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 282015

The title is correct.  False is supposed to appear twice in the title, and there is a reason for that.

I recently read this article about a woman who works at Chicago State University who says that she was pressured to file a false sexual harassment against a professor who ran a blog that was critical of CSU’s president.  I bet that most people reading this automatically believe this woman’s story since all of us know just how common false sexual harassment (and false rape and false abuse) accusations are.  Stop a think about it for a second.  There’s also a strong possibility that rather than make a false sexual harassment accusation against CSU’s president, the woman was smart and decided to make a false false sexual harassment accusation against CSU’s president.  I’m not sure if that is what happened in this case, but the rise of the False False Sexual Harassment Industry is definitely something that we will see in the future.

While false sexual harassment accusations still have teeth, many men know that the false sexual harassment industry exists.  Many men limit their contact with women at work to strictly professional matters with witnesses.  Even when a woman successfully gets a man fired with a false sexual harassment accusation, many of her male coworkers will start avoiding her.  This is why false false sexual harassment accusation is ingenious.  It uses our knowledge of the false sexual harassment industry against us and combines with most men’s tendency to defend women whatever the circumstances.  It makes us think that a woman who says that a man tried to get her to make a false sexual harassment claim must be pro-male because she refused to make a false sexual harassment claim against a man.  This is a form of entryism into anti-feminism similar to how a woman like WoolyBumbleBee was able to infiltrate AVFM or the attempts of women like Susan Walsh to create Game 2.0 or the red pill women.

Another danger of the false false sexual harassment industry is that it is narrative where women and not men are the victims of the sexual harassment industry.  This is will give women who make a false sexual harassment accusation a get out of jail free card by blaming a nearby man.  And this won’t be limited to the false sexual harassment industry either.  The same thing will happen with the false rape industry, the false abuse industry, etc.  That is why we have to be vigilant against this sort of thing.  We can’t allow women to get out of making a false accusation against a man by making a false accusation against another man.

Jan 232015

Anti-#GamerGate has already made three major mistakes.  All three of these mistakes had one thing in common.  They pushed people who didn’t care about #GamerGate firmly into the #GamerGate camp.  Anti-#GamerGate is in the process of making its fourth and fifth major mistakes which will have the same effect.

The fourth major mistake Anti-#GamerGate is making is flooding somewhat related websites with anti-#GamerGate and feminist women in tech propaganda.  Slashdot, a website for technology news, is a good example.  A while back Slashdot started posting a lot of anti-#GamerGate and feminist women in tech nonsense.  Initially, the attitude of the readership at Slashdot agreed with the anti-#GamerGate and feminist position.  However, the constant drumbeat of anti-#GamerGate and women in tech propaganda had the effect of reversing the views of the Slashdot readership as can be seen with the comments to Slashdot stories like this one.  When anti-#GamerGate talks about #GamerGate or feminist women in tech nonsense, the effect is to generate more #GamerGate supporters.

Anti-#GamerGate’s fifth major mistake is going after archive sites using false DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) complaints.  While this will piss off the owners and backers of archive sites, what anti-#GamerGate is doing is much bigger than that. The DMCA is something that the online rights crowd has been fighting since among other things it allows for this sort of abuse.  Most of the online rights crowd either doesn’t care about #GamerGate or believes the feminist lie that it’s all about misogyny.  This will cause many of them to get an education and become #GamerGate supporters.  It also adds a new angle to the Zoe Quinn situation because she has been using false DMCA complaints to shutdown criticism of her making it that much harder for her supporters to use the lie that Zoe Quinn is a victim of misogynerds.

What is happening with both of these major mistakes is that anti-#GamerGate and feminists are pushing into adjacent communities who either were neutral or supported them and turning many members of those communities hostile to them.  They should stop doing this since the effect is the same each time they do it, but they can’t seem to help themselves.

Dec 072014

We all know about the false rape industry and the false abuse industry.  Both of those things have something in common in that they target individual men.  Sure many men have been targeted by the false rape and false abuse industries, but they don’t target groups of men at once.  What we’re seeing with what is happening at the University of Virginia is the rise of the false rape conspiracy industry.

As we know the story in Rolling Stone that started this described a woman getting gang raped as part of a fraternity initiation ritual.  This is where it gets problematic (in addition to all of the other problematic details) because if gang rapes are part of fraternity initiation rituals at UVa, then lots and lots of women at UVa would have to be gang raped for that to be even possible.  We would see women en masse avoiding UVa.  At the very least there should be a massive police or FBI investigation.  In fact, I thought of one question in particular.  If raping is happening on this scale and is this organized, then it’s potentially a violation of the RICO act.  This means that there are FBI agents who could make their careers exposing this supposed rape conspiracy at UVa.  We don’t see any of this because there is no rape conspiracy at UVa (or any place else).

The is what a false rape conspiracy accusation looks like.  Instead of making a false rape accusation against a single man (or a few men), a false accusation is made against a group of men, like a fraternity.  The accusation isn’t just that a single man or a few men in engaging in rape, but that the group of men is an organized conspiracy to rape women.  What makes it uniquely effective is that it does an end run around the criminal justice system.  Look at what happened.  All fraternities at UVa were suspended even though the accusations were only against one fraternity.  It didn’t matter that the accusations only involved men of one fraternity.  It didn’t matter that the accusations didn’t involve most men in said fraternity.  (And it goes without saying that it didn’t matter that the accusations were false, that there was no party at said fraternity on the date the gang rape allegedly happened.)  This is an attempt to set a standard of collective punishment (something forbidden by the Geneva Convention) against men whenever a woman makes an accusation no matter how absurd it is.

The first false rape industry was the KKK where they would lynch black men on the false rape accusations made by a white woman.  Yet, not even the KKK could come up with the idea of black men working in an organized conspiracy to rape white women.  Yet, the Rosewood massacre still happened.  This is where the false rape conspiracy industry is heading.  The police won’t be doing anything because the rape accusations are false, and they can’t do anything because criminal charges will never be filed (like with Bill Cosby).   Despite that lot of women and manginas will accuse the police of inaction and demand someone “do something”.  You will see more and more things like universities suspending all fraternities at the drop of a hat.  The collective punishments will get worse and worse, but that won’t satisfy the women and manginas who are complaining.  This will lead to another Rosewood massacre.  Since colleges seem to be at the forefront of the false rape conspiracy industry, the 21st century Rosewood massacre will probably be something like feminist vigilantes burning down fraternity houses with fraternity brothers still in them.  That’s assuming that this travesty of justice isn’t stopped now.

Oct 052013

A couple days ago Miriam Carey, a woman from Connecticut, was involved in a car chase here in DC where she rammed a barricade at the White House eventually leading to police having to shoot her.  Carey was suffering from several forms of mental illness including postpartum depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.  Carey’s boyfriend (and father of her child) had to call the police twice on her last year because of her mentally ill behavior that was dangerous to their daughter.  Carey even believed that President Obama was going to lockdown her hometown, had her put under electronic surveillance, was stalking her, and that she could communicate with the President.  Despite all of this a social worker believed that Carey was “100% better” at the beginning on this year.  Obviously, this was wrong.

There is a lot of denial about Carey’s mental illness.  Carey’s family is denying that she was bipolar and schizophrenic.  Instead, Carey’s family is saying that she only had postpartum depression.  Carey’s family is denying that she was bipolar and schizophrenic despite that fact that she was being treated for it and that there is a family history of schizophrenia.  What is with all of this denial?  Why did a social worker think that Carey was “100% better” at the beginning of this year?

Miriam Carey’s mental illness weren’t taken seriously because she’s a woman.  The standards for mental sanity are much for stringent for men.  Had the standards of mental sanity applied to men, also applied to women, then Carey would never have had the opportunity to go to DC to try and get to Obama.  She never would have been shot.  Why aren’t the standards for mental sanity the same for men and women?  Obviously, they should be.  That’s another result of feminism.  If doctors and social workers actually tried to apply the same standards for mental sanity to women, feminists would be up in arms yelling about how “women’s natural ways of thinking are being declared a mental illness by the patriarchy”.  Feminists need a lesser standard of mental sanity for women for many reasons from a justification of female bad and feral behavior to making things like the false abuse industry possible.

Since feminism is so pervasive, neither a social worker (who is a part of a profession that is very sympathetic to feminism) nor Carey’s family believed that Carey was mentally ill (beyond postpartum depression).  This isn’t the fault of the DC police who had to take extreme measures.  Until feminism is forced out of the mental health and social work fields, there will be more Miriam Careys that the police will have to deal with in the future.

Aug 212013

Do you think you’re safe from the false abuse industry because your wife/girlfriend would never make a false accusation against you?  For the sake of argument, let’s assume that’s the case.  Better yet, let’s assume that your wife/girlfriend is a committed to M(H)RM ideas like Dr. Helen Smith, GirlWritesWhat, TyphonBlue, or Laura Grace Robbins.  Are you safe now?  The answer is no because even if your wife/girlfriend has no intention of making a false accusation of abuse against you, a third party can.  As Novaseeker explains, a third party making a false accusation of abuse against you can even override your girlfriend/wife who disagrees:

State and local practice can and does differ on these points in the details, but in broad brush a court can and often will issue a temporary protective order on the basis of the testimony of the cops, whether the wife corroborates or not (out of concern that she may have “battered wife syndrome”, so that she may be feeling like she wants to de-escalate regardless of what happened – so her testimony isn’t really dispositive if she decides to back off – it’s discounted, in many cases, if she decides to do that).

As to the “triggers”, again it varies by state/local, but what constitutes “abuse” is often determined by reference to the Duluth-type standards, which include some very interesting things, many of which are common in the context of marital arguments:

Example, Link: Rutgers University Domestic Violence Project:

The idea behind these laws is to be “prophylactic” – that is, to err on the side of protecting women, even if it overdoes it by impacting situations where there was no physical violence. This is done by describing mundane spousal arguments as abuse – which essentially renders virtually every marriage as one which contains domestic violence. This can also be reported by people other than the wife – the law doesn’t require the wife to be the complainer, or the person who brings the “violence” to the attention of the cops. Anyone can, as with respect to any other crime. And the definition of “abuse” is wide enough in at least some states to cover most of the Duluth-type stuff that Scott is talking about. So, yes, someone is at your dinner party who is a feminist, doesn’t like the dynamic between you and your wife and sees it as Duluth abuse, can have you arrested for domestic violence even over your wife’s objections, and once that happens it’s likely that you will be sucked into the entire DV legal system as he outlines (and as Baskerville does in his book as well).

Yes, the police or even just a random passerby can successfully make a false accusation of abuse against you even if your wife/girlfriend disagrees with the accusation.  They will just assume that she is afraid to speak up because you’re abusing her.

Too much time in this part of the internet is spent talking about trying to find the “right woman”.  Even if you manage to do that (and there is a good chance you won’t), a third party can still come along and make a false accusation against you making all of your work in finding the “right woman” for naught.  You can’t avoid the false abuse industry by picking the “right woman”.  The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate the false abuse industry.

Feb 122013

One of the reasons that we have an epidemic of women making false domestic violence accusations against men is because the government has created incentives for women to make false DV accusations against men.  The state of Massachusetts has decided to give women another incentive to make false DV accusations:

The scenario that single women are going to drive the rental housing market is about to get a huge monkey wrench jamming it: very soon nobody is going to want to rent to women.

Here’s why. Massachusetts just passed a law, signed by the governor, that allows a woman to break a rental lease if she is the victim of “domestic violence” (DV). Already many of us have seen evidence of an entitlement mentality among many women that results in their expecting to be able to break contracts on a whim, often by claiming “they didn’t understand what they were signing”, “the contract is unfair”, and the like. Judges routinely throw out prenups over just such grounds. Really, this mentality usually boils down to, “I changed my mind, so why should I have to comply with this now?”

Now one state has codified this entitlement with leases, as it’s only a matter of time before (1) other states adopt similar laws, and then (2) many cupcakes decide to falsely claim they are DV victims—that is, with the sole purpose of getting out of their leases. Once this happens enough times, landlords ain’t a-gonna be willin’ to lease an apartment to a woman knowing that she can break it on a whim with the DV card.

What will happen now in Massachusetts (and elsewhere if this law is copied as it probably will be)?  When a woman wants to move but is stuck in the middle of a lease, she will make a false DV accusation against her boyfriend, husband, or some random man who lives in the same building.  Landlords will want to avoid renting apartments to women not just for the money they lose from women breaking leases on a whim, but from men who want to avoid women who make false DV accusations anytime they want to move.  Of course, the government will try to force landlords to rent to women, so landlords may give up completely on providing apartments leading to a critical shortage of rental housing in the future all thanks to feminism.

Jun 232012

The false abuse industry never stops expanding.  It even creates new categories of fake “abuse”.  This doesn’t stop at the doors of the church.  Laura Grace Robbins uncovered a new form of the false abuse industry, “spiritual abuse”:

Taken from their “about” section:

“Joel became skilled at mental, emotional, verbal and spiritual abuse.

In 1991, Joel’s abusive treatment of Kathy culminated in his committing adultery. By this time their first son, Chris, was 2 years old and daughter Jenifer was 1 year old.

They left the ministry to travel on the road in full time secular work with the intention of restoring their shattered marriage and save the family. Things got worse. Three years of struggle ensued. Finally, they attended a one week set of classes that were designed to teach couples how to minister to severely abusive marriage relationships. Joel and Kathy realized that Joel was an abuser! Joel accepted this “verdict” and began to transform into a loving and kind husband.”

Spiritual abuse is a new claim to me and would make a good post. When a man isn’t loving woman in an acceptable way, call it spiritual abuse! Naturally, the husband is always the abuser!

Spiritual abuse is the perfect form of “abuse” for the false abuse industry.  Real abuse, that is physical abuse, produces actual evidence of abuse.  Thus for a man to be convicted of abusing a woman, there theoretically has to at least be some evidence of the abuse.  (In practice, the false abuse industry is powerful enough to bypass this, but it does leave questions.)  The false abuse industry prefers forms of “abuse” like “emotional abuse” and “verbal abuse” because they have less of a basis in reality.  It’s easier to make false accusations of such forms of abuse with impunity because there are few to no metrics for it.  It’s mostly based on a woman’s feelings.  “Spiritual abuse” takes this a step farther.  While “verbal abuse” and “emotional abuse” may have some connection to reality, “spiritual abuse” does not.  Thus, man can be accused of it without them fighting back with inconvenient questions like, “where is the evidence?”  There is no objective metric for “spiritual abuse” so women can use it to club men whenever they want.

I have been developing a theory that for every aspect of feminism, the tradcons will invent their own variant of it.  “Spiritual abuse” supports my theory.  The tradcons took the false abuse industry and added their own variant of it, “spiritual abuse”.

Oct 222011

I found this at the (Not) Thinking Housewife’s blog from Jesse Powell:

The last thing I will add, withdrawing chivalry from women as a means to punish the woman is never legitimate and is something I would characterize as being abusive towards women

I bolded that last part.  Here we have an example of tradcons using code tangerine shaming language.  The false abuse industry isn’t limited to leftist feminists.

The funniest part of this is if you scroll up to where the (Not) Thinking Housewife has to remind everyone that Jesse Powell is a man.  He’s such a big mangina and white knight that it’s easy to think he’s a woman.


Oct 072011

Many of you may not have noticed by there is an idiot woman responding to my Denying Grandchildren post.  Eventually she gets to saying this:

I finally managed to check this website in detail and… honestly, I find this place repuslvie. There is little to no actual critical comments and reviews on feminism and feminist theory but mainly cherry picking and blatant misinterpretation. And LOTS of hate. Most of it… it’s just pure women hating. For less than 75 articles I have seen the word “bitch” and “sluts” used as a derogatory word too many times to feel fine. Subtle or not so subtle recommendations about sexual and physical abuse and other stuff which made me cringe.

Besides the liberal amount of shaming language she used, she accuses me of “recommending sexual and physical abuse”.  This was no different that when Gordon Ramsay called out that female restaurant owner on his Kitchen Nightmares show for being lazy, ungrateful when it came to her dad’s money that bailed her out, and needing a kick in the ass, and he got accused of being abusive for it.  If you’re a man, and you actually dare to disagree with a woman or worse yet call her out on her behavior, then you’re “abusive”.  Given how often “abusive” gets thrown around against men (to the point of where Terry O’Neill of NOW called the Bush tax cuts “abusive”), it needs its own category of shaming language.  Originally, I had in mind that “you’re abusive” would be part of a shaming language category of criminality but this clearly needs to be separate.

Charge of Being Abusive (Code Tangerine)

Discussion: The target is accused of being abusive.  Generally the accusation is vague about the “abuse” to imply a similarity to something like domestic abuse or sexual abuse while avoiding a specific example of how the target is “abusive”. Examples:

  • You’re abusive
  • What you said is abusive to women

Response: Abuse has a real definition.  It does not involve the simple act of disagreeing with a woman or calling out a woman on her behavior.  Associating either of those things with abuse just cheapens what real victims of abuse have gone through.  Since the accuser can not show actual examples of the target committing actual abuse, it is obvious that the accusations of abuse against the target are nonsense.

Sep 282011

I found this at The Manboob:

Now, of course, they only really take this libertarianism stance on things they hate (for example, women). I’m pretty sure they’d be willing to fork over our “hard-earned tax dollars” to start government agencies and programs they’d like. For instance, a bunch of fedora wearing G-Men–the mostly manly of many menz–who’d track down all those false rape accusers like Ness did with Capone.

Putting aside the fedora and manly men garbage, and the libertarianism since the MRM has a much broader political base than that, this shows what feminists are all about.  This feminist is arguing that the government should give women money, but not engage in LAW ENFORCEMENT when women commit crimes against men.  The government should be going after false rape accusers, women who commit paternity fraud, etc.  Law enforcement, not transfer payments, is the government’s primary job.

When someone talks about a “government program”, they are referring to some sort of socialist transfer payment system or something like socialized medicine.  Things like law enforcement and the military aren’t considered to be “government programs” in common language.  This means that this feminist could not come up with a government program that men would actually want.  Instead she had to shove law enforcement into the definition of “government program”.  This allows us to show a very compelling contrast between feminists and MRAs.  Feminists want large oppressive government to give them money, which can only be done by theft from men, whereas MRAs just want women who violate the reasonable and just laws against false accusations, perjury, paternity fraud, other forms of fraud, etc. to be prosecuted.

Apr 062010

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In Missouri John Fischer has decided to run for the Missouri State Legislature to represent MO District 107.  He is running as a Republican against the current holder of that seat who is his wife, Linda Fischer, a Democrat.  They are the only two people running for this seat and the filing deadline has already passed so there will be no other candidates.

Linda Fischer claims her husband, a former employee of Chrysler who was forced into early retirement last May, has committed violence against her.  She has already gotten a protection order against her husband claiming that he has “harassed” her and has caused or attempted to cause her physical harm.  John Fischer denies the allegations and is willing to take polygraph test to prove his innocence.  The protection order has prevented John Fischer from entering his home so he is currently living in a camper.

Mr. Fischer says that he is not running against his wife because of the protection order but because of how the Democrats have handled the economy, health care, and the stimulus.  He said:

I figured if I’m going to be on my own, then I’m going to have to do what suits me. I’m standing up for people who lost their job. I don’t think they’re being represented fairly in this state because they do not take care of the working man.

This state legislature race is a microcosm of many of the issues that we write about, the mancession, the false abuse industry, etc.  John Fischer has not let all of the things his (presumably soon to be ex-) wife and the state have done to him stop him.  Despite being forced from his home, he is fighting back in his own way.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »