Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech

May 092016

Sheryl Sandberg (of Facebook) decided to “honor” single mothers this Mother’s Day, in part because she says that she is one now.  Since her husband died, technically she is a single mother, but she is not a single mother in the sense we usually understand the term.  Sandberg is a widow, but the vast majority of single mothers are not widows.  Most single mothers are women who either never married the fathers of their children (but still demand child support with minimal to no visitation for the father) or women who were married to the fathers of their children but divorced them in anti-family courts.  Being a widow with children and what is usually called single motherhood are two very different things.  By conflating the two, Sandberg is denying the existence of fathers who lose access to their children (not to mention half or more of their assets) in anti-family courts, fathers who can’t even get the visitation they are supposed to get, and of all the crime that gets generated by single motherhood.

Sandberg is lying to us about the realities of single moms and single motherhood.  And the reason is obvious.  It is the female herd mentality in action.

May 052016

Ellen Pao is up to her old tricks. She has started a group to “improve diversity” in the tech industry focusing on startups. Since Ellen Pao is involved, this group is nothing but an attempt to shakedown companies in the tech industry over “diversity”. It is telling that Ellen Pao is focusing on startups. Startups don’t have the resources to fight an extended battle against a group shaking them down with mafia style tactics. She’s hoping that startups will pay her off instead of dealing with the negative publicity she could generate.

Of course, there is a built in problem with what Ellen Pao is doing. Anything having to with “diversity” in the tech industry requires that Asian men be fired which will open up Ellen Pao’s group and any company stupid enough to follow her to discrimination lawsuits from Asian men.

May 032016

It’s the time of the month to select a new Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Last month’s winner with no voting was Janet Crawford for her BS on neuroscience.

The Entitlement Princess of the Month can only keep going with your support so keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month there are two entitlement princesses to choose from.  The first was submitted by Anon and she is Meghann Foye, a woman who is demanding that companies give her (and other childless women) maternity leave.  Foye calls this “meternity” leave.  This sounds like something that would not be woman specific, but as you would expect she is already trying to weasel her way to making “meternity” women only.  In other words, not only is it a demand on employers, but also male coworkers since men would have to do extra work to cover her (additional) lack of work.

The second was submitted by email and is a Swedish woman who tried to have a man arrested for (allegedly) farting.  In Sweden, What happened was that the Swedish woman refuses to have sex with a man she met.  He (allegedly) farts immediately after that and leaves.  The woman calls the police to try to get him arrested because the fart disturbed her “peace of mind”.  Fortunately, the police said no crime was committed and did not arrest the man.

Vote for one of the entitlement princesses in the poll below. Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore.

Who is your vote for the April 2016 Entitlement Princess Of The Month?

  • Meghann Foye (78%, 60 Votes)
  • The Swedish Woman (22%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 77

Loading ... Loading ...
Apr 242016

For a man to be a victim of the false rape industry, it used to be that a woman (usually who had sex with the man) actually had to make an accusation against that man.  Thanks to the reclassification of rape as a civil rights violation such standards of due process no longer need to be followed.  At Colorado State University – Pueblo, a male athlete and his female trainer start a relationship. Everything during the relationship was consensual, but another person made a complaint to the university that the trainer was raped. The trainer strenuously disagreed saying, “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” That didn’t stop the athlete from getting expelled from the university for rape.

What happened here was that since rape is now reclassified as a “civil rights violation”, it doesn’t matter if the alleged victim says everything was consensual.  His relationship with his trainer offended someone else so the athlete violated the “civil rights” of women regardless of repeated statements from the woman he had sex with that made it clear she wasn’t raped.  We will see more of this in the future since feminists will declare that women who don’t think they were raped to be victims of “internalized misogyny” and can’t be trusted as a result.

At this point I’m waiting for a man living in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota with no other person within a hundred miles to be accused of rape/violating the civil rights of women because some woman that he never met was pissed off at him.  This will happen sooner or later.

Apr 192016

If you have been around this part of the internet long enough, you know about how when women complain about their problems, they don’t want their problems fixed. They want to just complain about them. This video communicates this concept very succinctly and effectively:

And just to really drive the point home, here is one of the comments under that video:

A woman was drowning. I look at her from the dock and said, “I know you do not want me to “fix” your situation. I want you to know that I know what your feeling, the desperation, the fear, you see I almost drowned, so I can relate, I sympathize and have compassion for you. I am sorry this is happening to you. The woman died, but I feel very good that I provided her with the comfort of my sympathy and compassion and did not upset her by “fixing” her situation.

Apr 172016

One trick that people against MGTOW try to use on MGTOW is that a MGTOW who talks about being MGTOW isn’t truly a MGTOW.  According to their argument, a true MGTOW would be too busy actually going their own way to actually spend time talking about MGTOW.  Obviously, this is a trick to try to get MGTOW to stop talking about MGTOW because they’re afraid of it.  I found a video that completely destroys the argument that MGTOW should shut up to be real MGTOW:

I also like how this video points out that the exact same tactic was used against the atheist community.  That makes it clear that this is a tactic by people to get their enemies to shut up and not a real rational argument.

Apr 142016

Several commenters in my last post pointed out (correctly) that the women saying that consensual sex leads to men murdering women and engaging in cannibalism of women were engaging in projection.  I have continued to read more of the GenderCritical subreddit, and these women are clearly engaging in project.  I found the ultimate example.  Take what this woman said in defense of women having women only spaces:

Do you think male only rape crisis centres should be open to women?

Do you think male only PTSD centres should be open to women?

The response to that comment was to point out that there is only one male only rape crisis center and no such thing as a male only PTSD center (and that the woman who wrote that was making shit up).  This clearly shows that the women on the GenderCritical subreddit are engaging in projection.  The only reason that anyone would think a male only rape crisis center is necessary is because women demanded that all the other rape crisis centers be exclusively female.  (The same is true of domestic violence shelters.)

The PTSD center comment is what really shows that these women are engaging in projection.  Until I read this comment, I (and every other rational individual) had never considered that PTSD is gendered in any way.  Gender specific PTSD centers are not necessary so none exist.  I tried to come up with how a male only PTSD center might be created, but the only thing I could come up with was a PTSD center that served veterans and current servicemembers.  Even that is not a male only PTSD center because women serve in the military.  This is why these women are engaging in projection.  They think that there everything needs a special variant made for women.  Men know that most things a male or female specific.  Men understand that PTSD affects both men and women so having separate PTSD centers for each gender is silly.  However, the women at the GenderCritical subreddit are so obsessed with everything having a separate version for women that they don’t understand that men don’t think that way.  The woman who wrote the comment about male only PTSD centers just assumed men must think like her so men must have created male only PTSD centers.  She was projecting so much that she didn’t bother to check if there was such a thing as a male only PTSD center.  That is why this is such a good example of how women always engage in projection.

Apr 122016

I have been reading more of the GenderCritical subreddit I talked about in my last post.  I found out that consent is a way women get raped and murdered:

“Consent” is a way for men to rape women legally. think about the things they talk about like “consensual” cannibalism! You can have the most blatant rape now nowadays and the man just says “I thought it was consensual” and that’s that. Never mind that for example he had restrained her, hit her, or even killed her, or that people heard her scream (used to be the old legal rape method – make her too afraid to scream), or that he damaged her vagina (funny how as soon as that one became the rape standard there began a campaign to flood all of society with violent porn and claim all women like that) or that she was half unconscious – if she “consented” that’s all fine apparently.

Yeah, we hear about all those cases where a man murders a woman, and he gets off by saying that he had consensual sex with her.  What are the feminists on the GenderCritical subreddit smoking?

My favorite part of this was how the feminist who wrote this brought up cannibalism.  I would be real money that this feminist thinks that men secretly (or maybe not so secretly) eat women.

Apr 102016

What does “Women in Tech” mean?  This should be self evident, but not when you put male to female transsexuals in the mix.  I found this subreddit called GenderCritical.  It’s a subreddit for feminists who think that male to female transsexuals are a conspiracy by men to oppress women.  One of the posts on this reddit was how male to female transexuals were forcing actual women out of the Women in Tech movement (and out of the tech industry).  This is apparently a plot to keep women out of the tech industry.  The comments are even better such as this one where they believe that male to female transsexuals are getting better jobs than actual womenThe reason why this is happening in the tech industry according to them is because the men who started the tech industry are socially maladjusted guys who really hate women, unlike plain old misogynists:

I don’t see a lot of other industries really hating women. Sure, misogyny has been a part of the fabric for a long time because it’s been a part of the social structure for forever.

Tech was started and built by deeply socially maladjusted males. They used their technical expertise to cover for their massive insecurities. Social media is basically the social version of all of the misogyny and awkwardness of an industry that maintains hatred of women as a cornerstone.

This is an example of why accusations of transphobia should be used against accusations of sexism/misogyny.  Let the male to female transsexuals and women fight over what the women in “women in tech” means.  If they can’t define what “woman” means then there is no need for “women in tech” nonsense, then the tech industry can’t be sexist and can’t be expected to increase the percentage of women in tech because no one knows what a “woman” is.

Apr 062016

One way the tech industry, gaming, CEOs, etc. is accused of being sexist is by using the ratio of men to women in those areas.  At the End Women’s Suffrage blog, I found the perfect way to use their own “logic” against them:

This shows us the perfect defense to use against accusations of sexism in these areas.  The same people making those false accusations are also very pro transgender.  To them being in a male body doesn’t necessarily mean that person is a man.  Since they believe that, how do they not know that the male/female ratio in the tech industry or gaming isn’t 1 woman for every man?  They can’t without being transphobic according to their own politics.

The next time someone says the tech industry, gaming, or anything else that has more men than women is sexist, accuse them of transphobia.  According to their politics, they can’t know that there is more men than women just by looking at them.  Their politics says that just because someone looks like a man, it doesn’t mean that they are a man like the conversation above points out.  Use their own politics against them.

Apr 032016

It’s the time of the month to select a new Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Last month’s winner with 76% of the vote is Melissa Harris-Perry who lost her show on MSNBC due to her ridiculous demands such as that MSNBC not preempt her with election coverage and that she be allowed to continue to use her show as a platform for her crazy rants instead of reporting actual news.

The Entitlement Princess of the Month can only keep going with your support so keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month there will be no voting since I have found such an obvious candidate that she deserves to win by default.  This months winner is Janet Crawford, a woman who goes around giving talks about the (alleged) neuroscience of  (alleged) gender inequality.  You can watch one of her talks from the BathRuby 2016 conference.  (In addition to this, BathRuby is a conference that wasted their time by having June 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month, Coraline Ada Ehmke, speak, and completely unrelated stuff about transsexuals.)  In the first few minutes of Crawford’s talk at BathRuby 2016, Crawford says over and over again that she’s a scientist, but never says what field of science she works in.  (It is implied that the field she works in is either neuroscience or psychology but she is careful to never actually say that.)  She also gives this story about how she was the victim of sexism because no one believed she was good at math and she was never shown how to solder electronic circuits in some intense physics class.  When you start investigating her background none of this makes sense.  Crawford’s degrees are in Environmental Science and Latin American Studies, not the degrees where you would encounter a lot of math, much less soldering.  As for her work, she describes it as, “my work as a coach, organization transformation consultant, facilitator and keynote speaker”.  She thinks she is entitled to call herself a scientist when it is clear that she is anything but.

Could Crawford have done study on her own in the fields of neuroscience or psychology where she could legitimately claim to be a scientist?  Only if by science, you mean pseudoscience.  She is certified as a master practitioner of neuro-linguistic programming and was employed as a consultant at a “business” based on NLPNLP is pseudoscience that has failed to generate any testable results or evidence in its favor. It is not informed by any scientific understanding of neuroscience or linguistics and does not relate to any phenomena in neural structures. NLP is considered a key example of pseudoscience. NLP is even considered by many to be a form of New Age quasi-religion.

Crawford’s entitlement comes from her belief that she can call herself a scientist despite her lack of experience in the sciences she implies she has experience in (i.e. neuroscience) and her willingness to use pseudoscience in the place of actual science.  This makes her the March 2016 Entitlement Princess of the Month.

Apr 012016

I found this group on the internet called the hybrid children community.  This is a group of women (mainly in their 20s) who think that aliens abducted them, had mind blowing sex with them knocking them up, and then took their hybrid human-alien children away from them.  (No, this is not an April Fools joke, but it should be.)

Obviously, these women are insane, but what would it mean if they weren’t?  It means that aliens are smart enough to know that what is best for their children is to keep them away from their mothers.  Aliens understand this at such a deep level that they abduct women from other planets who can’t follow them back to their home worlds. 

The women in the hybrid children community are incapable of having relationships with men.  This should be a surprise to no one.  While many men are willing to stick their dick into crazy, no man is that hard up that he won’t run in the other direction when meeting one of these women.  I’m certain that these women were just as insane before “discovering” that aliens were abducting them to have hybrid babies.  This is what happens to women who don’t get attention from men.  Thanks to MGTOW, the marriage strike, and so forth, more women will join the hybrid children community so that they can enjoy the delusion that alien men desire them.  I think I can speak for aliens everywhere when I say that alien men don’t want these women too.

Mar 262016

The anti-vaccination movement is responsible for the rise in measles (such as the Disneyland measles outbreak in 2015) and whooping cough.  Since the anti-vaccination movement is primarily made up of mothers and other women, this is something where women bear responsibility. On top of that, mothers are usually the ones making health care choices for their children so in almost all cases where a child is not vaccinated (for anything other than legitimate medical reasons), a woman is responsible.  This problem is made worse by divorce and that fact that women are responsible for most divorces.  Fathers have to fight their ex-wives to get their children vaccinated and protect their children.

What started all of this anti-vaccination nonsense was a discredited study linking vaccination to increased autism rates.  Not only was this study discredited to the point where the journal that published it chose to disavow it, the study was funded by a law firm on a fishing expedition to sue vaccine manufacturers.  Despite these facts, women immediately latched on this.  Why did this happen?  To understand the reason, one must understand that certain degrees of autism, particularly autism level 1 (or Asperger’s Syndrome as it used to be called), is not a debilitating disease but indistinguishable from ultra-masculine thinking (the type of thinking that drives innovation).  In fact, lower levels of autism, especially those that used to be called Asperger’s Syndrome, are likely to be nothing more than the medicalization of regular masculinity.  In other words, women believed the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory because of their fear and hatred of masculinity.  Not only is women refusing to vaccinate their children dangerous for their children’s health, it is particularly dangerous for their sons since those women in addition to endangering their health will be raising them in a cesspool of feminist/anti-male ideology.  This is another example of how women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.

Anti-vaccination propaganda is filled with fear and hatred of masculinity (in addition to many lies).  Women are comparing vaccinations to rape (including the non-existent college rape “epidemic”) with images such as these:

And written propaganda like this:

I have been thinking this morning about the parallels between vaccine-injury and sexual assault. I happened to hear a news story today about the incidence of rape on college campuses, and as I was listening, I could envision several commonalities.
In the story, a young woman was interviewed about her experience. She described a situation in which she had accompanied a young man to his dorm room and they had engaged in sex – both agreed and it was an interaction to which both gave informed consent. They both knew they were going to have sex before entering the dorm room and there was no force or coercion involved. There was an element of trust and equality in the decision-making process.
She said that afterward, she was ready to leave and when she got up to get dressed, the young man pushed her down onto the bed, and held her down while he turned up the stereo so her cries for help could not be overheard by neighboring students.
After the assault, the young woman reported the rape to campus police. The investigation was dropped and the rapist was not prosecuted. She sees him on campus and has classes with him, which she reported is extremely difficult and re-traumatizing for her.
Vaccination of our children is in many ways similar to medical rape.
We know the person who has harmed our infants and children. We trust them. We willingly go into the environment and we even participate in holding down the victims. In many cases, we have been in those rooms and participated willingly, albeit without truly informed consent, in the medical assault on our children (or on ourselves.)
In other cases, we entered those rooms with people we trusted, believing we were NOT going to engage in the act proposed by the perpetrator, only to be talked into it, shamed into it, threatened into it, coerced into it, or tricked into it with promises that, “This won’t hurt” or “It’s only going to hurt for a second” or “Come on… you know it’s the right thing to do… everyone else is doing it….”
Afterward, the perpetrators, pat us on the thigh or shoulder while looking us straight in the eyes and saying, “There now. That wasn’t so bad, was it?” They straighten their white coats, instruct us to get our things together, as they turn their backs and stride out of the room in search of their next victim. We may be left feeling afraid, and numb, not knowing how that happened and praying that it’s over. Praying they won’t come back and do it again, and praying there won’t be any lasting harm from what just happened.
In many cases, as we leave those rooms, feeling sick to our stomachs… dirty… with lumps in our throats and tears in our eyes, we force ourselves to take deep breaths and resolve to be stronger next time; more prepared to say NO and mean it.
For many of us, we ARE more prepared and we ARE able to say NO the next time. Others of us are not so strong.
Some of us resolve to change our lives and we seek new relationships, which are good for us and in which our decisions and our choices – our right to say NO is respected.
Some of us endure the worst when we realize that the medical assault inherent in the act of coerced vaccination is only the beginning, as our children or ourselves become sick, often within minutes or hours following the assault. It is at that point that we are suddenly faced with the horror that when we reach out to those who are supposed to help us, we must again confront the assailant and beg for assistance. Not only is the help denied, the assault is also denied and the harm minimized. We are told, “It’s nothing,” “You’re over-reacting,” – no different from the rapist’s claim, “It was consentual. After-all, you came here asking for it. What did you expect?” If there is ANY admission that what happened was harmful, the victim is blamed for the damage because “Everyone else does just fine. In fact, they keep coming back for more. They love it. It’s only those extremely rare individuals who are weak, or flawed, or physically or emotionally damaged to start with who don’t like it. The problem is not with the perpetrator, and certainly not with the act itself… it’s the victim. Something is wrong with that one…”
And just like the rape-victim in this morning’s radio story, we are continually re-traumatized when we encounter the rapist in public – in our churches, in the grocery store, at PTA meetings and community gatherings.
The medical rapist is empowered by laws that protect him (or her) from liability. There are no consequences when they harm us or our children and this has emboldened them to become even more callous in their actions.

I suppose the comparison to the non-existent campus rape “epidemic” is accurate.  Both anti-vaccination and the campus rape “epidemic” are lies.  They are also both led by women who want the end of due process.  The woman who wrote the above propaganda specifically complained about the police and the criminal justice system not providing a summary judgement against a supposed “rapist” so it is clear that she is against due process.

Elsewhere, vaccination gets called a “war on women”.  Conspiracy theorist, Jeff Rense, says vaccination is an attempt to secretly sterilize women.  Conspiracy theorist website,, specifically called vaccination, the “vaccine industry’s war on women”.  This proves (again) that conspiracy theorists are no friend of men and are willing to white knight at the drop of a hat.

Calling or implying that vaccination is a “war on women” is not limited to conspiracy theorists.  The simple act of pointing out that Jenny McCarthy, a leader of the anti-vaccination movement, has the facts wrong on vaccination is misogyny.  It would be bad enough if these false accusations of misogyny were just coming from anti-vaccination people.  However, even pro-vaccination people will defend these women by saying that the women were just reacting to the misogyny of (male) doctors and demand that you have sympathy for them.  Or they will falsely accuse you of misogyny for disagreeing with anti-vaccination women:

I love and respect science which I worked in for a decade. But, believing in science doesn’t mean I have to ignore non-science. Science can’t explain why acupuncture works but it does. Science says vitamin E doesn’t reduce pre-menstural breast tenderness but I have 20 years of experience that says otherwise. That’s fine. If the science isn’t there then the medical profession should steer clear but we – individual people – don’t have to steer clear. It is the same with vaccines.

Like the story of a mother whose daughter got a vaccine on Friday and by monday morning had pulled all of her hair out. She is a statistical anomaly and therefore her mother is just being hysterical. That’s misogyny. We have no respect for motherhood, mothers, or the choices women make for their families.

I have trouble believing that this woman ever worked in science unless “correlation does not equal causation” is now considered misogynist.  (There are probably plenty of women and maginas who think that way.)  As for not respecting “motherhood, mothers, or women’s choices”, women’s “choices” are endangering their own children and other people.  (And that doesn’t even address that fact that she thinks that fathers should have no say it what happens to their children.) For example, this woman who refusal to vaccinate her children caused all seven of them to get whooping cough, but this woman only endangered her own children.  What is worse is that these women who are refusing to vaccinate and endangering other people’s children and people who can not get vaccinations due to legitimate medical reasons.  People in the latter group are protected against various diseases by the rest of us being vaccinated (a.k.a. herd immunity).  When a woman refuses to vaccinate her children and someone else is injured or killed by that act, she could face civil or criminal liability because her intentional disregard for her own children’s health is injuring other people.

When you look at all of this together, it is clear that being anti-vaccination is anti-male.  In particular, the biggest victims of the anti-vaccination movement (besides those who have died as a result of women refusing to vaccinate their children) are boys who are being raised by anti-male feminist mothers.

Mar 212016

An anonymous commentor brought to our attention that the UN is making a push towards mandatory paternity leave.  The key word there is mandatory.  The UN is not saying that businesses that can afford it may want to consider offering paternity leave or that men should have the choice of taking paternity leave if offered.  The UN is explicitly saying that men must be forced to take paternity leave because maternity leave oppresses women due to the fact that maternity leave creates an incentive for businesses to hire men.  The UN has admitted that the only way for men and women to be equal at work is to “handicap” men.

This is not the only case where it is suggested that men need to be “handicapped” in the workplace.  At the Good Mangina Project, which recently has become the Scared Shitless of Donald Trump All The Time Project, a feminist discovered that one of the reasons for the so called wage gap was that men work more hours. This immediately becomes that women are being oppressed by men working “too many hours” because it creates an incentive to hire men.  Again, the solution is to “handicap” men when it comes to working.

I chose the word “handicap” for a reason because what we are seeing is the prequel to Harrison Bergeron.  (For those of you who are unfamiliar with Harrison Bergeron, it is a science fiction short story about a future America where anyone of above average intelligence, strength, etc. has to be handicapped to the lowest common denominator.  For example, anyone who was more intelligent than a moron would be “handicapped” by implants that prevent that person from mentally concentrating.)  Feminists are treating Harrison Bergeron as a how to guide.  Right now, they are trying to “handicap” men by throwing roadblocks in their work and careers by forced paternity leave and forced limits on how much we can work.  When that fails to bring men down to the level of women, the next step will be to try to force men to use the “handicaps” that are described in Harrison Bergeron.  Of course, this will lead to the worst economic depression in history, but feminists will just blame that on men.

Mar 162016

Imagine you are Google and looking to hire someone for your social media team.  Who would you hire, especially if you are looking for someone with experience create online communities (and not wrecking them)?

  1. Adria Richards
  2. Ellen Pao
  3. Coraline Ada Ehmke
  4. Randi Harper
  5. Some random “diversity” hire
  6. Chris Poole, a.k.a. moot, the founder of 4Chan

The logical choice would be Chris Poole, and Google is hiring him, presumably to work on their social media products.  This makes sense.  Chris Poole understands how to successfully create online communities, and Google understands that they need that kind of experience to compete in social media.

Shanley Kane, the January 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month, does not understand this.  She wrote an article where she angrily whines about how Google chose to hire Chris Poole instead of a “marginalized person”.  (As far as I can tell “marginalized person” means someone with no technical knowledge and no relevant experience.)  Take a look at what Shanley Kane said about Chris Poole and 4Chan:

Then, just yesterday, Google announced it was “thrilled” to hire the founder of 4chan on its social products team.

Yes, that’s right: 4chan, a site known primarily for enabling mass cyber sexual assault against women

Mass cyber sexual assault?  Somehow I doubt that 4Chan users have figured out how to grope women through the internet.  (If they have then, Google should hire Chris Poole for their VR team to enhance their VR products with physical interaction.)  “Cyber sexual assault” is a contradiction in terms unless people can be groped through the internet.  As we can tell from the link, Shanley’s definition of “mass cyber sexual assault” is downloading some pics.  4Chan users might be guilty of hacking or illegally possessing copyrighted material, but that’s about it.

a site [4Chan] whose only claim to fame is hosting, harboring, coddling, incubating and disseminating hate, harassment, groupthink, violence and terrorism?

Terrorism?  Without 4Chan, ISIS/ISIL/Daesh would have never gotten off the ground, right?

4chan evokes a visceral sensation of fear and trepidation in many marginalized Internet users.

There is no such thing as a “marginalized internet user”.  A true marginalized person can not afford access to the internet.

as if founding a terrorist group is some kind of achievement

4Chan is such a terrorist group with all their suicide bombers and guys who fly planes into buildings, right?

building a massively homogenous community, largely geographically isolated to the US, UK and Canada

It’s like people speak different languages and primarily go to online communities in their native language.  Who knew?

By it’s own account, 4chan is 70% male; though more detailed demographics are unavailable, all signs indicate a primarily young (age: 18-34)

Young men don’t deserve to have online communities made for them, right?  Anytime more than one young man is in a room, it must be a terrorist group, right?

Since tech companies refuse it, and the tech press will not do it, I instead call on the tech community itself to condemn Google’s hiring of Christopher Poole.

Condemn Google for what?  Hiring a competent man with experience instead of a shrill man hating harpy with no tech knowledge?  I commend Google for hiring Chris Poole and not giving in to whining feminist harpies.

Mar 122016

I found a woman on Reddit who should be a candidate for Entitlement Princess of the Month, but what she said is too vile to wait that long.  A woman wrote a post on Reddit titled “Feeling are more important than reality”:

This has been a point I’ve been trying t tackle in my life for a while now, and I’m hoping this sub can help out. I’d like to add a trigger warning for topics of sexual assault.
Often when I’m discussing social topics with people who don’t tend to agree with me the conversation will hit a point where the other person will present some fact that will go against what I have just said, but doesn’t necessarily counter the point I’m trying to argue. So often they just drop supposed “facts” as if that makes the matter ok. I’ll try to present some examples that will clarify what I mean.

Whenever I’m trying to discuss or spread awareness of sexual assault on campuses, it seems that someone will always come along and deny that it’s a problem. He will throw out articles claiming that the 1 in 5 stat is wrong or misleading, and that there really isn’t that much of a problem (as if we could know that for certain). My issue is that even if all these things are true, it doesn’t stop the underlying issue of women feeling unsafe at colleges. It only makes the issue worse if so many women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant. The feelings are being dismissed by the “reality” of the situation and I can’t make myself see what that should be the case. Does empathy count for nothing in today’s world?

Speaking of feeling safe, I find these kinds of people are also dismissive of safe spaces for people of color or other minorities in university. I want to make the same assertion here; If people feel safer in these situations, why is it alright to ridicule them or try and take those spaces away? It isn’t harming anyone, and it’s making people feel better, which is helpful for their well being.

Another example is on International Womens Day a friend on Facebook made a post about how there is still a lot of work that needs to be done for women in todays society. The post mentioned that women still feel afraid to walk outside alone at night. Someone responded by saying that women are statistically much less likely to be assaulted at night than men.

What help is a comment like that? If I’m afraid to be out at night, and I have a 0% chance of being assaulted or raped, and I’m afraid of being out on a night where there is a 50% chance of those things happening and in that instance they don’t, my panicked walk home is the same miserable experience.

Now, I hope I have presented examples that have a clear connection. I’m obviously not arguing that there is no harm in a situation where someone feels like they will be ok if they put their hand on a heated stove element or something like that. I think it’s more for situations where and individuals perception is their reality. What benefit is there is trying to dismiss that by saying that “actual reality” isn’t how they see it? It’s like if someone said “I’m scared of the dark” and someone else said “Why? The dark can’t hurt you”. Even if the dark can’t hurt someone, you’re just disregarding their pain instead of, I don’t know, turing on the lights or something helpful and trivial.

I’m having such a hard time seeing the other side of this. Please change my view!

tl;dr feelings inform our reality, so “feels” are more important than a facts for situations that concern individuals.

I added the bold to some parts of this.  This is an excellent examples of how women think that their feelings are correct when their feelings are practically the opposite of what actually happens in reality.  This woman will defend against that being pointed out, by saying that “her feelings are about making a larger point”.  Since she has the facts wrong in the first place, her “larger points” and feelings are also wrong by definition.  Take when she said, “women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant”.  If something happening is statistically insignificant, then it is a waste of time to be concerned about it.  It is like saying, people in Canada should all learn how to defend themselves against being trampled by an elephant even though the chance of that happening to anyone in Canada is effectively zero.

This is the type of thinking that leads to women believing things like that carbon fiber and glaciers oppress women.  That wouldn’t be so bad if the negative effect of women thinking their feelings override reality only applied to them.  However, it does not.  Everything from the Women In Tech movement’s attempt to remove men from the tech industry to women attacking doctors by accusing them of “fat shaming”  and dentists by accusing them of “tooth shaming” to women attempting to end due process are the result of women believing that their feelings override reality.  The results speak for themselves.  Men either lose their jobs or are in danger of losing their jobs not due to nothing that happened in the real world, but to a woman’s desire to have them removed from her sight.  Our health is in danger because doctors and dentists will be too afraid to speak about it with us since it might offend a woman’s feelings.  We are in danger of losing our rights to due process because it makes women feel bad.  The only way to fight this is to stand up and tell women that their feelings don’t override reality.

Mar 082016

Since today is International Women’s Day, let’s take a look at female contributions to science.  While any writing on this topic should include events like #ShirtGate/#ShirtStorm, the unwarranted attacks on Dr. Matt Taylor, and the witch hunt against Dr. Tim Hunt, not to mention the feminist belief that Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica is a rape manual, I am going to focus on female attempts to “contribute” to the body of scientific knowledge.

Anna Catherine Hickey-Moody “contributed” to science how carbon fiber is sexist.  Yes, there is actually an academic paper that carbon fiber oppresses women.  Take a look at the abstract for the paper:

In this paper I am concerned with instances in which carbon fiber extends performances of masculinity that are attached to particular kinds of hegemonic male bodies. In examining carbon fiber as a prosthetic form of masculinity, I advance three main arguments. Firstly, carbon fiber can be a site of the supersession of disability that is affected through masculinized technology. Disability can be ‘overcome’ through carbon fiber. Disability is often culturally coded as feminine (Pedersen, 2001; Meeuf, 2009; Garland-Thompson 1997). Building on this cultural construction of disability as feminine, in and as a technology of masculine homosociality (Sedgwick, 1985), carbon fiber reproduced disability as feminine when carbon fiber prosthetic lower legs allowed Oscar Pistorius to compete in the non-disabled Olympic games. Secondly, I argue that carbon fiber can be a homosocial surface; that is, carbon fiber becomes both a surface extension of the self and a third party mediator in homosocial relationships, a surface that facilitates intimacy between men in ways that devalue femininity in both male and female bodies. I examine surfaces as material extensions of subjectivity, and carbon fiber surfaces as vectors of the cultural economies of masculine competition to which I refer. Thirdly, the case of Oscar Pistorius is exemplary of the masculinization of carbon fire, and the associated binding of a psychic attitude of misogyny and power to a form of violent and competitive masculine subjectivity. In this article I explore the affects, economies and surfaces of what I call ‘carbon fiber masculinity’ and discusses Pistorius’ use of carbon fiber, homosociality and misogyny as forms of protest masculinity through which he unconsciously attempted to recuperate his gendered identity from emasculating discourses of disability.

If carbon fiber oppresses women, then wait until we can become cyborgs.  I anticipate feminists will start shrieking that cyborgs are a MRA army, if carbon fiber scares them this much.

Several authors (some of which were men, but without women’s contributions this paper wouldn’t exist) “contributed” to science how men use glaciers to oppress women.  At least that’s what I think the paper says.  It’s hard to tell since it is filled will gibberish if it’s abstract is anything to go by:

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

None of this compares to the “contributions” to science of French philosopher, Luce Irigaray.  Irigaray has seriously said that E=mc2 is a sexed (aka sexist) equation that privileges the speed of light over other speeds.  She also said that “masculine physics” privileges rigid, solid things and that men are incapable of understanding fluid mechanics:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids… From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

I guess all of those male physics professors and scientists who study fluid mechanics should just give up.  For International Women’s Day, celebrate these female contributions to science.

Mar 072016

One thing that comes up on places like the KotakuInAction reddit is that if feminists keep saying that the video game and tech industries are hostile to women, women will avoid them.  That makes sense because why would anyone go to a place that they believed was hostile to them if they had a choice.  Feminists keep saying that they want “diversity” in tech and video games, yet lying about nonexistent hostility to women gets the opposite of what they want.  Therefore, feminists must want something else.

What do feminists want from the tech industry?  This article illuminates what feminists really want.  First, take a look at this paragraph from the article:

Trying to force women back into a toxic environment isn’t going to work if the dynamics of the industry remain the same. And women are smart for leaving- because they aren’t giving up, they are moving to other industries that treat them better.

The author says that women should leave tech because it’s hostile to them.  Now, take a look at another part of the article:

It is time for the next wave, and it has to be focused on men. We need gender diversity workshops, sensitivity training, sexual harassment workshops for CEOs, VCs and Angels.

Conference and panel organizers who “can’t find” diverse panel members should be fired. Point blank.

VC’s who “can’t find” women entrepreneurs are not good at deal flow and their investors should pull out. Point Blank.

So if women are correctly avoiding tech because of its alleged hostility to women, then how are conference organizers supposed to find women for conferences, and how are venture capitalists supposed to find women entrepreneurs?  You can’t have women choosing to avoid an industry and have that industry be able successfully find women.  It’s logically impossible.

The author’s demand when the tech industry can’t satisfy her contradiction is that men get fired.  “Point blank”, as she says.  That is what the women in tech movement is all about.  It’s not about ending hostility towards women in the tech industry because even they know it doesn’t exist.  It is about getting men fired, so that they can take the jobs of the fired men.  Of course, that strategy won’t work since getting large numbers of men fired from the tech industry will cause the businesses they employed at to collapse.  There will not be any jobs for men or women since they will be gone.  I suspect that feminists won’t be bothered by that since they got to stick it to men they find nerdy and unattractive.

Mar 042016

It’s the time of the month to select a new Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Last month’s winner was Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from Alaska, for her comments when Congress was shutdown due to a blizzard.

The Entitlement Princess of the Month can only keep going with your support so keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month we have two entitlement princesses to choose from.  The first was submitted by Incognegro, and she is an unnamed hooker who created the video at this link where she complains about her male customers. She complains that she has male customers that finish with her before she has had a chance to get herself off even though it is supposed to be about the men because her customers are paying her for sex.

The second was submitted by Caber, and she is Melissa Harris-Perry, a woman who recently lost her show on MSNBC.  She lost her show on MSNBC when she demanded that MSNBC change its policy of preempting their shows for election coverage so that her show would take priority over relevant election news. In addition to demanding MSNBC change their policies just for her, she also refused to redesign her show to actually include relevant news instead of crazy rants.  (These rants included a rant about Darth Vader turning from black to white when he saves Luke, saying Republicans are racist when the say “hard worker”, comparing deporting illegal immigrants to antebellum fugitive slave laws, and many more.)

Vote for one of the entitlement princesses in the poll below. Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore.

Who is your vote for the February 2016 Entitlement Princess Of The Month?

  • Melissa Harris-Perry (76%, 47 Votes)
  • Unamed Hooker (24%, 15 Votes)

Total Voters: 62

Loading ... Loading ...
Feb 282016

GitHub is going to die soon in what is likely to be a massive explosion.  Coraline Ada Ehmke, the June 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month, is going to work at GitHub on “community management” and “anti-harassment tools”.  I anticipate “community management” means running off men and anyone else who does actual work and that
“anti-harassment tools” means find new ways to attack men.  It can’t have anything to do with actual harassment since no one has provided any evidence (much less even made the claim) that harassment is a problem at GitHub.

We already have a preview of what life will be like at GitHub with Ehmke employed.  Someone put an issue into ContibutorCovenant repository requesting that Ehmke end her association with Shanley Kane, the March 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month, for her misandrist tweets.  This should remind you of #OpalGate since the same reasoning is being used here.  However, there is an important difference.  With #OpalGate, discussion of the issue was allowed.  Ehmke didn’t do that.  She just immediately censored any discussion of the issue.  Based on this, we can assume that GitHub will become a virtual police state and will start bleeding employees who want to escape the insanity.  It is guaranteed that there will several class action lawsuits against GitHub by employees that become the victims of Ehmke.  I don’t know when GitHub will shut down, but it is likely to be quick and sudden.

There is one good thing about this.  It shows the power and necessity of distributed systems.  Since git, the software behind GitHub is distributed, there are local copies of a user’s repositories on their computers.  Even if GitHub shuts down all of a sudden, the repositories are saved and can still be moved to a new git server.  Ehmke can destroy GitHub, but she can’t destroy the software created with it.

Feb 252016

Men are being accused of sexually harassing virtual assistants like Siri and Cortana.. To call this nonsense would be an insult to regular plain old nonsense. A virtual assistant is nothing more than a computer program that makes sounds that approximate a female (or male) voice. It is no where near an artificial intelligence so a virtual assistant can not be considered a person under any circumstances. What really proves that this is BS is that no one has talked about a virtual assistant with a male voice being sexually harassed.

I predict that the next thing in this vein will be feminists accusing men of raping virtual assistants. That makes even less sense than virtual assistants being sexually harassed but this will happen. We are lucky that there is an easy way to avoid being accused of raping your virtual assistant. Only use a virtual assistant with a male voice. Feminists will still accuse you of being a misogynist for using a male voice in your virtual assistant, but they will accuse you of being a misogynist regardless of what you do.

Feb 192016

All of you have must have heard how Twitter has started a “Trust & Safety Council” to get (alleged) trolls off the service.. This council includes Anita Sarkeesian among others. I don’t expect this council to have any effect because Twitter’s former CEO admitted that they suck at dealing with trolls.

Twitter is in a really precarious position because it needs more users but isn’t getting them. Trolls aren’t the reason for this. The reason Twitter can’t get more users is that they have turned Twitter into a hive of feminist/SJW censorship and their overall mismanagement of the service. Twitter’s “Trust & Safety Council” can’t fix these problems, but in can embolden trolls who will troll Twitter even more to show how impotent Twitter is. I recommend to all trolls reading this to step up their trolling on Twitter. Twitter needs to die, so let’s troll Twitter to death.

Feb 162016

Feminists continue their war on Article 3 and the Sixth amendment to the US Constitution.  This time several women sued the University of Tennessee for “violating Title IX”, creating a “hostile environment” for women, and using “an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward”.  How did the University of Tennessee do all these things?  By following due process:

The plaintiffs say that UT’s administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge.

The University of Tennessee shouldn’t even be doing what they’re doing now.  Dealing with alleged crimes is the job of the criminal justice system, but at least in Tennessee, they realize that due process doesn’t end when a person steps on to a college campus. 

I don’t know what the result of this lawsuit will be, but the existence of this lawsuit proves that feminists are trying to take a big dump on the Constitution.  No matter what happens, more people will be woken up to the fact that many women have no problem with totalitarianism and that feminism is totalitarianism.  If this lawsuit is successful, I imagine the next lawsuit of this nature will be a bunch of women suing a university for not providing immediate summary executions of men they find ugly.

Feb 132016

There was this study done called “Gender Bias In Open Source: Pull Request Acceptance Of Women Vs. Men“.  This study did not show any bias in open source software.  The study analyzed the rate of acceptance from what an automated program thought were male and female contributors to open source projects on GitHub.  It also separated the contributors between “insiders” (people who have contributed to a particular open source project on GitHub before) and “outsiders” (people who have not contributed to a particular open source project on GitHub before).  The closest thing to bias against women the study could find was that male “outsiders” had a rate of acceptance of 64% whereas female “outsiders” had an acceptance rate of 63%.  That’s just statistical noise.  One thing in the study that isn’t getting talked about much is that female “insiders” have a higher acceptance rate than male “insiders”.  If you’re interested in all the details, Scott Alexander has a breakdown of it (including the other problems in the study).  It is also worth pointing out that this was an undergraduate study that was not peer reviewed.

Obviously, this study failed to show any bias against women in open source software.  However, that didn’t stop various media outlets from saying that men in tech are supervillians bent on oppressing women.  Here are some examples:

That last link even says, “a vile male hive mind is running an assault mission against women in tech“.  Then, immediately afterwards, the article brings up #GamerGate and includes the standard litany of lies against #GamerGate.  Obviously, there is no such thing as “a vile male hive mind”, but this is the type of propaganda that is being used against men working in tech.  It is not an exaggeration to compare this to anti-semetic propaganda because pretty much all anti-semetic propaganda describes all Jews being part of “a vile Jewish hive mind”.  In fact, I’m certain if you searched enough anti-semetic literature, you would find that exact phrase.  The phrase even belongs on the MenKampf reddit due to its similarity with anti-semetic propaganda.

No one should be surprised that men working in tech are starting to have reactions like this:

As a nerdy straight white male programmer, that fact that people like me are constantly being propagandized against by the media is getting pretty wearisome. Add in the apparent surge of support for socialism among the young and it’s getting downright frightening.

If I was an American I’d be thinking about buying a gun and at least having a backup plan in mind to escape the revolution, as paranoid as that might sound.

This sounds like good advice especially if you’re a man working in tech in San Francisco.

Translate »