-racist?  Are they progressive enough or are they filling a stereotype? Continue reading Sexism and Doctor Who