Aug 292016
 

The feminist war on space exploration continues.  This time The Atlantic magazine writes that the constellations oppress women.  (This is not a satire piece.  It is real.)  The only purpose of such an article is to continue the feminist war on space exploration by accusing every aspect of space of misogyny.

What are constellations?  Constellations are a group of stars that form a recognizable pattern.  In other words, The Atlantic is accusing the stars of being located in such a way that from the Earth they can generate misogyny.  Literally, feminists are saying that way the universe is organized in such a way to oppress women.

On top of that the article from The Atlantic also says that the names of spaceships and space probes are also sexist and oppress women.  There is no aspect of space exploration that feminists have not accused of misogyny.  Feminists have lied about NASA’s budget, attacked the shirt of a space scientist, accused the Pioneer 10 probe plaque of sexism, accused movies about space exploration of being sexist, and said that there will be a rape epidemic in space.  Clearly, the feminist war on space exploration is total which is why we must fight even small aspects of it like when feminists accuse constellations of being sexist.

Aug 272016
 

Feminists have declared war on many aspects of technology, science, health care, & modern life, such as dentists, doctors, air conditioning, vaccination, the tech industry, etc.  Thus it can not be a surprise that feminists would declare war on any human advance since the dawn of humanity.  The latest thing feminists have declared war on is fire.  Yes, fire.  Feminists are blaming the rise of patriarchy on the discovery of fire.  In other words, feminists are saying that women got burned by fire.

Where would be without fire?  We would probably be sitting in caves with none of the advancements humanity has made in the last several thousand years.  We would have no way to prevent freezing to death.  Feminists would have us all freeze to death just because they feel that fire oppresses them.  This has to be the ultimate example of how feminists are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-civilization, and all around anti-humanity.

Jul 092016
 

I found an example that proves that the feminist idea that there is pervasive misogyny in the tech industry is nothing but paranoid propaganda:

Here’s an example I was thinking of after I wrote my original post.

I work at a largish engineering company, and help organize events for summer interns. One of them is an “ask us anything” panel where we encourage interns to ask recently graduated full-time employees about life at the company without managers / HR in the room.

Every year, we get a young woman asking us something along the lines of “I’ve heard the engineering industry is super sexist. How horribly oppressed am I going to be?”

Now, the response they usually get from the ladies on the panel (who I assume are being truthful) is basically “you will very occasionally get some sexist / not-quite-appropriate remarks, almost exclusively from people either within 10 years of retirement (hence self solving) or from the non-college educated techs that have a rougher culture in general. This will be mildly annoying but won’t have a real effect on your career”.

So given that it seems workplace sexism for our engineers isn’t really fake, but is typically a minor irritant at worst, is that female intern really well served by being primed to expect lousy sexist treatment? The potential paranoia that every adverse decision is unavoidable due to your gender, or that today will be the day you’re horribly harassed… can’t that be worse than the actual harm of the intransigent remaining vestiges of professional sexism?

This shows that there is no vile hive mind running an assault mission against women in tech.  In addition, the two examples of “kindly annoying misogyny” in tech are likely to not be misogyny at all.  In the case of the men within 10 years of retirement, that is more likely to be noting more than failing to use the latest SJW approved language than actual misogyny.  For the less educated men, that is likely to be the problem as well plus the (college educated) women being bigoted against men who are not college educated.  Thus, it is clear that there is no misogyny in the tech industry.

Jun 252016
 

I don’t know how to describe this so let me start off with the words of Sarah Nadav, a startup founder who came up with a new idea:

Let’s talk about an uncomfortable truth, sexual harassment and assault is common in the tech industry. The only reason we don’t hear more about it is because the men who perpetrate it the most are also the ones who hold the “keys to the kingdom”- as investors or powerful industry figures, women don’t want to ruin their careers by speaking out.

So I have come to a conclusion. I am adding a “sexual misconduct clause” into all of my investment agreements. If an investor or employee of the investor/accelerator/incubator makes a sexual advance towards me or anyone in my company (Civilize), then they are stripped of all of their shares in Civilize (even the ones that have vested) and there will be a public notice to shareholders as to the reason why.

Notice the jump from sexual assault to a sexual advance, which could mean anything including asking someone out for coffee.  On top of that, not only is there no due process when an alleged “sexual advance” occurs, but how easily this could be used for fraud.  Want to steal an investors shares in a startup?  That’s easy to do with this since all you have to do is accuse the investor (or one of their employees) of asking someone out.  Who would want to invest in such a scenario?

Or what if the person who is falsely accused of asking someone out is gay?  Or a gay individual actually asks someone out of the same sex?  That will be an immediate fraud lawsuit plus the accusation of discrimination against gays and homophobia.  And that has to be an issue, because she says that ” sexual harassment and assault is common in the tech industry”.  Remember, we keep hearing about how few women are in tech.  For sexual harassment and assault to be endemic in tech, that has to mean the primary victims of this alleged epidemic are men not women.

I don’t know how this would be enforceable.  Take how she listed employees of an incubator as being bound by this clause.  Every employee of the incubator would have to be informed and sign a document to that effect.  Any smart employee of said incubator will just avoid Sarah Nadav and her company.  Another reason that it would not be enforceable is the question of how it would apply to Sarah Nadav herself.  What happens if she (or one of her employees) asks out an investor, an employee of an investor, or an employee at an incubator?  Why does she and her employees have the right to ask people out working for their incubator or investor, but not the reverse.  For that matter, someone who is pissed off at her could use this policy against her by falsely accusing her of sexual advances and threatening to use this policy against the accuser.

Where did Sarah Nadav get this insane idea?  Read her own words:

Let me walk you through my process:

Yesterday I read Lena Dunham’s Linkedin post

We don’t need to continue reading after that, but it gets worse.  She is by her own admission filled with rage about (potential) investors:

While other CEOs are worried about getting funded, I am shit scared that one of them will invest.

Every time I get up to pitch, instead of sharing my vision I am exploding with rage. And then I apologize and promise to do better, and change my pitch to one that is even more antagonizing then the last.

I was literally told that I need to work harder on hiding my thinly veiled contempt for the investors.

The good news is that no one will have to deal with her “sexual advance clause” and its fraud because she will have already scared all investors away.  Despite this, Sarah Nadav is worried that an investor will want to have dinner with her:

Because here is my deepest fear- I am afraid that one of these men, these bad actors will end up investing in Civilize. He will have a board seat, he will own part of my life’s work. One day, he will offer to take me out to dinner and I will think it is professional but he will have another agenda (because in his mind lunch is for business and dinner is for lovers but I didn’t get the memo), he will make an advance, I won’t know what to do, everything will get awkward and I will be afraid of making an enemy of him because he will have the power to oust me from my company.

I have good news for Sarah Nadav.  She never needs to worry about an investor (or any other man) asking her out to dinner.  No investor will invest in her startup after seeing her rage and contempt.  No man (investor or otherwise) will ask her to dinner because they won’t want to be alone with her.  Given her rage, paranoia, and all around crazy, no man will want to be anywhere near her without multiple witnesses.  And that will be true for many women too.  The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Sarah Nadav has decided to shout, “I’m insane.  Don’t invest in my startup.”  We have all gotten the message.

May 212016
 

As we know, the women in tech movement seeks to remove as many men as possible from the tech industry.  And part of that is targeting Indian men and Asian men working in tech.  Many Asian and Indian men who work in tech are immigrants.  Now, there is a new angle in targeting Asian and Indian immigrants working in tech, using the fact that some visas require their wives to not work.

The article blames “an immigration system focused only on meeting corporations’ needs” which is bullshit by itself since any of these wives of immigrants working in the tech industry could change their visa status.  However, I anticipate that the next target will be the immigrant men working in tech themselves for forcing their wives into an immigration status where they can’t work.  Since the vast majority of immigrant men working in tech are Indian and Asian, this is really an attack on Indian and Asian men working in tech.  Indian and Asian men are already accused of importing “misogyny” into the tech industry, and this visa issue will be used to bolster that attack.  Even with tactics like these, I don’t anticipate this will stop class action racial discrimination lawsuits from Asian and Indian men when the women in tech movement tries to remove them from the tech industry.

Mar 262016
 

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

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

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

And written propaganda like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mar 212016
 

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

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

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

Mar 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 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.

Jan 182016
 

Paul Murray brought up how the US Constitution says that crimes must be tried by courts in reference to the college rape tribunals (which we know are a part of the false rape industry.  Specifically, he is referring to the end of Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution which says:

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The only exception to a jury trial for a crime is impeachment.  For all other crimes, all citizens of the US are guaranteed a jury trial.  Despite what feminists think they can get away with, the constitution makes no exception for rape.  The existence of college rape tribunals are in violation of Article 3, Section 2 of the constitution.

Additionally, the sixth amendment is also relevant.  It says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

College rape tribunals violate every single clause of the sixth amendment of the constitution.  Feminists have declared war on Article 3 & the sixth amendment of the US Constitution.  (Feminists have declared war on the entire US Constitution, but that is a subject for another time.)  Feminists have been running this war for a long time.  First, feminists tried to use the Commerce Clause in the constitution in the first VAWA (violence against women act) to allow women to sue men they accused of rape even when said men had been exonerated by the criminal justice system.  For obvious reasons, the courts declared this to be unconstitutional.

Now, feminists are trying to declare rape a “civil rights violation”.  Remember that the college rape “tribunals” got started because of a letter to colleges from the Dept. of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.  The trick feminists are using is have have men accused of rape not charged with a crime, but a “civil rights violation”.  Because these men don’t get charged with an actual crime, they are denied due process.  This is a violation of the spirit of our entire legal system and the constitution.

This reminds me of a science fiction TV show from the 90s, Bablyon 5.  In that show, the President of the Earth Alliance (all of Earth plus all human colonies) wanted to make himself a dictator.  One of the things he did was to create a organization called the Nightwatch which was designed to root out non-“peaceful” behavior.  (This could be easily be replaced with civil rights “violations”).  Non-“peaceful” behavior conveniently included criticizing the government of the Earth Alliance.  The Nightwatch wasn’t involved in the criminal justice system so it did not need to follow the rules of due process.  Even people who had joined the Nightwatch questioned this:

Because the Nightwatch was enforcing directives from the Earth Alliance political office (which could be replaced with the Office of Civil Rights easily) due process was thrown out the window until someone was charged with an actual crime.  In other words, a person who committed a burglary, for example, would get full due process, but someone who criticized government policy would be dealt with by the Nightwatch who was completely free to ignore due process.  The reason for this was that burglars or bank robbers or drug dealers or most criminals weren’t a threat to the coming dictatorship (which happened later in the series).  Anyone who spoke out against the government was.  Rather than completely take away due process which everyone would notice, they took away due process only in the areas that were relevant to them.  This allowed them to hide what they were doing.

Feminists are trying to do the exact same thing.  Feminists don’t care about taking away due process from burglars, bank robbers, drug dealers, etc. because the crimes those people commit aren’t crimes where (it is assumed that) women are the victims.  On the other hand which something like rape, feminists want due process taken away because they want women to have the power to destroy mens lives just like the Earth Alliance government in Bablyon 5 wanted the power to destroy anyone who criticized them.  (It goes without saying that male victims of prison rape won’t benefit from this.)  Also, like the Earth Alliance government, not trying to take away due process in general gives feminist the benefit of being able to hide what they are doing (at least until the lawsuits from men start showing up).  This is why colleges were chosen to host these “tribunals”.  By starting them on college campuses, most people wouldn’t be in a position to notice them especially since they wouldn’t have a broader effect on due process.

On Babylon 5 the endgame of the Nightwatch was to merge it with regular security/police (which happened).  Similarly, the feminist endgame to the college rape “tribunals” is to merge them into the government as a “civil rights” court and enforcement system where due process is ignored since it is not a criminal court.  Such a thing is a violation of the US Constitution and needs to be destroyed before it can even be created.

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 302015
 

It’s impossible to talk about space exploration nowadays without talking about Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX (and Tesla Motors and SolarCity).  Thus, it is not surprising that feminists have declared war on Elon Musk.  For example, this feminist article from The Guardian falsely accuses Elon Musk (along with Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson who have their own aerospace businesses) of working on a secret plan to allow the rich to escape EarthAnother feminist attacked Musk for describing humanity as stuck on Earth as well as Musk’s South African heritage. (She also said that the colonization of Mars was “white colonialism”.)  Another article from The Guardian said that Musk’s work would lead to a #GamerGate takeover of Mars.  Feminist attacks on Musk aren’t limited to things related to space exploration.  Musk was falsely accused of berating an employee who missed a meeting to be at the birth of his child.

Why do feminists attack Elon Musk?  Some of it has to do with his involvement in the tech industry, namely PayPal.  (That is why Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson were attacked along with him.)  Musk is now the most visible proponent of space exploration, particularly private space exploration.  In other words, he can’t be shutdown with politics like NASA can.  The fundamental reason is that Musk’s goals are the direct opposite of the goals of feminists.  Musk wants humanity to survive, and survival requires that humanity not be stuck on one planet.  Musk is working to ensure the future of humanity with his goal of colonizing Mars.  Feminists don’t care about that because they are greedy and it doesn’t benefit them.  Plus, if Musk is successful in colonizing Mars then nerds, gamers, and every other man that feminists hate will have a place to go that is outside of the reach of feminists.  Feminists can’t stand that.

Oct 252015
 

I have decided that the theme on the blog this week will be the feminist war on space exploration because feminists are constantly attacking space exploration from so many angles.  A feminist in the magazine, Scientific American, attacked space exploration as being excessively male (and white and American)Feminists attack space scientists like Dr. Matt Talyor who successfully accomplish new things like landing a probe on a comet over the most trivial of reasons such as his attire.  Feminist website, The Good Men Project, outright lied about NASA’s budget effectively accusing NASA of eating up most of the federal budget.  Feminists have also made space out to be a place where women will get raped.  Feminists have attacked Elon Musk many times.  (I will write about that later this week.)  Feminists have attacked the plaque that was put on the Pioneer 10 probe for “having a man raise his hand in a very manly fashion”:

The plaque shows a man raising his hand in a very manly fashion while a woman stands behind him, appearing all meek and submissive

Here is the Pioneer 10 plaque where a man is being very manly:

And feminist attacks on space exploration aren’t limited to what actually happens.  Feminists have Interstellar, a movie where thanks to space exploration humanity is saved from a dying Earth, as “aggressively masculine”.  They also said that the spaceship in Interstellar was an extension of the penis.

Why do feminists attack space exploration?  The main reason is that space exploration has nothing specifically to do with women.  As we know between 70% to 80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women.  Money spent by governments on space exploration is money not spent on women.  It doesn’t matter that the amount of money spent on space exploration (both by government and privately) is infinitesimal compared to the amount of money spent on women.  Feminists are greedy and want it all.  Attacking space exploration is also an extension of feminist attacks on science such as by Sandra Harding who called Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual.  Space exploration is also very nerdy, and feminists hate nerds as we see with things like #GamerGate.

Something to consider with nerds and space exploration is that space exploration is a way to escape Earth.  In the last several decades, nerds went off on their own and created Silicon Valley and the modern tech industry.  Feminists do not want to see that happen again with space exploration, especially since if nerds move to Mars (or elsewhere in space), they will be out of the reach of feminists.

Oct 082015
 

Forbes pulled an article called “There Is No Diversity Crisis In Silicon Valley” from its website for allegedly violating Forbes’ terms of service.   The article is now available at TechRaptor (and other websites).  After reading the article, I can only conclude that the Forbes terms of service prohibits talking about how wildly successful Silicon Valley is.  And that is the real issue here.  Lots of feminists and manginas say that Silicon Valley needs diversity (which really means women), but the success of Silicon Valley proves that this is not the case.  There’s this idea that if Silicon Valley doesn’t become “diverse” (a.k.a. hire a bunch of women who have no business working in Silicon Valley), then some sort of vague calamity is going to destroy Silicon Valley in a manner that is somewhat similar to how Godzilla destroys Tokyo in Kaiju movies.  The article’s great crime was showing this to be nonsense.

Sep 192015
 

By now I’m sure you have all seen the latest feminist whining about sex bots.  I’m constantly amazed how every time a feminist whines about sex bots it is treated as a new thing instead of a constant feminist war on sex bots.  I would also think that feminists would eventually figure out that there is much to worry about before a true sex bot is available for men such as VR sex.  They probably won’t since feminists aren’t involved in the development of new technology so they don’t understand how there are a lot of intermediate steps in the development of new technologies.

Every time a feminist whines about sex bots the same arguments get brought up about whether men will actually make use of sex bots or not.  Where these arguments fail is that they do not take into account just how bad women are getting especially for younger men.  Young men are getting fed up with women faster than any other group of men.  (It’s also worth pointing out that the article at that link STILL gets lots of hits years after I wrote it.  It has gotten more hits than any other page on this blog.)  On top of this consider the specter of false rape accusations such as mattress girl and Jackie that young men now have to deal with.  Men in college are choosing to date off campus so that they won’t be the victim of the campus false rape industry.  Because of dating off campus, the next push will be to expand college kangaroo tribunals to cover sex between a college student and a person who doesn’t go to college.  With that and the development of VR sex that will be happening in the next few years, “date off campus” will become “no sex with human women until graduation”.

Young men, who aren’t stupid, will choose “no sex with human women until graduation” since that will be the only way for men to protect themselves from the campus false rape industry.  VR sex can also provide alibis to men false accused of rape by women they never had sex with since the VR sex system can log when it is being used.  If a man is using a VR sex system, then obviously they weren’t doing anything else.  Given the education (pun intended) young men will be receiving from choosing “no sex with human women until graduation”, men aren’t going to suddenly choose to give up VR sex entirely for human women the day after graduation.  Young men will ask themselves if women couldn’t be trusted not to make false rape accusations in college, why would they be trustworthy later?  Thus the effect of “no sex with human women until graduation” extends beyond college even if a man occasionally has sex with human women.  This is what nobody is talking about when it comes to VR sex (or sex bots), and it’s a greater threat to women than anyone realizes.

Aug 292015
 

At a commenter’s suggestion, I added a page listing all my articles about the things feminists have declared war on.  That got me thinking.  Feminists have declared war on things such as hygiene and doctors.  But what about dentists?  So I decided to do a Google search on feminists talking about dentists.  Google unfortunately provided plenty of proof that feminists are declaring war on dentists.

This feminist accused her dentist of sexual harassment.  Did the dentist try to grab her boobs, offer her a discount on dental procedures if she put out for him, or anything like that?  Nope, the dentist simply tried to sell the feminist on a cosmetic dental procedure.  When a dentist tries to sell a woman a cosmetic dental procedure, apparently that’s now sexual harassment.

That’s not the worst of it.  Feminists have invented the concept of “tooth shaming” which is similar to how feminists are attacking doctors for “fat shaming” for warning their patients when their weight is a threat to their patients’ health.  I guess brushing your teeth and flossing now oppresses women or something.  None of this changes the fact that dental health is connected to our general health in so many ways.  The health of our teeth are more important than women feeling “tooth shamed” so we should keep brushing our teeth and flossing and going to the dentist twice a year.  Taking care of our teeth make make women feel oppressed and “tooth shamed” but our teeth are too important.

Aug 252015
 

Feminists are attacking doctors by accusing them of “fat shaming”.  I did a google search on “doctor fat shaming”, and it turned up a massive number of hits of web pages where feminists were attacking doctors for allegedly “fat shaming” them.  In reality, doctors are not fat shaming anyone.  Doctors are informing their patients of health conditions that can negatively impact their patients’ lives.  Accusing doctors of “fat shaming” makes as much sense as accusing doctors of “smoking shaming” if a doctor warns a patient that smoking is bad for their health.

What is behind the feminist war on doctors?  There’s the obvious fact that a lot of fat women don’t want to be reminded that they’re on their way to Type 2 Diabetes.  However, that’s not the whole issue.  Doctors practice medicine, and medicine is a science.  As we know feminists have been attacking science.  Feminists attacked Dr. Matt Taylor, a man who led a team to successfully land a probe on a comet, over a shirt.  Feminists forced Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize winning biochemist, out of his job because of a bit of humor.  Feminists are lying about NASA and trying to get it shut down.  This is only a tiny fraction of the cases where feminists attack science.  It should surprise no one that feminists would attack medicine, since it is another science.

Since feminists can’t stand science, including medicine, they won’t be satisfied until the only doctors left are witch doctors.

Aug 182015
 

We have already seen women become filthier and filthier. Feminists have been saying that potty training oppresses women.  There are an increasing number of examples of women pissing and taking dumps anywhere but a toilet.  (And that includes everything from women taking dumps in showers to women pissing outside like a pet.)

That is bad enough, but it turns out that women are taking less and less showers.  In a British survey, nearly 80% of women admitted that they aren’t taking daily showers. Many women are even showering less than once every three days. (Additionally, two thirds of women in the survey don’t remove their makeup before they go to bed, and one eighth of women in the survey admitted to not brushing their teeth before they go to bed.)  At this rate, women are going to stop showering and taking baths.  In a hot month like August women are going to stink, and it will be a very nasty stink.  And that’s before adding on the stink from that will come from refusing to properly use a toilet.

This will be a just another reason for men to go their own way.  Very few men will choose to deal with women who continuously stink and are covered in a layer of filth.  It’s disturbing that women think that they can do this without men objecting to it.

Jul 282015
 

When feminists aren’t trying to destroy NASA, they have declared war on air conditioning.  Yes, air conditioning.  Jezebel has complained about it.  So has The Telegraph in the UK.  The Washington Post called air conditioning, “a big sexist plot”.  This isn’t a single feminist whining about air conditioning.  It’s widespread.

Air conditioning is part of HVAC, and I have talked about how HVAC is a critical technology.  Without HVAC we wold not have space exploration or computers.  Since feminists are already attacking the tech industry and NASA and space exploration, it makes sense to attack a technology and an industry that vital to their existence.

If feminists think that HVAC oppresses them, then they can do without it.  Let them work in 100 degree offices during the summer just like many men who have to work outside during the summer.  Let them freeze to death in the winter or force them to use old technology for heating like wood stoves.  Of course, they will probably complain that wood stoves are misogynist.

Jul 092015
 

Any business, hobby, or interest that is primarily made up of men will get attacked by feminists.  This is why we have #GamerGate, attacks on the tech industry, attacks on open source software, attacks on scientists from Tim Hunt to Matt Taylor, attacks on comics, and so forth.  The craft beer industry is also primarily male, and it is now getting attacked by feminists in many different places from Salon to the Chicago Tribune.  It’s to the point where we need #CraftBeerGate.

The craft beer industry has several similarities with the tech industry.  Besides being primarily male, most craft breweries are new.  There are around 3500 breweries in the US, and half of them were started after 2010.  Just as the tech industry has men forming lots of startups, so does the craft beer industry.  Just as startups have come up with new and better products, craft beer startups have brewed new and better tasting beer.  And like how tech startups have been criticized for lacking HR (a.k.a. female deadweight), the craft beer industry has been attacked for lacking “professionals” in marketing.  (This is even more of a link considering that marketing is female dominated and afraid of technology.)

The craft beer industry also has at least one similarity with video games.  Just like how feminists have produced crappy games like Depression Quest, which really shouldn’t even be called a game, there is even a feminist beer from Brazil for sale called Feminista.  As you can see from the pic the label is colorless, lacks creativity and is all around bland.  We can safely assume that that Feminista beer is bland as well.

So what will happen if women take over craft beer?  Just like how women taking over tech would destroy innovation and the culture of startups in the tech industry, women taking over the craft beer industry would lead to small breweries being destroyed leaving a few large companies brewing piss water like Feminista and slapping a beer label on it.  This is why we should all support the craft beer industry, assuming you care about fighting feminists and preserving high quality beer.  I do so I’m going to be drinking some craft beer tonight.

Jan 072015
 

Intel has decided to throw $300 million at diversity in tech nonsense.  One of the recipients of that money will be Anita Sarkeesian.  Intel’s supposed goal is to have Intel’s US employees reflect the racial and gender makeup of the US population by 2020:

 

Assuming that Intel is in anywhere serious about its goal of “full representation” in its workforce by 2020, there is only one way to do it.  Intel is going to have to fire a lot of people.  Of course, white men will be fired, but they won’t be allowed to sue Intel for discrimination.  However, white men won’t be the only group fired en masse from Intel.  A disproportionate number of Indian American and Asian American men work at Intel compared to the percentage of Indian American and Asian American men in the general US population.  The difference in percentages is likely to be greater than the percentage of white men that work at Intel compared to the US population.  While Intel will have to fire lots of white men to reach its goal by 2020, Intel will have to fire a lot more Indian American and Asian American men.  This is going to be a real problem for Intel.  Indian American and Asian American men fired by Intel will have no trouble bringing a massive class action racial discrimination law suit against Intel.

It’s also possible that Intel will have to fire some of its Indian American and Asian American female employees.  The tech industry has a disproportionate number of foreign born women working in it compared to the general population so it’s likely the same is true at Intel.  Not only would that would add to the racial discrimination lawsuit, but it would be a visible battle between immigrant women trying to make a better life in America vs. pampered rent seeking American women.

Overall, this is just another example of the war on Indian American and Asian American men working in tech.  Intel can’t just go after white men to reach its goals.  Intel has to pull the trigger on firing Indian American and Asian American men which will show all of its talk about diversity is garbage.

Dec 252014
 

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.  I hope you’re having a good Christmas.  Unfortunately, we have to talk about Anita Sarkeesian today.  Sarkeesian lies about video games.  She also lies about other things like Christmas Carols:

Here is a good takedown of Sarkeesian’s lies:

Everything Sarkeesian says is lies.  She starts out by twisting the Mariah Carey song, “All I want for Christmas is you”.  It’s a song with an anti-materialist message about how the important thing at Christmas is being able to spend it with your loved ones.  Somehow this positive message is oppresses women.  I can’t figure out Sarkeesian’s reasoning on that.  I suspect that Sarkeesian is worried that women might not get as many presents from men if men follow the advice of the song.

As bad as that is, Sarkeesian is a bigger liar about the song, “Baby it’s cold outside”.  Sarkeesian says that it’s a date rape song.  To be able to get anywhere near that idea she has to lie about the song’s lyrics.  As is pointed out by the second video above, Sarkeesian cuts off the song right before the lyrics clearly contradict what she is saying.  Sarkeesian is engaging in lies and manipulation.  This is not surprising for anyone that’s familiar with her videos on video games.

I think we need #ChristmasGate to add to all the other anti-feminist gates.  That way we can get the War on Christmas people to do something useful for a change by going after Sarkeesian and her ilk.

Translate »