Jul 142015
 

When I talked about how misandrists are using the fact of a business having a mostly male customer base/user base as evidence of misogyny, one thing got left out.  Since we’re talking about Reddit, does Reddit actually have a mostly male user base?  It turns out the answer is no.

Alexa says that Reddit’s user demographics have more women than average.  So where did the Reddit’s user base is 74% male come from?  It comes from a three year old article at Ad Week, and it’s possible that the data used in the Ad Week article might be up to a few years older than the article itself.

This goes beyond the idea that having a mostly male user base is equivalent to misogyny.  Even when a site like Reddit doesn’t have a mostly male user base, misandrists will lie about it having a mostly male user base so they can accuse the site of being misogynist.  The Daily Beast has an article that is a really good example of this.  Not only does it repeat the lie about Reddit having a 74% male user base to accuse Reddit of misogyny, it also links to the Alexa report I referenced above.  The article through its own links admits it’s lying!  Even the comments at the end of the article notice this.

I image that they will probably try to get around this by saying Reddit was misogynist several years ago and “once misogynist, always misogynist” or some other garbage like that.

Jul 122015
 

Last Friday Ellen Pao resigned from reddit.  Already the wagons are circling in an attempt to hide the fact that this was due to Pao’s gross incompetence by blaming “misogyny”.  However, there is a new tactic they’re trying that can be seen in an article about Pao’s resignation in the Christian Science Monitor:

While Reddit denies claims that it discriminated against Pao because of her gender, skeptics point to factors that they claim prove otherwise. According to Adweek, 74 percent of Reddit users are male.

First they tried to make us believe that simply having a business or industry where the employees are mostly male is evidence of misogyny.  Now, they’re trying to have us believe that a mostly male user base or customer base is evidence of misogyny.  What they’re saying is men not only should be allowed to work anywhere in large numbers but also shouldn’t be customers of any business in large numbers.  They probably won’t be satisfied until most men are in ghettos because that would be the only way to prevent men from working in a particular industry or being the customers of a particular business.

Attacking Reddit’s user base/customer base isn’t the first time that attacking a mostly male customer base has been tried.  That was the “Gamers Are Dead” articles that spawned #GamerGate.  And this probably won’t be the last time either.  There will be many more anti-feminist customer revolts like #GamerGate.

Sep 152013
 

If you want to know why feminism was able to take over everything in the West so easily, read the most recent article at The Spearhead.  The Maasai actually let an American woman become a Maasai warrior.  This woman didn’t go through the real initiation process of becoming a Maasai warrior, but that doesn’t matter.  What the Maasai did is equivalent to how standards for the military, police, firemen, etc. get lowered for women.  In other words, rather than tell this woman no to becoming a Maasai warrior, the men of the Massai created an affirmative action policy for women to become Maasai warriors.  It’s that similar.

Take a look at how Tennessee Assemblyman Harry T. Burn’s mom was able to easily shame him into voting for the 19th Amendment.  Harry T. Burn gave in to the demands (and shaming language) of his mom nearly 100 years ago just as the men of the Maasai recently did.  These men came from different cultures, different nations, and different races, but it didn’t matter.  Their reaction to women was exactly the same.  They all gave in to the demands of women.  The same thing happens wherever women start making similar demands.

This means that when women start making these demands, men will cave in them.  This is true regardless of what culture, race, nationality, religion, etc. a man is a part of.  The result is always the same.  The only time men don’t give into the demands of women is when a man is part of a space that defends its space from women by being actively hostile to women.  So far that has been the only successful method of not giving into women’s demands.

Mar 302013
 

The votes are in for the February 2013 Entitlement Princess Of The Month.  The winner with 63% of the vote is Megan Thode, who was submitted by Paul Murray.  She was the woman who sued Lehigh University for $1.3 million because she got a C+ in one of her classes.  The Entitlement Princess of the Month award can’t keep going without your support.  Remember to keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

adriarichards380This month is one of those months where the winner is so obvious that there will be no voting.  The March 2013 Entitlement Princess of the Month is Adria Richards.  She has set a new standard in being an entitlement princess with her behavior during and after her infamous tweet.  As I’m sure everyone knows by now, Adria Richards is responsible for this tweet during this year’s PyCon conference:

twitterThis tweet alone is filled with entitlement on Adria Richard’s part.  She thinks she has the right to butt into a private conversation that was in no way about her or relevant to her.  She also thinks she can redefine the English language to make the phrase “forking a repo” (or “forking a repository”) which has no sexual innuendo associated with into a sexual phrase.  She also took this picture without the permission of anyone in this picture, potentially violating laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, although I’m sure Adria Richards doesn’t think the law applies to her.

Hypocrisy is a common feature of an entitlement princess, and Adria Richards is no exception.  She thinks that men don’t have the right to make penis jokes privately, but she can do so publicly on Twitter:

socksAdria Richards also compared herself to Joan of Arc:

JoanOfArcAnd that she can’t be a racist because she’s black:

racismSince documenting all of Adria Richard’s entitlement and hypocrisy would take too long, here is a sample of the rest (click on the image to see a readable full size version):

AdriaRichardsDOUBLEstandardsOn top of all this, Adria Richards has also pulled these stunts before and has refused to take responsibility for what she did trying to blame everything of the tech industry being racist and sexist.  She has worked hard at beating out every other entitlement princess out there with her entitlement so she gets this month’s entitlement princess award.  At the rate she is going, Adria Richards could be the first and only entitlement princess to get the monthly entitlement princess award a second time.

 

Oct 122012
 

I asked in the past if it would be possible to defend a male space without making it hostile to women.  A group of gamers last year in Texas decided to answer that question with a no.  These gamers setup a LAN party to celebrate the launch of Battlefield 3.  (A LAN party is where a group of gamers get together in person to play a video game.  Because it’s in person, their computers are networked over a local area network, hence the name.)  The organizers of this LAN party decided to ban women from the event.  Ostensibly, the reason for the ban was the “misogyny” of the male gamers, but what the organizers said reveals a different message:

Nothing ruins a good LAN party like uncomfortable guests or lots of tension, both of which can result from mixing immature, misogynistic male-gamers with female counterparts.  Though we’ve done our best to avoid these situations in years past, we’ve certainly had our share of problems. As a result, we no longer allow women to attend this event.

Later, that paragraph was changed to:

This event is a ‘gentlemen’s retreat’; as such we do not allow women to attend.

After that they added:

We actively discourage gamers from being the kind of mysogynistic jackwagons seen in the Reddit post, and such behavior should not be tolerated. Frankly, we don’t like that kind of player either. So far as this event goes, it is an special event designed specifically for male gamers. Further, it is meant as a getaway designed to help said male contingent become better men both for themselves and for those who love us.

Whenever someone wants to “combat misogyny” this is not how it gets handled.  The method used is the exact opposite.  Men would be banned.  Quotas for female gamers would be instated.  Instead what we have here is women being banned.  This is exactly what you would expect if a man was trying to defend a male space and cover it up by being “anti-misogyny”.

In the future, I am sure we will see more of this sort of thing including the use of being “against misogyny” to hide the defense of a male space from feminists.

Sep 042012
 

In my previous post asking if it was possible to defend a male space without making it explicitly hostile to women, Dragnet asked if there had been actual examples of a private organization that had been forced to accept women instead of private organizations just caving to cultural pressure.  The problem with that question is that “cultural pressure” could also include government pressure.  For example, in the past the government had threatened the MPAA with more regulation if it didn’t create its own film rating system.  The MPAA film rating system is “voluntary”, but it’s “voluntary” in the same way that people/businesses who have to pay off the mob for “protection” is voluntary.

Beyond that, there are examples of the government explicitly forcing purely private organizations to admit women.  It’s happened to a lot of charitable/service organizations.  The Boys and Girls Clubs used to be the Boys Clubs until the government ordered them to admit females.  The same thing happened to the Jaycees, the Kiwanis, and the Rotary Club.  When this issue came before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that these organizations were really “public accommodations” instead of the purely private organizations they actually were because their membership was “too inclusive” to be a private organization.  The Supreme Court also used reasoning that since these organizations could be used for business/career networking, anti-discrimination laws for employment also applied here to a degree.  What this means is that three guys having an ad hoc hunting club without women (for example) isn’t going to have to worry about the Supreme Court forcing them to admit women.  If it was a hunting clubs with thousands of members (or more), then the Supreme Court can and would order them to admit women.

The Supreme Court’s argument about business/career networking is particularly dangerous because business/career networking can happen anywhere where there is two or more people.  That reasoning gives the government carte blanche to order any organization regardless of size or its nature to admit women.  (For that matter, this reasoning gives the government an excuse to order any private organization to do what it wants.)

The Supreme Court also has not defined where the line between a truly private organization and a “public” one is.  At any time the government can come in and declare a private organization to be a “public accommodation”.  In theory it could define the three guys with an ad hoc hunting club to be a public accommodation.  That doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth the time of the government to do that.  The line between private organization and “public accommodation” is whenever the government wants to get involved with how a private organization runs things.

This tells us a lot about some of the problems that any mens rights organization will face in the future.  Consider a mens rights organization, which by definition is a private organization, that decides to exclude women.  That would make sense as we have seen women derail things as simple as blogs, and women disrupting the workings of (proto-)mens rights organizations.  As soon as that mens rights organization starts getting somewhere, the first thing the government will do will be to declare it a “public accommodation” because it is sufficiently large according to the government and business/career networking can happen there.  That will be the end of that mens rights organization.  Either the organization will disband to refuse to comply with the government’s orders, or it will admit women and grind to a halt.  Either way the mens rights organization in question is dead.

This isn’t an unsolvable problem, but it is a difficult one.  Completely decentralized solutions like MGTOW avoid this problem, but that isn’t going to get any laws changed either, at least not directly.  It’s the political equivalent of women invading a male space.  Once a male space gets big enough women are either going to want in or want to destroy it.

Aug 182012
 

I have been thinking a lot about the importance of male spaces.  There has been a feminist war on the existence of any and all male spaces based on the principle of if men are doing something, no matter what it is, without women, then they have to be stopped immediately.  This is also applies to predominantly male spaces like STEM employment, video games, “geek culture”, etc.  It’s no surprise that we have seen a feminist/female assault against these areas such as the constant blather about sexism in video games and Obama’s attempt to apply Title IX to STEM.  Whiskey has talked about how (female) Twilight fans (including the “Twi-moms”) took over Comic Con and ruined it.

We are running out of male spaces.  The feminization of game is being attempted.  There have been several attempts to turn the MRM into being all about women.  (The most recent attempt was the LadyMRAs reddit which was supposedly about women helping the MRM ended up exposing its real agenda when they became rabidly insane against MGTOW.)  The only real space that has managed to completely resist and fight off feminization and feminist invasion is MGTOW.  At least one reason for this is because women in general see the MGTOW as hostile to women (regardless of what men in the MGTOW space are actually doing).

Knowing that MGTOW has been the only male space to resist feminization and feminist invasion because it is (de facto) hostile to women, then is the only way to preserve male spaces by making them hostile to women?  8ball commenting at SWAB’s blog thinks that this could be the case:

I’m starting to wonder if it’s even possible to have a male-only space that isn’t hostile to women. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t because I think any gathering of men will inherently turn misogynistic, rather the opposite.

Any space that isn’t completely alienating to women will eventually be …. “invaded” (for lack of a better term) by women, who will then insist that it conform to their sensibilities. Look at Geek culture for example.

You can see this happening in places like The Good Men Project. Most of their readers are women, a good percentage of their articles are not even remotely about men, and another significant percentage are about how men’s lives affect women. And even when the article is about men… often it is written by a woman.

I’m not sure how good of an example The Good Mangina Project is since it was started by male feminist men, but in thinking about it, 8ball has a point that even The Good Mangina Project now has a much higher percentage of women authors and women commenting and less articles even tangentially relevant to men than when they started.  In a way, this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion.  While The Good Mangina Project didn’t start out as a true male space, it shows that any space that is feminized will become more feminized over time.

I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how to protect male spaces without making them completely hostile and alienating to women, but at this point, I can’t see any other solution to protecting male spaces.

Translate »