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 122016
 

I found a woman on Reddit who should be a candidate for Entitlement Princess of the Month, but what she said is too vile to wait that long.  A woman wrote a post on Reddit titled “Feeling are more important than reality”:

This has been a point I’ve been trying t tackle in my life for a while now, and I’m hoping this sub can help out. I’d like to add a trigger warning for topics of sexual assault.
Often when I’m discussing social topics with people who don’t tend to agree with me the conversation will hit a point where the other person will present some fact that will go against what I have just said, but doesn’t necessarily counter the point I’m trying to argue. So often they just drop supposed “facts” as if that makes the matter ok. I’ll try to present some examples that will clarify what I mean.

Whenever I’m trying to discuss or spread awareness of sexual assault on campuses, it seems that someone will always come along and deny that it’s a problem. He will throw out articles claiming that the 1 in 5 stat is wrong or misleading, and that there really isn’t that much of a problem (as if we could know that for certain). My issue is that even if all these things are true, it doesn’t stop the underlying issue of women feeling unsafe at colleges. It only makes the issue worse if so many women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant. The feelings are being dismissed by the “reality” of the situation and I can’t make myself see what that should be the case. Does empathy count for nothing in today’s world?

Speaking of feeling safe, I find these kinds of people are also dismissive of safe spaces for people of color or other minorities in university. I want to make the same assertion here; If people feel safer in these situations, why is it alright to ridicule them or try and take those spaces away? It isn’t harming anyone, and it’s making people feel better, which is helpful for their well being.

Another example is on International Womens Day a friend on Facebook made a post about how there is still a lot of work that needs to be done for women in todays society. The post mentioned that women still feel afraid to walk outside alone at night. Someone responded by saying that women are statistically much less likely to be assaulted at night than men.

What help is a comment like that? If I’m afraid to be out at night, and I have a 0% chance of being assaulted or raped, and I’m afraid of being out on a night where there is a 50% chance of those things happening and in that instance they don’t, my panicked walk home is the same miserable experience.

Now, I hope I have presented examples that have a clear connection. I’m obviously not arguing that there is no harm in a situation where someone feels like they will be ok if they put their hand on a heated stove element or something like that. I think it’s more for situations where and individuals perception is their reality. What benefit is there is trying to dismiss that by saying that “actual reality” isn’t how they see it? It’s like if someone said “I’m scared of the dark” and someone else said “Why? The dark can’t hurt you”. Even if the dark can’t hurt someone, you’re just disregarding their pain instead of, I don’t know, turing on the lights or something helpful and trivial.

I’m having such a hard time seeing the other side of this. Please change my view!

tl;dr feelings inform our reality, so “feels” are more important than a facts for situations that concern individuals.

I added the bold to some parts of this.  This is an excellent examples of how women think that their feelings are correct when their feelings are practically the opposite of what actually happens in reality.  This woman will defend against that being pointed out, by saying that “her feelings are about making a larger point”.  Since she has the facts wrong in the first place, her “larger points” and feelings are also wrong by definition.  Take when she said, “women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant”.  If something happening is statistically insignificant, then it is a waste of time to be concerned about it.  It is like saying, people in Canada should all learn how to defend themselves against being trampled by an elephant even though the chance of that happening to anyone in Canada is effectively zero.

This is the type of thinking that leads to women believing things like that carbon fiber and glaciers oppress women.  That wouldn’t be so bad if the negative effect of women thinking their feelings override reality only applied to them.  However, it does not.  Everything from the Women In Tech movement’s attempt to remove men from the tech industry to women attacking doctors by accusing them of “fat shaming”  and dentists by accusing them of “tooth shaming” to women attempting to end due process are the result of women believing that their feelings override reality.  The results speak for themselves.  Men either lose their jobs or are in danger of losing their jobs not due to nothing that happened in the real world, but to a woman’s desire to have them removed from her sight.  Our health is in danger because doctors and dentists will be too afraid to speak about it with us since it might offend a woman’s feelings.  We are in danger of losing our rights to due process because it makes women feel bad.  The only way to fight this is to stand up and tell women that their feelings don’t override reality.

Mar 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.

Feb 042016
 

Yahoo is being sued by a MALE former employee who is accusing the company of discriminating against him on the basis of his sex. Looking at the facts, it’s clear that he (and other men) are being discriminated against for being men.  Despite the facts, I don’t expect this lawsuit to be successful, but the results of the lawsuit won’t matter to Yahoo.  Yahoo is already in a death spiral, and getting rid of their male employees is only making things worse.

This lawsuit is a public announcement for men to avoid working at Yahoo if Yahoo is hiring.  It also gives Yahoo’s male employees more motivation to find a new job (if they weren’t aware already that Yahoo is a misandrist hell hole on the verge of collapse.)  Yahoo won’t be able to replace the men who are leaving or laid off with women who are equally as productive as the men.  It’s time to start a death watch for Yahoo.  The only reason that Yahoo has survived this long was that it made an investment in Alibaba several years ago.  If Yahoo hadn’t did that, Yahoo would have already shut down.

Dec 122015
 

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

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

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

Jul 302015
 

One of the women responsible the current war on men working in the tech industry is Elissa Shevinsky.  She wrote an article in 2013 accusing men working in tech of being misogynists, but now she’s says that she is sorry about it:

Shevinsky is now sorry for whatever role she played in creating all of this outrage and silliness. She’s sorry, she writes in her new book, Lean Out, and she adds that her initial position was “flawed.”

“I’m glad to come out in ‘Lean Out’ and say that my original essay — the one that has been the foundation for people assuming that I am [a social justice warrior] — was deeply flawed,” Shevinsky told the Washington Examiner. “I do see sexism and gender issues, a culture war, in Silicon Valley, but the knee-jerk responses (recruit more women! attack the men!) are not the answer.”

Shevinsky still thinks that the tech industry is full of misogynist neckbeards, otherwise she wouldn’t have said that there is “sexism and gender issues, a culture war, in Silicon Valley”.  She is a SJW for believing that.  What happened is that Shevinsky realized that the current feminist attack on men working in the tech industry was not working.  (She is also using this as an excuse to generate publicity for her book.)

Shevinsky confirmed this when she did an AMA on KotakuInAction when she responded to a question asking if sexism was worse in the tech industry:

Tech seems worse, for some reason. It may have to do with the subjectivity that goes into who gets funded and promoted. It may have to do with the collaborative nature of the work (so there is a lot of interaction between people) Also since there are so few women, the women who are in tech get hit on like all the time. And that’s kinda awk for everyone.

Men working in tech hitting on women is sexism?  As we know from incidents like the Scott Aaronson affair, a lot of men working in tech will choose to never hit on women.  Shevinsky will probably accuse those men of sexism too.  Regardless of that any woman who thinks that men hitting on women is sexism because they work in tech clearly can’t be sorry about helping to start a war on men working in the tech industry.

Apr 052015
 

Rmaxgenactivepua brought us this webpage where a woman talks about the fallout from artificial wombs.  It’s an enlightening piece of women’s fear of artificial wombs.  Just look at what the author has to say:

The current War on Women pales in comparison to the potential impact that ectogenesis, a technology in which a human fetus gestates completely out of a mother’s body, will have.

The war on women is a myth, but this means that anyone is who paranoid enough to believe in the nonexistent war on women will be deathly afraid of artificial wombs.

What does it mean to sever human “birth” from the human body? This connection, between women and babies, is one of the sole sources of power that women have in some societies.

That isn’t true, but most of women’s power is derived directly or indirectly from childbirth.  From this and the rest of the article, it’s clear that the author realizes that with other options for children, plenty of men will forgo dealing with women which destroys women’s power.

Ann Oakley’s book The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women illustrates how ectogenesis would be part of a long-standing process by which virtually all male and often misogynistic medical cultures have taken control of birth and women’s wombs in the name of science.  In this framework, ectogenesis will potentially exaggerate preexisting inequities and biases.  In this equation women aren’t liberated, they are further subjugated and alienated from their own bodies and abilities.  This Handmaiden’s Talescenario is fairly believable if you pay any attention to, for example, Rick Santorum’s antediluvian reproductive rights agenda and the number of people willing to vote for him.

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

“Misogynistic medical cultures” produced things like the use of forceps in childbirth which saved many women’s lives.  This tells us that what women are afraid of with artificial wombs is bigger than just artificial wombs themselves.  What women are afraid of is the use of any technology in childbirth, even if they would otherwise die without it.  What science and modern medicine has done is not just made childbirth safer for women, but it has also demystified it.  That demystification has lessened women’s power even when it has benefited them.

Then it gets silly.  The author starts arguing that Tradcons are going to merge with Transhumanists to create some sort of misogynist tradcon cyborg that uses artificial wombs to oppress women.  It’s guaranteed that tradcons will oppose artificial wombs, and one of the reasons they will is because they’re white knights for women.  What this really shows is that for feminists all opposition looks like a tradcon even when that doesn’t make sense.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Perhaps women will no longer be able to hide behind childbirth and child rearing and do real work for a change.  Of course, to the author, this is “violence against women”.

Other feminist analyses takes into account the class and race implications of the enthusiastic adoption of assisted reproductive technologies by the wealthy. Some, eco-feminists, relate the eventuality to correlating a general campaign against nature. Ectogenesis also opens up the real possibility of men becoming mothers and primary care takers.

This is an admission of the author’s (and other women’s) real fear of artificial wombs.  Men will have children on their own, realize that they can raise them on their own, and no longer need women to help them raise children.  Then women have to contribute by doing other work which scares the crap out of them.  This is what the author’s (and other women’s opposition) to artificial wombs (absent a “social justice framework” as she says later in the article which means control by women) is really all about.

People have talked about how feminism has exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, mental, economic, spiritual, civic, physical) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.  The author of the page I linked to is clearly afraid the artificial womb will do the same to expose female inferiority when it comes to raising children.  However, she is wrong because that process has already started without artificial wombs.  Growing numbers of men are coming to the realization that women’s involvement in raising children is at least unnecessary and in a lot of cases harmful.  Paternity testing has shown that many women can’t be trusted to have your children instead of some other man’s children.  There are already commercials on TV advertising fertility clinics abroad to single men so that single men have their own children.  Artificial wombs aren’t the beginning of the process of exposing female inferiority when it comes to raising children.  They’re the end.  The author and her desired “social justice framework” can’t stop what has already started.

Feb 252015
 

Let’s say there is a mangina out there in Silicon Valley who panders to women and wants to “help” them.  For his attempts at helping, he gets viciously attacked by feminists.  Despite the attacks, he does not have the presence of mind to realize that being a mangina was a big mistake.  The mangina in question is Vivek Wadhwa, the Indian-American venture capitalist and academic.

Vivek Wadhwa has been attacked by feminists in the past such as by Shanley Kane, the January 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Feminists have not stopped attacking Wadhwa despite his stated desire to help women in technology.  Here’s a short list of some of the things Wadhwa has been accused of by feminists:

  1. Taking the “oxygen out of the room” by “speaking for women”
  2. Taking credit for the work that two women did in a Huffington Post column
  3. Misappropriating money related to the book he wrote on women in technology
  4. Supposedly direct messaging multiple women on Twitter as a bizarre pretext to sexually harassing them

Because of this Wadhwa has decided to stop talking about women in technology.   However, he has learned nothing.  Wadhwa thinks its his fault for “fighting the battles of women in technology for too long” and “taking the accusations too personally”.  When a group of people lies about you and falsely accuses you of unethical and/or criminal behavior, you should take it personally.  If Wadhwa thinks he took the accusations “too personally”, all that proves is that he can’t see what is really going on.  He can’t see that the issue of women in technology is not about women in technology but a platform to attack men.  Wadhwa can’t see that there is no benefit to being a male feminist.  He must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Jan 232015
 

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

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

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

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

Jan 192015
 

One thing the attack on Charlie Hebdo has done is given us evidence on how feminists view men like Elliot Rodger compared to the Charlie Hebdo attackers.  Both Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers murdered several people.  However, the feminist reaction to Elliot Rodger and Charlie Hebdo has been quite different.

Feminists said that Elliot Rodger was a “misogynist extremist” and a terrorist (that terrorized women) and tried to link him to PUAs and MRAs as if Elliot Rodger was part of a larger group of MRAs and PUAs that constituted something similar to Al Queda.  Anita Sarkeesian has blamed “toxic masculinity” for Elliot Rodger (and other male shooters):

The reality of Elliot Rodger was that he was mentally ill.  This was a man who fantasized about creating a virus that would kill all men except him and was being treated by psychologists since he was 8 years old.  Rodger also murdered more men than women so he was hardly targeting women.  He acted alone and was not associated with any group of MRAs or PUAs.  Since Elliot Rodger is dead, his murders ended there.

This is in complete contrast to the Charlie Hebdo attackers.  They were not mentally ill and were working with Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  Objectively, this makes the Charlie Hebdo attackers much worse than Elliot Rodger.  As long as AQAP is still around, then what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did has not ended.  The feminist reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attackers is to come close to defending them such as with this article from Feministing or in the case of Jonathan McIntosh (Anita Sarkeesian’s “partner” as Feminist Frequency and likely boyfriend):

McIntosh actually thinks that what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did wasn’t that bad because they were “marginalized”.  Feminists pretend that Elliot Rodger is a demon and a terrorist while supporting actual terrorists.  Why do feminists think Elliot Rodger was evil while the Charlie Hebdo attackers are misunderstood?  It comes down to one thing.  Elliot Rodger murdered (pretty white) women so they consider him to be a misogynist despite the fact that he murdered more men than women.  Feminists considered some of the work that Charlie Hebdo published to be misogynist.  It all comes down to the fact that feminists consider violence to be legitimate against anyone they consider to be a “misogynist”.  That is why they treat Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers so differently.  That’s it.

 

 

Dec 302014
 

John McLaughlin is a journalist and political commentator who hosts the weekly show, The McLaughlin Group, a show discussing the weeks political issues.  At the end of every year The McLaughlin Group does a recap of the past year where each member of the group discusses various categories of things like what they think the most defining political moment of the last year was or who the most charismatic politician of the last was.  For the “Most Boring” category of this years recap, McLaughlin said that the most boring thing was the Democrats invoking of the “war on women”.  He said that people were tuning out and ignoring it.

Using the mythical “war on women” to gain votes has gotten to the point where mainstream journalists like McLaughlin are commenting on its lack of effectiveness.  We have seen with #GamerGate that nonsense like the “war on women” is no longer being believed.  It’s gotten to the point where a mainstream journalist has noticed and is willing to comment on it.  This is a big blow to feminism.

Oct 212014
 

I have been reading more articles about the Satya Nadella situation for an article I’m going to write about Maria Klawe.  I have noticed a related issue that is important, the level of hate against Indian-American men in the comments of any article written in the last several days about Satya Nadella.

Let’s take a look at some of the comments to this CNBC interview with Satya Nadella (which was written yesterday and was primarily about Microsoft and cloud technology, not Nadella’s comments about asking for raises):

Did he tell all the women in the audience to STFU?

He is from India. Do you know how men treat women in India. They beat them!!!

He is from India. Men in India treat women like dirt.  He thought that he was going to get cheers from all the men for trying to institute the Indian culture and their hatred for women, here. It is not his fault because it is in his blood to be that way.

Is this the work of trolls?  No, because it is too widespread.  Just look at the comments of any article with comments written in the last several days about Satya Nadella and you will find plenty of comments like those above.  In particular, there’s an obsession with the idea that Indian men are all busy beating Indian women.  In fact, accusations that Indian men are woman beaters aren’t limited to anonymous internet comments.  People are willing to accuse Indian men of being woman beaters in articles where the authors use their real names such as this one.

Why are there such attacks on Indian & Indian-American men?  Men of Indian descent are common in the tech industry and are successful not just as rank and file employees, but as executives and startup founders as well.  They prove that the tech industry does not discriminate against women and minorities.  Also, for practical reasons it’s not enough to just attack white men in the tech industry.  Indian (and Asian) men are numerous enough in the tech industry that even if the white men were taken out, Indian and Asian men would fill the gap, not women and definitely not white women. 

That is what “diversity in tech” is really all about.  It’s get rid of the White, Indian, & Asian men followed by getting rid of the rest of the men when convenient plus foreign born women need not apply.  If you look at the demographics of who is attacking the tech industry, they are primarily white and barring that non-foreign born minorities.

Indian men in tech committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of feminists by being successful in the tech industry.  And they did while coming from a poor third world country where they were worse off than any American women.

Oct 172014
 

It’s been several days since Satya Nadella answered a question about how women should ask for raises, yet I can find that people are still talking about it.  Before, going any further let’s take a look at what he actually said:

You know, the thing that perhaps most influenced me in terms of how you look at the journey or a career – there was this guy whose name was Mike Naples he was the president of Microsoft when I joined and he had this saying where he would say: ‘look, all HR systems are long term efficient, short term inefficient’, and I thought that phrase just captured it.

Which is it’s not really about asking for the raise its knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along. And that, I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don’t ask for a raise have because that’s good karma, it’ll come back. Because somebody is gonna know that’s the kind of person that I wanna trust, that’s the kind of person that I wanna really give more responsibility to.

And in the long term efficiency things catch up. And I wonder, and I’m not saying that that’s the only approach, I wonder whether taking the long term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of ‘hey am I getting paid right, am I getting rewarded right’, because reality is your best work is not followed with your best reward. Your best work then has impact, people recognise it and then you get the rewards and so you have to somehow think that through I think.

The non-italicized paragraphs are the parts that most articles on the web and elsewhere never include when talking about this.

While it’s debatable whether this is good advice for anyone, male or female, looking at the whole quote makes it clear that Satya Nadella believes in meritocracy almost to a fault.  He has also benefited from the meritocracy in the tech industry.  If the tech industry excluded women and minorities like feminists and other leftists say, then Satya Nadella would never have been CEO of Microsoft.  That’s why he’s still getting attacked days after saying this.  Nadella, along with all of the other men of South Asian and East Asian descent in the tech industry, prove that women and minorities aren’t being discriminated against by the tech industry simply by existing.

Nadella reacted to the uproar about what he said by backpedaling.  He should have done the opposite because it’s clear that most anyone attacking him is intentionally misquoting him.  They’re leaving out the first and third paragraphs of what he said.  Nadella should have noticed this and realized that no matter how much he goes into mangina mode, he will always be attacked as an evil tech industry CEO oppressing women.  In many ways, the attacks against Nadella will be worse than if he was white because his existence is a threat to the feminist narrative about women being oppressed.  Even if Nadella becomes the biggest mangina ever, it will not help him.  His existence is a threat to the feminist narrative because he shows that women aren’t being kept out of the tech industry.

Nadella isn’t the only man in the tech industry who could be in this situation.  Any man of South Asian or East Asian descent working in the tech industry could easily get attacked in the same way.  (The only difference is that Nadella is more visible because he’s the CEO of Microsoft.)  In fact, it is easy to find articles attacking all men of South Asian and East Asian descent working in the tech industry as being mustache twirling racists and misogynists.  Here is one such example.  (It even includes garbage like Indian Americans all hate black people and 40% of Indian American men beat their wives.)  When you read the article at that link, the implication becomes clear.  If men of South Asian and East Asian descent don’t get with the feminist agenda, they will be attacked as much as white men are, if not more.  It’s a variant on a kafka trap to trick South Asian and East Asian men into becoming manginas by making them think there is a way out of being attacked like white men.  Like with Satya Nadella, the attacks will not stop by becoming a mangina, since the problem for feminists is that South Asian and East Asian men are in the tech industry.

What Satya Nadella should have done is realized that South Asian and East Asian men working in the tech industry are under attack and done something like start a hashtag called, #NotYour5thColumn (similar to how women and non-white men started #NotYourShield to support #GamerGate).  Feminists claim to include minority men, but in reality they don’t care about them.  There is no way for non-white men to placate feminists.  Satya Nadella is going to learn this the hard way just like many (former) manginas who are white did.

All men in tech industry are under attack by feminists.  Just because feminists went after white men first and now East Asian and South Asian men doesn’t mean they aren’t coming for you.  As the last several days with Satya Nadella have shown us, either we stand together or make it easier for feminists to destroy us separately.

Sep 172014
 

We know that Anita Sarkeesian is definitely lying about at least some aspects of the death threats she allegedly received (if not the whole thing).  This got me thinking about how other public figures and semi-public figures handle actual death threats and wondering how it compares to what Anita Sarkeesian and her supporters have said and done in response to her alleged death threats.

Penn JillettePenn Jillette, one of the two members of the magician duo, Penn & Teller, is an example of a public figure who has recieved death threats.  He has received many death threats from Christians and others due to his outspoken atheism.  Jillette has actually had to contact the police over some of the threats he has recieved, and there is no question that he has actually had to contact the police unlike with Sarkeesian.  Another importance difference between Sarkeesian and Jillette is how Jillette has recieved his death threats.  Unlike Sarkeesian who gets her alleged death threats via Twitter and the rest of the internet, Jillette has received death threats by postal mail.  Based on that alone, Jillette has much more reason to worry about bodily harm than Sarkessian ever would.  It takes much more effort to write and mail a letter than type up a tweet so Jillette has much more to worry about than Sarkeesian ever would.  (This also shows that women don’t have it worse when it comes to death threats online or off line.)

Jillette’s response to the death threats he has received is very different than Sarkeesian’s behavior after she allegedly received her death threats.  First, Jillette doesn’t tweet his (general) whereabouts on Twitter after receiving a death threat like Sarkeesian did.  Jillette also did not use the death threats against him to attack Christians like how Sarkessian and her supporters use her alleged death threats to paint gaming as a hotbed of misogyny.  Jillette has even said that such a response is intellectually, emotionally, and philosophically dishonest.  Neither Jillette nor his supporters have make false accusations about Christians to cover up bad behavior on his part, like how Sarkeesian and her allies have used false accusations of misogyny to cover up corruption in video game journalism.  Jillette also has not used the death threats he has received as an opportunity to line his pockets.

None of this can be used to determine whether Sarkeesian actually received any death threats.  However, looking at how a public figure like Penn Jillette handles death threats shows that a public or semi-public figure typically handles death threats in a manner contrary to how Sarkeesian handled her alleged death threats.  As a result there is a high likelihood that Sarkeesian’s alleged death threats are fake.  It also reveals a lot about the character of Sarkessian and her supporters.

Apr 072014
 

This article at the New York Times is the latest hit piece on men working in the tech industry.  While it would take weeks to fully document the misandry in that article, one thing of note in the article and its comments were the attacks on startups.  In contrast, large companies and government were glorified along with their HR departments:

Dear Women: come to Microsoft, to IBM, to Cisco, to Apple or even to Google/Facebook. We are “dinosaurs” (which means that we have been around for many years) and we actually have an HR department and diversity policies. The older ones among us (Microsoft, IBM, Cisco) are not liked by the macho and libertarian TechCrunch crowd – just like older people are hated by the “cool” young ones.

It’s the same with this comment:

Now, my daughter’s attitude is that she wouldn’t be caught dead applying to jobs with hi tech companies in Silicon Valley. She is repelled by what she hears about the corporate culture – and her impression that it’s filled with people like her classmates. Instead, she wants to work for governmental agencies or companies that she feels are run by “grown ups” such as IBM. This attitude is becoming widespread among female CS majors. I think it’s pretty sad that the best and brightest young women in the CS field are writing off big segments of the tech world as potential employers. These companies better act and act quickly.

The article admits that tech startups are the most innovative part of the economy.  They are not experiencing a loss because women are taking jobs in large corporations and the government.  It has been pointed out that sectors of the economy that employ women are all known for their low productivity.  They are also known for their lack of innovation.  This is not a coincidence.

If women were so vital for success tech startups would be failing left and right, but that isn’t happening.  Instead startups are providing men in the tech industry an escape hatch from working at large corporations and the government.  On top of that startups have made lots of men rich outside of the control of women and the feminine imperative.  Men who work at startups are effectively GTOW with respect to employment.  Their productivity is benefiting themselves and not women working in useless jobs like HR and diversity officers.

The reason why we see this article attacking startups and Obamacare attempting to make it harder to form startups is because it is in women’s interests to see men forced to work in large corporations and the government.  Men are not serving the feminine imperative when they work at a startup.  I also suspect there’s a fear that startups will spread beyond the tech industry.  If other industries have a startup ecosystem, even more me will be able to keep their productivity for themselves.  Startups aren’t just a threat to the feminine imperative in the tech industry.  They are a threat to the feminine imperative in every industry.

Oct 312013
 

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

This year there is an election for governor in the state of Virginia.  The two main candidates are Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, and Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican.  Terry McAuliffe is known for being a major Democratic party fundraiser and has a long history of questionable business dealings.  McAuliffe has no real platform so his campaign has resorted to using the mythical “war on women” to attack Cuccinelli with most of his attacks focused on abortion and birth control.

Invoking the nonexistent “war on women” is par for the course for Democrats.  What is unique about McAuliffe campaign’s use of this tactic is that they are trying to connect Cuccinelli to fathers’ rights groups.  Here is an example:

The “leader” of the fathers’ rights movement that Cuccinelli was representing was Ron Gringnol Jr., a former Virginia House of Delegates candidate, who was in a custody dispute with his ex-wife.  Cuccinelli only “took time off” from being Attorney General because he was closing out the case from his private practice before being Attorney General, and the case was scheduled to be in court two weeks after he was sworn in as AG of Virginia.  What this boils down to is that Cuccinelli was simply representing a man who wanted to see his children.  He was representing a man who wanted to be a father to his children.

Terry McAuliffe does not understand men who want to be fathers to their kids since he doesn’t care about being a father.  When one of his kids was being born, McAuliffe left his wife in the hospital to attend a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.  When McAuliffe’s son Peter was born, McAuliffe stopped for another fundraiser while taking his wife and his newborn son home from the hospital.  When McAuliffe’s son Jack was being born, McAuliffe thought it was more important to argue with the anesthesiologist and obstetrician involved with his son’s birth about socialized medicine than to just be there for his wife and newborn son.

While it’s clear that Terry McAuliffe hates fathers to the point of not caring about being a father to his own kids, the views of his supporters on fathers are worse.  The graphic shown above was posted to facebook, and here is the response from one of McAuliffe’s supporters:

I do not know him personally but any man who would delve into a womans issue such as child bearing and raising children is obviously insane.

This woman is saying that any man who wants to be a father to their children is insane.  She believes that fatherhood should not exist (although it’s safe to assume that she doesn’t want to give up the gravy train of men paying child support).

To cover up McAuliffe’s deficiencies as a candidate for governor, his campaign has run the most anti-father (and anti-male) campaign in American history.  Polls currently show that McAuliffe has a very comfortable lead over Cuccinelli.  While there are other issues involved such as the recent government shutdown, this shows that McAuliffe’s anti-father bigotry resonates with a section of the electorate.  The end result of McAuliffe getting elected will be than even more young men will decide that it’s too dangerous to become a father and to go their own way.

Jul 132013
 

Men’s Rights Edmonton in Canada has done some great work for mens (human) rights recently.  The Vancouver Police Department came up with these anti-male posters that accuse all men of wanting to sexually assault women with the tag line, “Don’t Be That Guy”.  MR-E turned the tables on them with a series of posters called, “Don’t Be That Girl” which were posted all over Edmonton, Canada.  Here’s an example:

dontbethatgirl

 

Needless to say, MR-E’s campaign has generated some reactions such as this woman who wants you report the posters to the government:

Then there’s this mangina who thinks that pointing out the reality of the false rape industry is “rape culture”:

The “Don’t be that girl” campaign is certainly having an effect beyond individuals.  The Vancouver Police Department, who originally created the “don’t be that guy” campaign, is “disturbed” by these posters.  So is the Huffington Post, the Edmonton Journal, and the Ottawa Citizen.  A local TV station in Edmonton talked to a feminist that said women “just don’t like about that [rape and sexual assualt] even though the reality is that the false rape industry is real.  MR-E is having quite an effect with just a little work.  This is the type of thing that can be used to positively promote men’s (human) rights, and it’s an example for all of us to follow.

May 052013
 

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

Feminists say that feminism is about equality.  MRAs and many other anti-feminists know that feminism is really about female supremacism.  Louise Pennington writing in the Huffington Post admits that feminism admits that and believes that “equality” is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the liberation of women:

My original feminism was about equality: women were equal to men and all we needed was the laws to force misogynists to stop being misogynists. The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women. Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic;

What is the “true liberation of women”?  It’s nothing more than female supremacism.  Since Pennington is against both equality between men and women and presumably women having a lesser status than men (because women wouldn’t be “liberated” in this case), the only option left is that she supports female supremacism.  This is confirmed by her attack on equality before the law and elsewhere in Pennington’s article:

Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.

Governments have been waging a war on crime ever since governments have been around despite knowing that the complete elimination of crime (or violence) is impossible.  The only way to even try to do such a thing is a police state the likes of which wasn’t even seen in the Soviet Union.  Neither socialism nor the police state of the Soviet Union were totalitarian enough and female supremacist enough for her because even socialists still pay lip service to equality and the idea that both men and women have human rights:

Until two years ago, I would have still identified as a socialist-feminist, although my awareness of the structural oppression of women was growing. The unrelenting misogyny and rape apologism on the left made me reconsider my political stance as did the creation of the Feminist/Women’s Rights board on Mumsnet. The more I read on Mumsnet, the more radical my feminism became. I started reading Andrea Dworkin, Natasha Walters, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Susan Maushart, Ariel Levy, Gail Dines, Germaine Greer, and Audre Lorde. I learned about cultural femicide and I started reading only fiction books written by women: Isabel Allende, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Kate Mosse, Margaret Atwood, Kris Radish, Barbara Kingsolver, and Andrea Levy amongst many others. I started reading about women’s lives and the power of real sisterhood.

My feminism, both the definition and activism, has changed dramatically over the past 18 years. Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy. The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too. I don’t always feel a ‘real feminist’ or a ‘good enough’ feminist. All I know is that I am a feminist who truly believes that women have the power to liberate all women from male violence; that feminism is fundamentally about the power of sisterhood.

My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices. I now only read books written by women. I try to get my main news from women’s news sites and women journalists like Soraya Chemaly, Samira Ahmed, Bidisha, Helen Lewis, Bim Adewunmi, and Sarah Smith. I follow only women journalists on Twitter and Facebook. I support organisations which are placing women’s experiences at the centre of public debate: Women Under Siege, The Everyday Sexism Project, and The Women’s Room UK.

Pennington says here that she is privileging women over men.  It’s not just about what Pennington reads or her actvism.  Throughout her article, Pennington doesn’t just attack the a general vague idea of “equality”, she attacks very specific ideas of equality, namely equality before the law.  Being against equality before the law means that Pennington wants to elevate women above men legally which is the most important aspect of female supremacism.  There can be no doubt here that Pennington is a female supremacist and that feminism is about female supremacism.  

Apr 032013
 

One thing I have noticed about many of the articles that have been written about the whole Adria Richards situation is that they either explicitly or implicitly try to communicate that there is some sort of misogynist internet troll army or MRA internet troll army.  (This is a good example, and so is this.)

The reality is that this is a myth.  The truth is the internet trolls that went after Adria Richards have no connection to the MRM (or the tech industry) and can’t seriously be called anti-feminist much less misogynist.  The trolls came from places like 4chan and amorphous groups like Anonymous.  Anyone can claim affiliation with 4chan or Anonymous, so every and any point of view will be represented by those groups (if they are even cohesive enough to be called groups).  4chan and Anonymous will go after anyone that any of its “members” feels like going after.  For example, 4chan recently spread fake rumors that Justin Bieber raped a 13 year old girl so as you can see internet trolls go after anyone, not just women.  Anonymous has gone after anti-feminists so no one can honestly say that Anonymous is opposed to feminism.

It’s important to be aware of this information because feminists will use internet trolls as an example of an army of misogynists abusing women over the internet ignoring that internet trolls do the same thing to everybody.  We need to counter this myth that internet trolls are some sort of adjunct army of the MRM (or misogyny in general) whenever it comes up.

Mar 082013
 

Today is International Women’s Day, and a video game called HERadventure was supposed to be released today.  As you can tell from the name, HERadventure is a feminist video game.  It’s about a black woman “superhero” from another planet (likely she will be an illegal alien) who comes to Earth because women’s auras are diminishing due to things like “negative self-esteem, discrimination, eating disorders, and depression”.  Yes, this is going to be an actual video game.

What video game company would create such an absurd and money losing video game (that also promotes pseudoscience)?  None of them because video game companies aren’t that stupid.  This video game was created by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.  Your tax dollars went to funding this useless video game.

I would be very surprised if this video game even gets released today.  Even if it does, they won’t be able to give this game away even if they payed people to play it.  This is guaranteed to be a flop.

Translate »