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.

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.

Feb 072016
 

Millennial women support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton for President by a wide margin.  Now that the “Berniebros” attack on Sanders supporters has failed, feminists are trying other tactics that clearly won’t work.  Gloria Steinem is saying that millennial women who support sanders are doing so to meet young men.  Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is telling millennial women that there is a special place in hell for them for supporting Sanders over Clinton.  Specificially, Albright said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Why aren’t millennial women simply voting based on their vaginas?  They shouldn’t need old feminists to tell them to vote for Hillary, right?  It’s not because they are opposed to feminism (even if they swear up and down that they are not feminists).  There are a lot of millennial woman who unconsciously (or maybe consciously) know that the traditional feminist and SJW rhetoric of Hillary Clinton isn’t not good for them.  Sure, Clinton may become President, but that is bad in the long term for women.  A Hillary presidency and her policies will just create more MRAs, more MGTOWs, and will create more fertile ground for more #GamerGates.  Sanders seems like the safer choice for Democrats in this case.

Of course, the only difference between Sanders and Clinton, is that with Clinton will drive us off the feminist cliff at 100 MPH whereas Sanders will do it at 85 MPH.  (That’s because Sanders is against a bit of feminism like rape cases being tried by colleges.)  Sanders won’t save young women.  At most, he will delay the world of hurt young women will be in by a couple of years.

Feb 012016
 

washington_smIt’s the time of the month to select a new Entitlement Princess of the Month.  It was a close race last month with Clementine Ford, the woman who got a man fired for calling her a slut on Facebook, only winning with 52% of the vote.

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 as there was an obvious winner this month.  This months winner is Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from Alaska.  Recently, a massive snow storm hit the DC area.  After the blizzard on January 26th, only two senators were present in the Senate chamber who both happened to be women. Murkowski decided to make a big deal of this saying, “As we convene this morning, you look around the chamber, the presiding officer is female. All of our parliamentarians are female. Our floor managers are female. All of our pages are female. Something is genuinely different — and something is genuinely fabulous. Perhaps it speaks to the hardiness of women, that put on your boots and put your hat on and get out and slog through the mess that’s out there.”

No Senate business was done by the women that day except to reschedule all business that was supposed to happen that day to a later time.  While there were no male senators that day, 90% of the female senators weren’t there either.  It’s not like there wasn’t any men working in the Capitol Building that day either.  There was men working in the Senate chamber as can be seen in this video.  She refused to recognize the hard work of the men that were there because they weren’t senators like her.  There was no reason that she didn’t see that there was men working in the Senate chamber.  Thus, she clearly felt entitled to their hard work as if the men were nothing but pack mules.  Since Murkowski denied the work of the men who there that day, she wins this month Entitlement Princess of the Month.

Dec 252015
 

This is a few weeks old, but as you will see it is appropriate for Christmas day.

4Chan, the people who trolled feminists with the #PissForEquality hashtag, have come up with another hashtag that has successfully trolled feminists, #SayNoToMistletoe#SayNoToMistletoe exists because feminists believe that kissing under mistletoe is rape culture.
image

It should be no surprise that feminists would fall for #SayNoToMistletoe when Anita Sarkeesian says that Christmas carols promote rape culture.  The only surprise is that feminists would think any man would try to kiss them with or without mistletoe.

Dec 222015
 

I found an article about how students in the Women & Gender Studies department of West Virginia University had a fair to show off what they learned in the last semester. This fair was supposed to show “real world applications” of their coursework. “Real world applications” to these women & gender studies students making penis piñatas.  I’m not joking, but I wish I was.

Since the goal of this women & gender studies fair was to show what students learn in those “subjects”, we are forced to conclude from the penis piñata that they learned to attack male genitalia with a bat. And they intend to attack male genitalia with bats in the future because the other purpose of this fair was to show “real world applications” of women & gender studies.

For comparison, let’s take a look at what an equivalent STEM fair would look like. (Put aside the fact that STEM students would be too busy with real work for such a thing.). Instead of making silly piñatas, there would be demos of computer softwaruse hardware and demos of various engineering fields from aerospace engineering to electrical engineering to materials engineering. These would all be things that have clearly improved people’s lives unlike penis piñatas. The only reason that a penis piñata would even be near such an event is because of women & gender studies students protesting a STEM fair. (They would protest because improving people’s lives is misogyny.)

In other words women’s studies is so useless that a penis piñata is considered a real world application of the subject.

Dec 192015
 

This week was the season finale of Fargo.  Spoilers ahead for the second season of Fargo.

On this season of Fargo a woman hit a man with her car.  She didn’t go to the police.  Instead she drove home and made her husband clean up the mess.  This included killing the man she hit with her car since her car didn’t kill him.  The man she hit was a son of the head of the Fargo mafia.  Due to various other events this led to a war between the Fargo mafia and the Kansas City mafia which lead to the death of the entire Fargo mafia family.  Many innocent people across Minnesota and both Dakotas were murdered due the being in the crossfire or otherwise being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  One of the people that gets murdered as a result of this disaster was the husband of the woman who hit the Fargo mafia man with her car.

The woman who started the whole mess ended up being a good example of an entitlement princess and a woman who refused to believe that she was anything but a victim.  In the last episode the main character who was a cop dealing with the whole mess brings her back to Minnesota.  While in the cop’s car, the woman starts talking about the man she hit with her car.  The cop says, “you mean, the victim?”  This sends the woman on a tirade about how she was a victim first.  She complained about being a victim of people who expect her to have a job, people who expect her to be a housewife, and a bunch of other things.  In other words, she was complaining about being a victim of everything and everyone.  The responds to this by telling her, “People are dead.”

“People are dead” sums up just how outrageous the woman’s victim playing was.  Here she was complaining about fake victimization while people are dead due to her actions, including her husband.  She doesn’t bear total responsibility for the war between the Fargo and Kansas City mafias, but she was certainly not a victim in this.

This is the first time in a long time (if ever) where I have seen a victim playing woman get (virtually) slapped down on TV.  If you read some forums like IMDB of previously.tv there was actually talk about how the cop was being a misogynist during the conversation where he tells her “people are dead”.  I’m surprised that a TV show was so willing to call a (fictitious) woman out on their victim playing bullshit.  Hopefully, we will see more TV shows willing to call women out on their victim playing.

Dec 122015
 

Anon reminded us that in the San Bernardino shooting 9 of the 14 victims were male.  That’s nearly two thirds of the victims.  Yet, a significant amount of coverage of the shooting would make us think that the victims were only women.  For example, the Huffington Post said that “patriarchy pulled the trigger” at San Bernardino.  At ManBoobz, commenters blamed MRAs, MGTOW, & 4Chan for San Bernardino because they allegedly “encourage” such incidents.  The message from these examples is clear.  It is that men can’t be victims, and women can’t be perpetrators.

The San Bernardino shooting proves that both parts of that belief is a myth.  First, most of the victims were male (as with other alleged “anti-woman” shootings like the Isla Vista shooting).  Second, while Syed Farook was a shooter, so was his wife, Tashfeen Malik.  Additionally, it was Malik who radicalized Farook and not the other way around.  She was the primary mover behind the San Bernardino shooing, and she manipulated her husband into participating in the shooting.  Had it not been for her, Farook would have never killed or attacked anyone.

While the belief that men can’t be victims is bad enough, the belief that women can’t be perpetrators is particularly dangerous.  This gives terrorist groups like ISIS the perfect way to organize terrorist attacks with lesser scrutiny if women are believed to be incapable of being perpetrators.  This isn’t a hypothetical idea that I created.  Anti-terrorism experts are worried about this.  Also, it was recently discovered that there is a secret cell of Muslim women in the UK encouraging other people to join ISIS so women manipulating men into terrorist acts is likely.  Since this flies in the face of blaming “patriarchy” or MRAs, MGTOW & 4Chan for everything bad that happens in the world, don’t expect to hear about it much until it can no longer be ignored.

Dec 082015
 

The National Science Foundation is spending money on something that is the complete opposite of science, making “gender sensitive computers”.  So far it has cost US taxpayers $345,000 over the last 2 years and more money will be spent on this between now and 2019.  Here is the stated goal of “gender sensitive computers”:

“The [Principal Investigator] PI’s long-term goal is to create theory to inform [Human-Computer Interaction] HCI design practices, to ensure the production of egalitarian designs that reflect all users’ values,” a grant for the project states. “In particular, she aims to create feminist theory for HCI, which she hopes will close the gap in women’s participation in computing.”

“Previously, the PI has shown how approaches to designing for women are questionable when viewed in light of feminist theory,” the grant continued. “Feminist scholars argue that the lack of women in computing further discourages women from pursuing programming-related careers, and that women are also excluded because technologies created by men better address male needs.”
The research will also explore “gender and technical identities” and the belief that computer system designs “alienate women.”

If the grant proposal was written a year later, I’m sure it would have included attacking #GamerGate as an example of this alleged conspiracy by male nerds to keep women out of the computing field.  Another goal of this waste of money is, “The project will teach middle and high school girls to “create technologies in keeping with their gender identity.”  In other words, we will end up with nothing but more vagina software.  (Hopefully, said vagina software won’t be created after eating vagina bread and drinking vagina beer.)

What is not understood here is that computers don’t have a gender, just as all inanimate objects don’t have a gender.  There is no such thing as a computer for women or a computer for men.  A “gender sensitive computer” is a contradiction in terms.  There is no conspiracy to make “male computers” or anti-female computers because such a thing is impossible.  Computers are already “egalitarian” because a computer will do anything a user tells it to do, and the computer can neither discern any gender characteristics about its user nor understand the meaning of it.  What is driving this so called “research” is not that computers are male or pro-male in any way.  What the feminists involved in this project can’t stand is that computers don’t treat female users any different than male users.  Like with so many other things such as government policy, what these women want is not equality but special privileges.  The problem for them is that a computer does not know how to give special privileges for women.  No matter what they do a computer will never give them what they want.  That will be true even when artificial intelligence is developed.

Nov 252015
 

Over at Eric S. Raymond’s blog, a person commenting under the name PapayaSF (and others) came up with the perfect response to feminists complaining about open source software.  Just fork it.

The nature of open source software allows for anyone to take the source code and start their own project, AKA a fork.  One good example of this is when OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD.  What happened was that Theo de Raadt was asked to resign as a senior developer of the NetBSD core team.  (It was likely due to personality clashes, although the NetBSD core team said that de Raadt’s contributions will still be welcomed.)  What de Raadt decided to do was fork NetBSD into what became OpenBSD and have OpenBSD focus on security and code correctness.  Since then, OpenBSD has been known for being one of the most (if not the most) secure operating system available.  Additionally, several parts of the OpenBSD base system have been spun off into independent projects which have made their way into other operating systems including Windows.  In other words, you may be using something created by the OpenBSD team right now.

So far feminists have not tried to fork an open source software project.  Instead we end up with indcidents like #OpalGate.  When the feminists and manginas realized that they weren’t going to get their code of conduct added to Opal, instead of complaining, they should have forked Opal.  If the feminists were right that Opal was a haven of misogyny and villany, then a competing Opal with their code of conduct would have blown Opal away to the point were Opal would have been abandonded.  In reality, this is not what would have happened.  What would have happened was that the forked Opal would have had zero development.  All the feminists in control of the new project would have done was argue about the code of conduct while the original Opal would have gotten actual work done.  It would prove that the feminists invading open source software were wrong.  Of course, if you tried to point this out to the feminists in open source, they would probably channel Adria Richards and say that forking is misogynist and has some sort of sexual double meaning.

Forking is a critical part of open source software.  It allows for software reuse and adaptation.  Adding feminist codes of conduct to open source projects would make forking more difficult.  Sometimes for whatever reason, like with the NetBSD to OpenBSD fork, there needs to be a split.  It might be because of personality differences or just a desire to fill a need like a secure open source operating system.  Currently, forking allows for a clean break so that there is no interference with the new project.  Adding feminist codes of conduct to open source projects would give the core developers of the original project undue influence over the forked project.  They could do things like make a bunch of false sexism accusations to shut down the forked project.  That would be a disaster for open source software so we must keep the feminist invaders out of open source.

Nov 222015
 

There’s an update in the Aaron Allmon case.  Before Sgt. Allmon’s trial, the maximum penalty was reduced to 15 years in prison from 130 years because it military judge recognized this as abusive charging.  The trial happened, and Sgt. Allmon will have to spend 30 days in jail and be reduced in rank to Staff Sgt.  He was acquitted of allmost all of the original charges.  Still the punishment that Sgt. Allmon received is absurd since he didn’t really do anything.

It turns out this is part of a larger pattern of how the military is treating our men in uniform suffering from PTSD and other combat related mental illnesses.  The military has been using the excuse of the actions of servicemen suffering from PTSD to prosecute, punish, and discharge them from the service rather than treat them.  So far the military has only been able to discharge servicemen suffering from PTSD who act out enough.  Given the existence of the false sexual harassment industry, the military now can use it against servicemen suffering from PTSD like Sgt. Allmon who don’t provice much of an excuse (or any excuse) for the military to discharge them.  Sgt. Allmon is the first example we know about where false sexual harassment charges were used against a serviceman with PTSD, but it is likely that there will be many others.

Nov 142015
 

Zillah Eisenstein, a professor of politics at Ithaca College, declared that agriculture was a “capitalist racialized patriarchy” in a lecture at Cornell University called “Thinking about Hetero-Racist Misogyny in ‘Agriculture’”. Eisenstein has no experience working in agriculture or even studying agriculture. She also accused the US of being a “fascist democracy”.

Given that the modern agricultural system feeds over 7 billion people now, the only conclusion that can be drawn from Eisenstein’s rantings is that “hetero-racist misogyny” is the most successful system for preventing people from starving that anyone has ever come up with.  During her lecture Eisenstein stated her desire for “revolutionary agriculture”.  Such “revolutionary agriculture” has been tried, and it led to famines and farmers being forced into a new system of serfdom.  In other words, in Eisenstein’s utopia, we will be forced to live in mud huts, and most of us will starve to death.  This is why feminism needs to be kept out of agriculture, just like it needs to be kept out of everything else.

Nov 112015
 

Since today is Veterans’ Day, let’s talk about our men serving in the military, specifically the case of Tech Sgt. Aaron D. Allmon II.  He had served in Iraq and Afghanistan before being transferred to Minot Air Force Base. While deployed, he endured a spinal injury and ended up with PTSD due to what he witnessed. The PTSD also resulted in depression and nightmares. Allmon’s spinal injury also caused problems with his bladder.

While Allmon was at Minot AFB, he got accused of sexual harassment by multiple women.  In the first case, a woman accused him of hitting on her after Allmon got into a dispute with her over a work product.  The rest of the accusations are all women who say that Allmon did nothing but hit on them (and it looks like that didn’t even happen).  As absurd as that is, the reaction of top brass at Minot AFB is on a whole different level.  Their response was to try to court martial him where Allmon could face 130 years in prison.  Additionally, they tried to deny Allmon medical treatment.  They tried to block Allmon from getting a PTSD diagnosis because it would make him look sympathetic during the court martial.  They also tried to prevent Allmon from being transferred to other facilities for treatment.  Fortunately, this failed because it turned out Allmon needed emergency back surgery, and he got the surgery he needed.

This type of problem isn’t the only thing that men serving in the military need to worry about.  Family courts believe they can ignore the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act which requires a minimum 90 stay in civil cases for anyone serving in the military.  If we continue to treat our servicemen like this, pretty soon no man will choose to serve in the military for good reason.  Or we will end up with a military dictatorship when a general or generals decide that this sort of thing has to be stopped for the good of the country.

Nov 082015
 

I watched the most recent episode of Hotel Impossible.  I have talked about this show twice before when it provided an interesting showcase of female filthiness and behavior.  This episode also provided an interesting showcase of female behavior, specifically comparing two sisters in business together with two brothers in business together.

The host, Anthony Melchiorri, went to help a struggling hotel that had a pair of sisters in charge.  One sister owned the hotel while the other sister was the hotel’s general manager.  The sisters had a lot of personal problems, and that was the primary reason the hotel was falling apart.  The sister who owned the hotel avoided the hotel because she didn’t want any contact with her sister.  Anthony Melchiorri realizes that the only way to save the hotel was to get the sisters talking again.  He gets them into the same room, and it quickly turns into an argument.  Melchiorri has to bring in a therapist (who happened to be male) to sort out the sisters because he couldn’t assist them with actual hotel business until the sisters started therapy.

Another thing Mechiorri did to help the hotel was get a business deal setup with a very successful distillery that was next to the hotel.  He met with the owners of the distillery who turned out to be two brothers.  Since he was trying to help two sisters, he asked the owners of the distillery what it was like to work with his brother.  They told him that while they had plenty of disagreements, their goals were the same so they knew how and when to compromise.  The brothers could get things done.  Thus the distillery was very successful unlike the hotel which took multiple men to save it (Mechiorri and the male therapist).  It is a very telling comparison of how men working together vs. women working together.

Nov 052015
 

Feminists hate Linus Torvalds.  They hate him for not caring about “diversity” in tech (a.k.a. women in tech) and for saying that individual contributions and technical skills matter.  Feminists hate Torvalds for refusing to kowtow to Sarah Sharp, a now former Linux developer, who accused him of being abusive. Torvalds also refused to step down from managing the Linux kernel as feminists like Shanley Kane have demanded.  How Torvalds has handled feminists can be best summed up by this image:

Thus, I was not surprised when Eric S. Raymond, another leader in the free and open source software community, found out from a trusted source that there is a persistent to get Torvalds into a position where a woman could make false attempted sexual assault accusation against Torvalds.  ESR’s source has said that there have already been several attempts to do this to Torvalds.

While all we have is an IRC conversation as evidence, it is likely there is at least one woman out there trying to set up Torvalds.  This is the same tactic that has been used against Julian Assange and Michael Shermer, by the atheist+ feminists.  Linus Torvalds definitely needs to be careful.

Oct 312015
 

The Fermi Paradox is the question, “where are the aliens?”  Even if only a fraction of starts have planets and only a fraction of those planets have life and a fraction of planets with life develop intelligent life, there still should be lots of aliens out there.  Theoretically, there should 1 billion Earth like planets and 100,000 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone.  The sun is relatively young as stars go so many of those alien civilizations should be older and more technologically advanced than us.  This also means that at least one of these alien civilizations should have spread across our galaxy and be on our doorstep.  Even if something like Star Trek’s warp drive is impossible, in the worst case scenario it would only take several million years to colonize the whole galaxy.  Even if a technologically advanced alien species decided to never leave their star system, as long as a small fraction disagreed, that small fraction would over time colonize the galaxy.

So knowing this, where are the aliens?  A possibility is that something either prevents aliens for engaging in space exploration or something that prevents aliens from even developing the intelligence and technology where they would even be in a position to consider space exploration.  And who is a big group opposed to space exploration on our planet?  Feminists working on behalf of women and the female imperative.  If aliens are sexually dimorphic like us, then intelligent aliens may have their own equivalent to women directly or indirectly preventing space exploration.  It could be via alien equivalents to feminists who agitate against space exploration.  Or it could be that alien equivalents to women are preventing technological development in general via having the non-women aliens fight over the women aliens so much that aliens never even make it to the industrial revolution or past the stone age.  Even if aliens have more than two sexes whichever sex controls the more scarcer reproductive resource could still be a logjam preventing technological development.

And that assumes that aliens even develop intelligence.  Take peacocks, for example.  Male peacocks have to spend so much evolutionary resources developing plumage to impress female peacocks that the chances of peacocks ever evolving to intelligence on their own is zero.  It’s possible that aliens are stuck in this peacock trap.

Eventually all these aliens will become extinct.  It has been pointed out that the dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t have a space program.  That’s because the only way an intelligent species can guarantee long term survival is to become an interplanetary species.  Men like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson understand this and are putting their money towards making sure humanity has a future.  Feminists are doing the opposite by opposing space exploration.  If we follow the feminists, we are guaranteeing our own extinction.

There may be aliens in every corner of the universe, but we will never hear from them since they can’t advance due to the sex of their species that controls the scarcer reproductive resource.  They may never get to the point where space exploration is a possibility for them.  And that’s if they develop intelligence.  Many alien species that could have developed intelligence may never do it because their evolutionary resources are spent impressing their equivalent of women.  In either case, they will eventually go extinct.  Humanity may be the most intelligent and most technologically advanced species that has ever existed and may be the only species capable of preventing its own extinction.

There is no guarantee yet that humanity will become an interplanetary species and prevent our extinction.  We’re close, but we’re not there yet.  The only reason we are this close is because the US both publicly and privately is willing to commit as much as it has to space exploration.  (Richard Branson isn’t American but Virgin Galactic had to be based in the US.)  The US is the only country that has sent probes to every planet in the solar system completing the initial reconnaissance of the solar system.  Without the US, humanity might have been just another species to go extinct that happened to have an unusually high degree of technological advancement.  If this solution to the Fermi Paradox is correct, there will not be aliens to save us from extinction.  We will have to do it ourselves.  Then, we may have to consider a Marshall Plan for aliens to save them from extinction because we are the only ones that can help them.

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 »
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