Dec 032011

A commenter had this to say on the outsourcing/offshoring of jobs:

Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.

Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.

Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.

Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.

This is true.  Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be.  Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring.  That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis.  When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis.  As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business.  In fact, it’s surprising that there isn’t more offshoring of jobs.

If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.


Mar 022011

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 my last post I predicted that the University of Cincinnati would collapse due to its embrace of feminism and leftism at the expense of real scientific disciplines like computer science. Several comments brought up the example of Antioch College which had collapsed due to its embrace of feminism and leftism.

Antioch College was originally founded in 1853 in Ohio by the Christian Connection movement and the Unitarian Church.  Beginning in the 1940s it became a hotbed of progressivism and one of the first colleges to experience leftist student activism.  This continued to the 1960s when Antioch College became one of the primary locations of student radicalism, the New Left, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the Black Power movement in that part of the US.  The 1970s were more of the same for Antioch College, but it expanded to include several satellite campuses under the name of Antioch University.  In the late 1970s Antioch College started having problems with its finances and experienced a decline in enrollment from around 2000 students to around 1000 students.  While Antioch College’s financial situation stabilized in the 1980s it never was able to increase student enrollment beyond 1000 students.

Antioch College started having problems again in the early to mid 1990s when its “Sexual Offense Prevention Policy” received national publicity.  According to the policy, consent for sexual behavior must be mutual, verbal, and reiterated for each new step of sexual behavior.  The original version policy was created at Antioch College’s “Womyn’s Center” due to the agitation of a group of students called “Womyn of Antioch” and called for immediate expulsion of any man accused of a sexual offense with no rights given to the accused.  A revised version of what the “Womyn’s Center” wrote became policy for Antioch College.  Even the revised version was so absurd that it became the basis of a Saturday Night Live sketch called “Is It Date Rape?”

Things continued to deteriorate at Antioch College so that by 2000 Mumia Abu Jamal and transgendered rights activist, Leslie Feinberg, were invited to be speakers at that year’s commencement.  This also recieved national publicity, and in the few years after enrollment declined to 600 students.  By 2003 the situation at Antioch College deteriorated to the point where a renewal plan was started.  This was done alongside deep cuts in staff which included eliminating Antioch College’s Office for Multicultural Affairs.  The led to a student protest called the “People of Color Takeover”.  Antioch College created the “Coretta Scott King Center for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom” in response to that protest but Antioch College still deteriorated.  By 2007 enrollment had declined to 370 students.  Also during 2007 the faculty of Antioch College filed a lawsuit against its Board of Trustees.  Soon after operations were suspended at Antioch College, and it was closed in 2008.

Currently there are plans to reopen Antioch College in the fall of this year.  Even if Antioch College reopens it is unlikely that it will ever regain the status it had.

Mar 152010

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

Chances are you’re familiar with Saturday Night Live’s Tom Brady sexual harassment skit.  If not, you can watch it at this link.  While Saturday Night Live is trying to be funny, they end up presenting a very accurate portrayal of how “sexual harassment” really ends up working.  This is particularly true with the “three rules” they came up with to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits, “Be handsome.  Be attractive.  Don’t be unattractive.”

With this weekend’s episode Saturday Night Live has done it again.  This skit is a spoof of a commercial for one of those home security companies.  Watch it below:

While this skit is a hilarious spoof, it shows how unreasonably paranoid women have become of men.  You have a guy who was at the woman’s party break into her house 20 seconds after leaving the party in addition to her grandfather, her rabbi, a couple of boys, etc.  Why does this skit have a basis in reality?  It’s because feminism produces propaganda that men everywhere are out to get women, and the skit hits on this by talking about how if you’re a woman “most men want to kill you”.

One thing that makes this funny is how it doesn’t make sense.  Why would a guy already in a woman’s house leave just to break in 20 seconds later?  That even more true with the woman’s grandfather.  How would a couple of nine year old boys break down her door so quickly?  We know such things but, the paranoia of men that many women have is not rational.  A woman’s grandfather or a nine year old boy isn’t a threat to a woman.  Feminists produced and continue to produce anti-male propaganda that men are out to murder, rape, and/or assault women, but as we know it doesn’t reflect reality.  It makes no sense that a guy already inside a woman’s house would leave and then break in 20 seconds later.  However, there are plenty of women who believe such things.

What’s very ironic about this skit (and still very true) is how despite this woman’s paranoia about men, she is still dependent on men for her protection.  The office of “Broadview Security” is staffed by men.  This also is very poignant.  While feminists have produced all this anti-male propaganda to make women paranoid about men, their protection is still dependent on men.  This includes male police officers and male legislators who produce anti-male laws for feminists.  In the woman’s paranoia had any logic whatsoever, she should be just as afraid about the men from Broadview Security breaking down her door.

In conclusion, Saturday Night Live has created a skit (probably unintentionally) that shows the levels of female paranoia against men that many women have today.  Just like with the Tom Brady sexual harassment skit, it tells truths about the subject that only humor can deliver over feminist dominated media.

Mar 082010

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

We have heard a variant of these statements many times:

You MRAs/MGTOW/gamers are just as bad as the feminists.
I’m trying to find a common ground in the middle.
We need to ignore the extremists on both sides.

Whenever you hear a statement like those, it is not a statement of fact. It’s triangulation. What is triangulation? It’s when someone claims to be “above” or “between” the left and right wings of politics or some other issue. Triangulation was made famous by Bill Clinton, but he is far from the only person to use triangulation. Barack Obama has also engaged in triangulation. Neither Clinton nor Obama actually believed in a set of politics that was “above” or “between” the left and right. Both are leftists and used triangulation to get elected. This is the most obvious with Obama who while campaigning talked about “change”, “a new [non-ideological] politics”, but has clearly governed as a leftist.

Triangulation acts in a similar fashion when trying to shout down MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers. Using triangulation is an attempt to bring down MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers down to the level of feminists as if pointing out anti-male injustice is the same as feminists trying to gain more power. Thus the only thing that can be gained from triangulation when used here is continuation of the status quo. That status quo is misandry and feminist government policy. For the claims of the triangulator to be true, MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers would have to have as much political power as the feminists. Men are being thrown in jail by women lying about rape. Men are losing their jobs due to sexual harassment nonsense and government stimulus policies. Men are being forced to pay for kids that aren’t theirs (paternity fraud). Men are having their life savings and their children stolen by anti-male family/divorce courts, etc. There is nothing that men can do to women right now that is equivalent to one of those things much less all of them combined. Feminists have more political power, so the triangulator’s true intentions of defending misandry are exposed. Also claims of being “above” or “between” both sides are never used meaningfully against feminists, and this further exposes the triangulator’s true intentions.

One variant of triangulation you may sometimes hear is, “If we take feminism away, men will do all the same things to women that feminists do to men.” Again, this statement is only used against MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers so it enforces the status quo of misandry and thus is triangulation. However, this statement is objectively false. While there are many political views among MRAs, MGTOW, & gamers, there is a generally agreed upon view that government is a major part of the problem. Without government most misandry would not exist. When misandrist laws and policies are eliminated, the government will be a great deal weaker. It won’t have the same power to interfere with people’s lives it did when feminists controlled it. The only way men could do the same things to women that are being done to men now is by reinstating a powerful, pervasive government that they wanted to be rid of. In other words, it will be impossible because the weapon of a powerful, pervasive government has already been destroyed.

Despite explaining this, there will still be people who triangulate and talk about the need to find “compromise” or a “middle ground” (perhaps because they claim we need “female allies”). If you think about what “compromise” and “middle ground” mean in this context, it’s obvious they are triangulating. We want the false rape industry gone, the anti-male family/divorce court system gone, etc. Feminists want to keep on doing what they are doing. Thus finding “middle ground” or a “compromise” means only half as many men experience false rape charged, get ass raped in family/divorce court, etc. This is completely unacceptable and still gives the feminists what they want, but more importantly it exposes cries for “compromise” or a “middle ground” as hollow and triangulation.

Oct 042009

My first post, Feminism is a subset of female supremacism, at The Spearhead is up.  I have copied it below, but I have disabled comments for this post here.  Please comment over at The Spearhead.

Those of you familiar with my blog and my comments on other blogs know that I have said that arguments between feminist women and  ”anti-feminist” women are really just arguments about how to best extract money and other resources from men.  Read or listen to an argument between feminist and “anti-feminist” women.  The subjects they will argue about will have little to do with anything that is happening to men.  Abortion will be top subject as well other subjects are irrelevant to what is happening to men such as arguments about wearing skirts vs. pants, debates about premarital sex, orquiverfull drivel.  What you will not hear is anything that has to do with what feminism is doing to men such as the false rape industry, the absurd body of sexual harassment law, how men need to learn game or otherwise be shut out of the sexual/relationships market, the current divorce system, children taken away from their fathers and other issues of fathers’ rights, etc.  In fact, the entire argument from “anti-feminist” women will avoid anything that is happening to men which effectively means “anti-feminist” women have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda.
Feminism is really just left wing female supremacism.  This means that there are other forms of female supremacism out there such as conservative female supremacism which is what “anti-feminist” women really are. This has also been called lifeboat feminism as what this tries to do is combine elements of feminism and chivalry wherever its best for women creating a mutant hybrid that always benefits women.  Hawaiian Libertarian wrote on his blog about a good example of this, the Network of Enlightened Women.  If you look at their educate page, you get choice statements like:
By women’s view of empowerment being linked to sexual promiscuity we in fact undermine the very foundations of femininity. This promiscuity devalues women by men seeing them as something that can be used for their own ends and women accepting this status as the tools of men.
Feminists threw away the moral superiority of women, a beautiful counteraction to the physical superiority of men. There is an obvious void in what we call the feminist movement today and a need for a new movement that can do justice not only to the similarities between the sexes but also to the differences.
To promote the Showcase, the NeW chapter at ASU has created a short video asking students four questions:  What is a gentleman?  What are the characteristics of a gentleman?  Are there gentlemen at ASU?  Are gentlemen an endangered species?
Student answers range from the serious to the comical.  For example, some student responses to the question “What is a gentleman?” include, “just a man that has manners I guess,” “well, we don’t know.  We haven’t ever seen one before,” “someone who opens doors, is chivalrous, and a nice guy,” “a gentlemen is a person that likes to do nice things and doesn’t really ask for anything in return” and “someone who is nice and courteous and is always looking out for other people before themselves.”
Remember these aren’t feminists.  They’re conservative women.  What this proves is that these women despite being “anti-feminist” are just as female supremacist as their feminist counterparts.  They just disagree on how to enforce female supremacy.
If you take a look at their entire website you will find nothing about issues that feminism has caused that involve men such as the false rape industry, divorce, etc.  It’s all (premarital) sex, abortion, etc.  More importantly, there is plenty of shaming language used against men and general blame of men.  This shouldn’t be surprising as, for example, divorce is just as common when married to conservative women as not and in the Christian church.  They are just as for divorce as feminist women are.  They also engage in shaming language against men who practice good judgement in choosing not to get married.
You will also notice the blame put on men for everything, blame that men aren’t being “gentlemen”, blaming men for promiscuity, etc.  It’s even to the point where conservative female supremacists blame men for “letting” feminism happen.  Men are even being blamed for abortion because it supposedly benefits men:
Let’s get real. Abortion is not good for women; anyone who has had one can attest to that.
Abortion and contraception have been good only for irresponsible males. They now can have sex without fear of the consequences.
In the meantime, women continue to take hormones every day, for years and years, which (despite denials from people with an agenda) does increase their chances of getting breast cancer.
If we use a little common sense, we understand why breast cancer is at epidemic levels.
Whether a woman has an abortion or uses contraception, it is she who bears the physical and psychological burden.
Have we really come a long way? Abortion has enabled men to use our bodies without having to look back and feel any guilt.
Let’s wake up and stop letting men convince us that they really care about us and our right to make choices.
Here we have an example of a conservative female supremacist blaming men for abortion because men are “forcing” women to be in a position where they have to choose abortion (along with “real man” shaming language). In addition, she blames men for an increase in breast cancer rates. There is also plenty of generalized blame against men for when sex happens, as if women have no sex drive whatsoever. (In fact, if you ask a conservative female supremacist about the false rape industry, all they will say about it is that men shouldn’t be having premarital sex, i.e. its their fault, even though a man doesn’t actually have to have sex with a woman to be a victim of the false rape industry. We have seen this in the Duke Lacrosse case and at the University of Maryland where women picked random male names out of a university phone book, putting those names on flyers they passed out saying the men were “potential rapists”.) With all of the ways conservative female supremacists try to blame men for sex, how far away are they from “all heterosexual sex is rape”, really? We shouldn’t be surprised by such a similarity since both feminism and conservative female supremacism are both female supremacist ideologies.
It’s important to know about conservative female supremacism because there are a lot of women who will claim they’re on the side of men because they’re “not a feminist”. Simply “not being a feminist” does not make a woman an ally of men. All it means is that instead of using the state to extract money and other resources from men, they believe marriage is the best way of doing this. They are stepping up their blame and shaming language because many of them are worried that feminists are in the process of destroying their gravy train of taking money and other resources from men. They are right to be worried about that. With the development of game, even if a man doesn’t use game he still understands the real nature of women, and this includes conservative female supremacists.
Of course, there are plenty of men who support and otherwise facilitate conservative female supremacism, but that is a separate topic I will address in a future post.
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 »