The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What #GamerGate Should Teach Us (But @JesseSingal Refuses to Learn)

Posted on | April 27, 2016 | 40 Comments

The world does not divide along neat political lines, but the temptation toward what Julian Sanchez dubbed epistemic closure is one that too many journalists are unable to resist. To approach the news from a perspective of partisanship — “Does this help Our Side?” — is the kind of error that leads to Walter Duranty acting as a propaganda agent for Stalin’s regime. Perhaps being an apologist for Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian, Sarah Nyberg and Randi Lee Harper isn’t an error as dangerous as Duranty’s cover-up of the Ukrainian terror-famine, but those responsible for the one-sided coverage of #GamerGate in the liberal media still don’t understand how they got it so wrong.

Let’s go back to WikiLeaks and #Anonymous, OK? Nearly the entire Left, and their comrades in the liberal media, were deeply prejudiced in favor of Julian Assange’s operation and so, when the hackers of #Anonymous sprang into action to defend Assange, the media portrayed #Anonymous as self-evidently heroic. On the other hand, I saw #Anonymous as a criminal conspiracy — DDOS attacks and other hacker exploits against banks, etc. — and my negative view was ultimately vindicated, when several of these hackers were exposed, arrested and prosecuted. The mythology of heroic hackers did not reflect who these people actually were in real life, and the attempt to justify their criminality on political grounds was a punk move: “Society made me do it! Blame society!”

Oddly, the same media that celebrated #Anonymous as heroes circa 2011 was eager to believe, in 2014, that #GamerGate were a bunch of reactionary misogynists, even though it was basically the same crew. Can we admit this, please? The same kind of nerd/geek dudes — the 4chan crowd — whose digital swarming tactics made #Anonymous such a ferocious force were also largely pro-#GamerGate. It’s weird how, in retrospect, the liberal media were all in favor of nerdy antisocial misfits when they could be fitted neatly into a progressive narrative and construed as heroic underdogs. It was like the #Occupy movement, really. Once you got past the liberal media hype, who were the dudes camping in Zuccotti Park? Losers full of self-pity, rationalizing their personal failures with left-wing politics. If you can sell the media on your narrative, journalists will help you conceal the disconnect between your heroic image and your grubby reality, the same way Walter Duranty concealed the truth about Stalin. And this factor — the willingness to tell a story a certain way, to fit a liberal narrative — got turned around against #GamerGate in a classic example of how media bias works.

Portraying #GamerGate as anti-feminist, and depicting the SJWs (social justice warriors) as victims of misogynistic “harassment,” the media was willing to ignore key questions: Who were the SJWs? Were their motives altruistic or selfish? Was it not the case that a lot of the SJWs were, by their own admission, afflicted with mental illness? Weren’t a lot of SJWs basically no-talent losers, trying to cash in by wrapping themselves in a costume of feminist victimhood? And wasn’t it true that #GamerGate exposed some rather shady connections between various SJW types and journalists covering the videogame industry?

My friend Beth Haper encouraged me to take a sustained interest in #GamerGate, the origins of which controversy are famously tangled, and the significance of which is not generally understood. At the time Beth called my attention to it, I had zero idea who Anita Sarkeesian was, or how her “critical theory” attack on the videogame industry related to my research into radical feminism, as Beth assured me it did. Now these connections seem obvious to me in a way they did not in the fall of 2014.

For conservative journalists, every story is ultimately a media bias story. If the mainstream media weren’t biased, there wouldn’t be any reason to try to expose the truth that gets omitted from the mainstream media. Sometimes I have to stop and remind myself that I actually am a journalist, and not an ideological ax-grinder or a professional “activist” type. My habit has always been to immerse myself completely in whatever story I’m covering — The Gonzo Way — and it takes an effort to step back and obtain some emotional distance from whatever it is I’m currently obsessed with. Tomorrow or next week, there will be another story for me to dive into, and I’ll forget all about this. Occasionally, a friend will remind me of a story I covered two or three years ago, and it seems like another lifetime. The Kaitlyn Hunt controversy of 2013, for example — I dug so deep into that, and now who even remembers it? But I digress . . .

The “Social Autopsy” controversy erupted on the periphery of #GamerGate this month. Basically, an entrepreneur named Candace Owens had an idea for an anti-bullying site which she hoped to fund with Kickstarter. Because the description of her project seemed to overlap SJW concerns about online harassment, Owens drew the attention of Zoe Quinn, Randi Lee Harper and other enemies of #GamerGate. Basically, it seems, SJWs perceived Owens as a competitor in the “stop harassment” racket Quinn & Co. have successfully exploited. Whether or not Owens’ project was a good idea is largely irrelevant to what ensued, namely that Quinn & Co. ganged up against Owens, and some media friends of the SJW crowd tried to spin the story in Quinn & Co.’s favor.

Here, let me quote the Encyclopedia Dramatic version of it:

Naturally, such a venture [as Owens’ site “Social Autopsy”] would create competition for Quinn and Harper’s golden goose, Crash Override. Quinn responded to this threat to her victimbux by dogpiling the creator’s Twitter. After this uncomfortable fact was exposed, Quinn renamed one of her dozens of Twitter accounts, @primeape which totally doesn’t make her look guilty. Harper responded by composing an angry blog post at Medium.com admitting that she and Quinn colluded in an ill-advised and probably illegal scheme to get Social Autopsy’s Kickstarter shut down. . . .
Corrupt “journalist” Jesse Singal reached out to Owens claiming he would write a neutral piece for New York Magazine, a formerly respectable magazine, now desperately trying to hang on to some degree of relevance. Turns out he is BFFs with Quinn and Harper, even participating in the harassment received by Owens, and he instead penned a hitpiece on Owens.

Is that account entirely fair and accurate? I can’t vouch for all of it, but it’s a concise summary of how Jesse Singal disgraced himself in an effort to spin the Quinn/Harper attack on Owens as something other than what it self-evidently was. Singal evidently divides the world into neat mental categories, where anyone who is against #GamerGate is fighting on the side of the angels, and this led him to write a story that concealed how Quinn/Harper had collaborated to sabotage Owens’ project.

JESSE! WAKE UP! THEY’RE CRAZY!

This is where being old enough to remember the 1960s and ’70s comes in handy. Get enough radicalism churning in society, and you’ll find that kooks come out of the woodwork to attach themselves to “social justice” movements. Really, how was it that “civil rights” gave way to the criminal thuggery of the Black Panthers? How did “peace and love” lead to the Manson Gang? Where did the Symbionese Liberation Army get the idea that assassinations, kidnapping and robbing banks was the way to go? And why did all those dimwits follow Jim Jones to Guyana, huh?

“Social justice,” you see, is a magnet for kooks.

If you haven’t read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, now would be a good day to remedy your ignorance of how “mass movements” operate, and the kind of kooks and misfits and hustlers who predictably flock to whatever the trendy “cause” of the avant-garde might currently be. This problem was overlooked by the liberal media who jumped aboard the SJW  bandwagon, condemning #GamerGate as a bunch of misogynists engaged in harassment. Over and over again, we found SJWs with biographies that seemed rather problematic. When you find ex-strippers and transvestites and people with chronic mental problems clustering up around a “social justice” movement, expect bad things to happen. When such people invite you to participate in their persecution complexes, a wise person will say, “No, thank you.”

Jesse Singal and some other liberal journalists were incautiously sympathetic toward the kooks and hustlers of SJW-ism.

Kaine Damo lays out the problem quite clearly:

We have been asked by mass media to trust this person [Zoe Quinn]. And when we say we don’t, if we dissent from their narrative, we get labelled harassers, sexists, a hate group, on and on.
GamerGate is a microcosm of a much larger problem with media. Every single day these supposedly reputable establishments give us reasons NOT to trust them. They deserve our skepticism. When media was banging the Iraq war drum it was obvious to any one that an outlet like Fox News had a focused agenda to push. The fact is, this is true of all major media outlets. They all have fallible people who fail to fact check, they all have friends to cover for, they all have their own agendas to push, and so they all need to be treated with skepticism. This is why GamerGate archives everything.
The same media that is telling you to believe Zoe Quinn is telling you that the gaming community and wider geek community is laden with misogynists, many of whom are intent on driving women out of gaming altogether, and video games contribute to sexist attitudes. This is a false moral panic, constructed by a handful of people, a convenient scapegoat to label dissenters from their narrative as terrible human beings and to use emotional manipulation for profit.

Bingo! A “false moral panic, constructed by a handful of people” — and where is the skepticism toward the motives of SJWs? Why are journalists willing to believe that Zoe Quinn is a selfless altruist? Why is it that, when #GamerGate says such people are con artists turning “social justice” into a corrupt racket, this makes #GamerGate the villain of the story?

People need to wake the hell up. Kooks are dangerous.

UPDATE: Was #GamerGate About Fake Victims Faking Fake Harassment?

 

Category: Media Bias

Feminism: It’s About SCIENCE!

Posted on | April 26, 2016 | 92 Comments

 

Sex is about reproductive biology. Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex.

Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details. Young people have to figure out how to attract potential partners, how to choose a good partner from among the prospective candidates, and how to negotiate a relationship that will lead toward lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — i.e., a successful marriage — because this is the ideal situation in which to raise children.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Science and the Bible are not really in disagreement about sex. Godless atheists enjoy denouncing Christianity as “superstition,” but insofar as successful reproduction and child-rearing are concerned, do we find that Darwinism actually has anything to teach us? And am I the only one who has noticed that the fanatical advocates of Darwinism generally don’t do much in the way of reproducing the species? Having announced the Death of God in 1966, making godlessness the basis of their worldview, the secular elite now claim to worship at the altar of Science, and you might expect that pursuing a “survival of the fittest” strategy would lead these devout disciples of Darwin to procreate abundantly. Alas, no.

 

Those who imagine that they can kill God simply by not believing God exists are not as scientific as they claim to be. After all, if God does exist, his existence is independent of human belief, and therefore the logic of atheism is highly irrational. Atheists begin their argument with the conclusion — “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1 KJV) — then seek evidence to support that conclusion, and confirmation bias always leads them to believe they are correct.

The motive for this search, of course, is that fools wish to live in a godless world where they can pursue their own selfish desires without limits. If God does not exist, there are no rules, you see. Atheism therefore attracts to its banner immoral hedonists and greedy materialists, as well as power-mad totalitarians who want to dictate their own rules to the rest of us without regard for any eternal standard of Right and Wrong. If we are Beyond Good and Evil, as Nietzsche believed, then everything is simply about The Will to Power and, once people start thinking this way, it is only a matter of time before the Panzer divisions are rolling across the Polish frontier and the Stukas are dive-bombing Warsaw.

The lessons of the 20th century, however, have not been properly taught in our schools, and so our university campuses are nowadays under the administration of godless fools, who sometimes seem shocked to discover that their students are dangerous totalitarians. It turns out, quite routinely, that the atheist decides the Meaning of Life is “Give me what I want” and “Do what I say,” a philosophy of selfish irresponsibility.

Marriage and parenthood are not very compatible with such a philosophy, which is why the godless so often fail to reproduce. Nietzsche, of course, died a lunatic, most likely as a result of tertiary syphilis, and more recently Michel Foucault died of AIDS, but it is among feminists that we find the perfect philosophical expression of the Culture of Death.

The road to Equality is paved with dead babies. Feminism’s idea of “empowerment” for women requires forsaking motherhood and, once the possibility of procreation is excluded, what does sex mean? If a woman decides to be a non-participant in the reproduction of the species, does she have any need for marriage? Indeed, why bother with men at all? This feminist argument has been obvious for many decades:

In 1980, Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” . . .
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

That quote from my book Sex Trouble (pp. 109-110) is not merely a summary of arguments by Denise Thompson, who is author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today. All she did was to describe a phenomenon that may be observed by anyone who studies feminism. Whatever else her ambitions include, if a woman desires to find a husband and have babies, there are obvious limits to how far she can go in supporting feminism, because the feminist movement is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood.

 

Feminism is fundamentally an anti-male ideology, and therefore is ultimately also an anti-heterosexual ideology. Whether or not the young woman who joins the feminist movement begins with any inclination toward lesbianism, she will discover that her commitment to the movement’s ideology makes it difficult for her to find happiness in heterosexual relationships. The kind of men who seek women as wives — romantic men, those who hope to find lasting love in a permanent, monogamous relationship — will tend to avoid women who denounce marriage as slavery, an institution of “social subordination.” Likewise, the young feminist will find that her support for the movement tends to exclude from her companionship any man who desires to become a father. Feminism is implacably hostile to motherhood, advocating abortion and contraception, and celebrating childlessness as the ideal expression of women’s liberation from the oppressive yoke of patriarchy. The social consequences of this hostility are obvious.

“Certainly all those institutions which were designed on the assumption and for the reinforcement of the male and female role system such as the family (and its sub-institution, marriage), sex, and love must be destroyed.”
— The Feminists, 1969

“Pregnancy is barbaric.”
— Shulamith Firestone, 1970

“Women’s oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species. . . .
“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. … Women’s bodies are possessed by men. … Women are an enslaved population. … Women are an occupied people.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1977 speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in Letters from a War Zone (1993)

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpin­nings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“The term motherhood refers to the patriarchal institution . . . that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women.”
— Andrea O’Reilly, Feminist Mothering (2008)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

The logical consequences of feminism are not usually apparent to young women when they first join the movement. A young woman feels she is treated unfairly in some way and the promise of “equality” appeals to her, and so she starts calling herself a feminist. She begins reading feminist writers who tell her that she is a victim of oppression, and she learns a vocabulary — “sexism,” “misogyny,” “objectification,” etc. — to describe male behavior she doesn’t like. She develops an attitude of resentment and suspicion, a sort of sexual paranoia that makes it impossible for her to enjoy normal interactions with men. If a man expresses admiration for her beauty, he is objectifying her with the “male gaze.” She despises men who are sexually interested in her, who want to possess her body, to degrade and enslave her in the tyranny of male supremacy.

Her hostility toward “the patriarchal institution of marriage” (Jaggar) may not immediately lead the young feminist to reject “the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse” (MacKinnon), yet she must avoid any man who is interested in finding a wife, and she must also renounce any desire to have children, because her “oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species” (Small). Having thereby abandoned the kind of scientific understanding of sex that is apparent to any eighth-grade biology student, what purpose is served by her relationships with men? If sex is nothing but immoral hedonism — the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake — then what is a man to her, other than an instrument to serve her own selfish needs? And if a man does not willingly accept this role, if he has needs and purposes of his own, how or why would he possibly be of any interest to a feminist?

A young woman who becomes a feminist as a high school or college student is unlikely to perceive all the implications of her ideology. She aspires to a professional career and, insofar as she thinks of marriage and motherhood at all, these are merely potential choices for the future, activities she might choose to pursue when she’s 25 or 30, once she has gotten her degree and established her career. She therefore must avoid any genuinely serious romantic involvement with her boyfriends, because such a relationship could lead toward “the patriarchal structures” (Jackson and Scott) of the traditional family. In postponing serious relationships with men, the young feminist thereby makes herself unavailable to any man who is interested in finding a wife, and she makes this decision at an age — in her teens or early 20s — when young people normally begin pairing off together, engaged in the process of courtship aimed toward forming lifelong partnerships. Despite the trend toward postponing marriage and parenthood, the typical first-time mother in the United States is about 25, and most American mothers have two children by the time they’re 30. More than 42% of women who eventually become mothers have their first baby before age 25. A woman who delays motherhood thereby diminishes the likelihood that she will ever have any children, and there has been a remarkable increase in childlessness.

 

These trends demonstrate the influence of the feminist movement, which encourages young women to reject sex in its basic scientific meaning, i.e., as naturally related to procreation. Feminism tells young women that they should pursue sex on the basis of immoral hedonism, as pleasure without responsibility. Most young women who adopt this irresponsible attitude do so with the mistaken belief that the choices they make in their teens and 20s will have no permanent consequences. The young feminist believes she can be promiscuous in her youth without impairing her ability to find a husband later, and that she can choose to postpone motherhood without any increased risk of childlessness. She believes in equality, and therefore listens to feminist advice. She doesn’t bother to ask what equality may require, or who is giving her this advice.

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

“The labels I currently use for myself are queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible. (Basically, I’m a lesbian with exceptions.) The label bisexual doesn’t work for me right now. . . . I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.”
— Miriam Mogilevsky, October 2015

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
— Laurie Penny, October 2015

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Do you suppose many young women would call themselves feminists if they were informed of the character of those who lead this movement? Do you suppose many teenage girls hate babies, identify as “genderqueer,” or look forward to the morning when they wake up with genital herpes? Yet these are the attitudes, beliefs, identities and behaviors that the feminist movement celebrates. This is the “empowerment” and “liberation” that feminism encourages in the name of “equality.”

Those who worship at the altar of Science exhibit a remarkable willingness to ignore any fact that does not fit their theory, and we are not surprised to see strange claims made by those who ignore eighth-grade biology lessons. Feminist Tumblr is full of these young lunatics.

Simple Objective Fact of the Day:
opposite-sex relationships are favored in society because of heterosexism. People in same-sex relationships are allowed to point this out.

Actually, ma’am, “heterosexism” is necessary to “society” because without “opposite-sex relationships,” there would be no “society,” because there would be no people. This is an “Objective Fact” that we are allowed to point out, but even if we never pointed it out, it would still be true.

Because a statistically insignificant fraction of the world’s children are now conceived with the extraordinary assistance of Science, some people seem to believe that “opposite-sex relationships” are as obsolete as VHS tapes, manual typewriters, and vinyl 45-rpm records. Everybody’s gay now, and in the near future, all babies will be conceived in laboratory petri dishes, implanted in hired surrogates who will be paid to give birth, and then this generation of scientifically produced super-babies will be raised by trained experts in government-subsidized daycare centers. It is only the ignorant prejudice of “heterosexism” that causes “society” to expect that children will continue to be produced the old-fashioned way. And now, for some Simple Objective Facts:

Top Ten Countries by Total Fertility Rate
(Average lifetime births per woman)

  1. Niger …………………….. 6.76
  2. Burundi ………………… 6.09
  3. Mali ……………………… 6.06
  4. Somalia ………………… 5.99
  5. Uganda ………………… 5.89
  6. Burkina Faso ………… 5.86
  7. Zambia …………………. 5.72
  8. Malawi …………………. 5.60
  9. Angola …………………. 5.37
  10. Afghanistan …………. 5.33

Excuse me for suspecting that “heterosexism” is still quite prevalent in Burundi and Burkina Faso, Uganda and Afghanistan, and that all births in these countries result from “opposite-sex relationships.” While I suppose there might be some people in Mali or Malawi who could afford the “scientific” method — in vitro fertilization, etc. — why should they bother? These high-fertility societies aren’t suffering from any shortage of mothers and babies, whereas on the other hand . . .

Total Fertility Rates for
Selected Industrial Nations

South Korea …………… 1.25
Japan …………………….. 1.40
Greece ……………………. 1.42
Italy ……………………….. 1.43
Germany ………………… 1.44
Austria …………………… 1.46
Spain ……………………… 1.49
Switzerland ……………. 1.55
Canada ………………….. 1.59
Denmark ……………….. 1.73
Australia ………………… 1.77
Belgium …………………. 1.78
Netherlands …………… 1.78
United States …………. 1.87

The appropriate phrase here is demographic collapse, although “decadence” and “societal death spiral” might work as well.

Making atheism the basis of their belief system, celebrating selfish immoral hedonism as Science, feminists are the Darwinian Dead End.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . .”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

To reject God is to reject life. The curse is upon them.

Science? It’s so simple any eight-grader could understand it.

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.





 

 


Category: Contraceptive Culture, Religion, Science, Sex Trouble

Feminists Demand Quotas for Award Nominations at Cannes Film Festival

Posted on | April 26, 2016 | 36 Comments

What does “equality” mean? This is the question people fail to ask when they accept the claim that feminism is simply about equality. Most people think of “equality” as a synonym for fairness, and are willing to agree to a definition of feminism as equality, because everybody is in favor of fairness, right? If you don’t want women to face unfair discrimination, you are a feminist — or so you might believe, if you don’t pay attention to what feminists actually say and do. Consider, for example, the Cannes Film Festival, which is in an uproar because feminists say not enough female directors have been nominated for awards:

With Andrea Arnold’s American Honey, Mal de Pierres by Nicole Garcia and Maren Ade’s Toni Erdmann, just three films out of 20 — or 15 percent — in the official selection at this year’s Cannes Film Festival are directed by women.
But that’s not the festival’s problem, according to artistic director Thierry Fremaux. “To have more women in Cannes, we have to have more women in cinema,” he said after the lineup was announced April 14. “Cannes is not the problem. Do not blame Cannes.”
Rose McGowan shared an idea for the rest of the lineup. “Those 17 who are not women should be forced to walk down the red carpet in high heels,” she told The Hollywood Reporter, referencing the fest’s “flatgate” controversy last year, during which it was rumored that women would be required to wear heels on the Croisette. “There are so many levels of embedded misogyny that people don’t even realize; it starts with, ‘You have to wear high heels,’ and goes to ‘We don’t accept you as a filmmaker.'”
“The reality is, most of these men are not great,” McGowan continued. “What’s good now is considered ‘great,’ and what’s mediocre is considered ‘good.’ That has to change.” . . .

Here’s a simple question: Why?

Why should we care who directs movies? Why should we care whether the director is male or female, black or white, gay or  straight? Directing a movie is about finishing the project on time and under budget. While the director is considered the auteur, responsible for the overall quality of the product, it’s still just a product — a commodity in the marketplace — no matter the artistic considerations that awards like Cannes are intended to recognize. Investors put their money into movies, with producers and studios acting as brokers in this market, and the object of the game is to make profit for the investors. Whether or not a profitable movie is also recognized as artistically “great” is ultimately less important than the bottom-line consideration. A “great” movie, from the standpoint of  investors, is one that makes a lot of money and so the real question here is, are women directors making movies that make money?

Answer: I don’t know.

We know that women directors can make box-office hits — Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle, You’ve Got Mail), Amy Heckerling (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Look Who’s Talking, Clueless) and Penny Marshall (Big, A League of Their Own), for example — but I have no idea what the overall profit picture looks like on female-directed films. However, the feminists complaining about award nominations for women directors at Cannes don’t give a damn about profit, do they? Neither do feminists give a damn about audiences (the people who pay to see movies, and are thus the source of profit) and they don’t give a damn about the actual work that a director must do to deliver the product on time and under budget.

What feminists care about is an idea of “equality” that actually results in favoritism — quotas for women, or else they’ll file a lawsuit or organize a boycott or just protest and complain until somebody gives them what they want. And what do feminists want? More.

This constant demand — “More!” — is characteristic of totalitarianism. You give Hitler the Sudetenland, and then he annexes the rest of Czechoslovakia, and next he invades Poland. There is never a final demand. Give the feminists everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. Even if all the films nominated for awards at Cannes were directed by women, feminists would still find something to complain about, because this is what feminism is about — complaining. No amount of “equality” will ever satisfy feminists, and this is why I say Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.

You can never negotiate with totalitarians. Attempting to appease totalitarians through compromise is always a prelude to surrender.

 

Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

Jian Ghomeshi, Sexual Harassment and the Enchanted Crocodiles of Feminism

Posted on | April 25, 2016 | 58 Comments

 

Most Americans have never heard of Jian Ghomeshi, but he’s a celebrity in Canada. Ghomeshi was apparently a serial harasser of women. He was accused of sexual assault, put on trial and acquitted last month. This touched off an endless carnival of pontification by Canadian feminists, who are arguably the most unhinged feminists on the planet.

The largest Canadian feminist website, Feminist Current, is operated by Meghan Murphy, a latter-day disciple of Andrea Dworkin, and Murphy’s reaction to the Ghomeshi verdict was classic:

What we know about Ghomeshi — that he is sadistic; that he is a classic abuser, grooming and manipulating his victims, painting them as jealous liars after the fact; that he is a bully and a narcissist — unfortunately didn’t come into play in terms of [Judge William] Horkins‘ decision. My opinion is that, whether or not the judge was able to determine, without a doubt, that the stories told by the complainants were wholly true, Ghomeshi’s behaviour shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that he is an abusive man. . . .
To me, and to most other feminists in Canada, the small details don’t matter. What Ghomeshi’s victims remember, what they discussed with others, and what their responses to Ghomeshi’s behaviour were don’t make a shred of difference in terms of our understanding of both what the victims went through and continue to go through, as well as in terms of our opinion of Ghomeshi. . . .
“Guilty” or “not guilty” is not a good enough conversation, in this circumstance. If my ex hadn’t backhanded me across the face one night, how would I describe his abuse to a police officer or to a judge, in court? What would he have been found “guilty” of?
The answer, of course, is: nothing.
Not only do we not understand that psychological, verbal, financial, sexual, and emotional abuse are always at play when there is physical abuse, but it also isn’t acknowledged that these things are generally unprovable to outsiders. We don’t understand that men manipulate women into “consenting” to abusive, traumatic sex all the time, to the point that we feel we “chose” it willingly and tell ourselves we enjoyed it.

In Murphy’s interpretation, Ghomeshi is transformed from a guy on trial for specific crimes into a symbol, and his bad behavior is generalized to represent the abuse that all men (collectively) inflict on all women (collectively) under the oppressive system of male supremacy.

Three years ago, Ace of Spades wrote this:

It occurs to me — as a skeptic and secularist — that if you seek to put away Magical Thinking, you put it all away. If you disbelieve in God, then you really ought to disbelieve in Transcendence as well, and Rightwing Sorcerers, and Magic Words, and Sustaining Myth-Lies, and all the rest of it.
One amusement to me, as a lonely disbeliever on the right, is noticing this about the Left: The Left imagines that their disbelief in God frees them from superstition.
In fact it does no such thing. The Left’s disbelief in God does not free them from superstition — rather, it frees the superstition to infect all other modes of their thought.

Ace was writing about the way liberals interpreted the JFK assassination to suit their own essentially religious purposes. The Left clings to myths that justify their commitment to politics as religion and, in doing so, they immanetize the eschaton, as Eric Vogelin would say. Pursuing secular salvation, they become heaven-on-earth crusaders. As fanatical advocates for utopian schemes, they convince themselves that all The Smart People share their beliefs, and accuse their opponents of ignorance and prejudice. Liberals refused to accept the obvious explanation of JFK’s assassination — the pro-Castro madman Lee Harvey Oswald — because this did not fit their conception of how the world works and therefore Kennedy’s death was reinterpreted to fit the liberal mythology.

Correct Opinions and Confirmation Bias

We see this kind of “Enchanted Crocodile” thinking (you really have to read Ace’s whole piece to get the significance of that phrase) whenever the media seize on some event and go into What Does It Mean mode, where the news becomes a didactic lesson, an excuse for liberals to treat us like we are children who need adult guidance to form the Correct Opinions.

Consider, for example, the Black Lives Matter movement that emerged in the wake of the death of Michael Brown in a St. Louis suburb. In her forthcoming book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, Heather Mac Donald tells how this incident was generalized and imbued with symbolic meaning:

The August 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, spawned a narrative as stubborn as it was false: Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson had allegedly shot the 18-year-old “gentle giant” in cold blood while the latter was pleading for his life, hands raised in surrender. After Brown’s death, rioters torched and looted Ferguson businesses. The facts were that Brown, a budding criminal who weighed nearly 300 pounds, had punched Wilson in the face, tried to grab Wilson’s gun, and charged at him, leading Wilson to fire in self-defense.
In the months that followed, the lie that Brown had died in racially motivated police execution was amplified by the media, college presidents, and the left-wing political class. The newly formed Black Lives Matter movement promoted the notion that black American males were being hunted down and killed with impunity by renegade white police officers.

There is an element of confirmation bias involved here that was exploited by Black Lives Matter. Let us stipulate that the average black person encounters racism on a regular basis, in small, ordinary ways. Very few people are truly “color-blind” and, while outright racial hatred is not common, every black person can describe certain attitudes and behaviors they notice that are in some way prejudicial or discriminatory. More than 50 years past the triumph of the civil rights movement, however, no intelligent adult in America needs another “Racism Is Bad” lecture and yet the liberal media seems to believe we do. To watch CNN coverage of any story with a racism angle, you get the idea that the producers think of their network as a sort of church, and the rest of us are all sinners in need of liberal salvation. All the problems afflicting black America could be solved, if only we cared as much about black people as the CNN producers do. Read more

Category: Sex Trouble

Teenager Livestreams Her Friend’s Rape

Posted on | April 24, 2016 | 33 Comments

Marina Lonina (left) and Raymond Gates (right)

The Decline and Fall of American Civilization:

An Ohio teenager accused of live-streaming the rape of her 17-year-old friend has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges stemming from the alleged incident in February.
Marina Lonina, 18, a student at New Albany High School, outside Columbus, was attempting to record the assault as evidence, her attorney, Sam Shamansky, said during a court appearance Friday.
“She’s in the habit of filming everything with this app called Periscope,” Shamansky acknowledged, according to ABC affiliate WSYX. . . .

(There’s an “app” called 911, you know.)

Her co-defendant, Raymond Gates, 29, also pleaded not guilty and his bond was set at $300,000, according to CBS News.
The pair has been charged with rape, kidnapping, sexual battery and pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, according to NBC affiliate WCMH-TV. . . .
Lonina and the victim — friends who attended the same high school — met Gates at a mall while they were shopping, Shamansky said. He bought them a bottle of vodka and encouraged them to meet the next day, which the victim wanted to do, he said. . . .

(Just a couple of teenage girls, shopping at the mall, accepting gifts of vodka from strangers. What could possibly go wrong?)

They were drinking at Gates’s home in Columbus on Feb. 27 when he began to sexually assault the 17-year-old and Lonina began live-streaming the violence using Periscope, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien said, according to NBC affiliate WCMH.
A police report cited by WCMH accused Gates of holding the victim down using the weight of his body while assaulting her.
The report also says teenager can be heard screaming, “No, it hurts so much,” “Please stop” and “Please, no” multiple times.

Look, I hesitate to be judgmental about these things, but do neither of these girls have parents? And since we’re asking questions, what are they teaching kids at New Albany High School? Is it necessary to schedule classes in “Don’t Accept Vodka From Strangers”?

And what about Mr. Gates? Is it his habit to wander around shopping malls, offering bottles of vodka to teenage girls? How long has he been at this game, and how many other girls have taken him up on the offer?

Is this just what teenage girls do in 2016? “Hey, Marina, want to go to the mall and see if we can find a guy to give us vodka?” It’s all fun and games until everybody on the Internet watches you get raped.

 


Category: Crime

Beware of Sex in the Social Media Age (Because the Internet Is Forever)

Posted on | April 23, 2016 | 44 Comments

 

Jason Lee Weight is a young British writer/director who recently began producing an animation series called Sam Sweetmilk and, according to a Tumblr blogger named Rosie, Jason Lee Weight is a rapist:

This may be triggering so *TRIGGERWARNING*. It was typed in one sitting, so might be a bit all over the place.
For a while I’ve wanted to write truthfully about an assault that took place close to 2 years ago. I want others to be aware of the perpetrator and what they have done, for my sake and others. I’m not ashamed to say that I’m shaking as I type, it’s bloody hard to do this.
Early on the 28th June 2014 I was raped by Jason Lee Weight who is the director/writer of Sam Sweetmilk. . . .

Her 1,000-word account of this incident is either (a) libel or (b) every young man’s worst nightmare in the age of social media.

Let us step back from the (alleged) details of of what (allegedly) transpired between Rosie and Jason on that June night in 2014. Because I am a professional journalist, I understand the risk of repeating what people write on their blogs without including the word “allegedly” and giving the accused party a fair chance to respond.

Jason Lee Weight’s Twitter account is currently locked and we haven’t heard his side of the story. For all we know, he’s got an alibi for the evening of June 28, 2014. Jason Lee Weight might claim he did not attend that party and never met Rosie, who explains in her Tumblr account that on the night in question she was (a) experiencing “withdrawal from my meds” for depression and anxiety, and (b) suffering from vaginismus, which made “penetrative sex” extremely painful for her.

Allegedly, I hasten to add.

As a professional journalist, I am aware of the risk of repeating what people write on their blogs, even what they write about themselves. Young people think they can use the Internet to publish all kinds of weird personal stuff — their herpes infections, for example — and that these strange revelations should never have negative consequences. (It’s “harassment” and “stalking” if you make fun of Ella Dawson’s crusade to “destigmatize” herpes.) Many young people have a Special Snowflake™ mentality, expecting the world to be treat them with deference and kindness, and then claim to be emotionally traumatized when they discover that the world actually doesn’t give a damn about them.

The Special Snowflake™  believes the world is supposed to be a “safe space,” and that social media is like a support group or a therapy session. A young woman can reveal her most intimate secrets on Tumblr or Twitter or  Facebook, and what could possibly go wrong?

 

So here we have Rosie, telling the world that she lives in North East Bedfordshire, where she is suffering from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder and — oh, by the way — she has vaginismus and was (allegedly) raped by Jason Lee Weight in June 2014.

Yeah, let’s just put that on the Internet, and also publish photos of yourself topless, Rosie. Because what could possibly go wrong?

Here’s a word parents need to teach their kids: “Crazy.”

What part of “crazy” do I need to explain here? The Internet is forever, boys and girls. Go ask former Rep. Anthony Weiner what he was thinking before he started sending photos of his penis to women. My old buddy Andrew Breitbart turned that into the biggest political story of 2011, and you might have thought former Rep. Anthony Weiner would have learned his lesson, but no, he got caught again in 2013 having some kind of perverted Internet fling with a sleazy admirer named Sydney Leathers.

My teenage sons got an earful of warnings after that. While I was reporting the breaking developments in the second WeinerGate scandal, it dawned on me that kids (and obviously, too many adults who should know better) are simply not thinking before they hit the “send” button on their text messages and emails. They are not thinking about the possible consequences of clicking the “publish” button on their social media accounts. Nor are people thinking about what they are doing in the real world in an age where everybody’s cellphone has a video camera, where anything a guy does in his dating relationships may become the subject of an online rant by an angry ex-girlfriend, where a guy meets a girl at a party and has what seems to him a consensual hookup only to discover, nearly two years later, that she’s telling the world that he’s a rapist.

Rosie’s account of that night is a classic “he-said/she-said” situation. Her story of that (allegedly) “horrific” June 2014 encounter seems entirely plausible, and Jason Lee Weight’s (alleged) behavior is indefensible. Rosie says she filed a report with police “a long time after” this encounter, but a lack of evidence made prosecution impossible. Because I am not a prosecutor or a detective or any sort of “activist,” however, the question of Jason Lee Weight’s guilt or innocence is not actually relevant to my point. Discussing this allegation in terms of “rape culture” is above my pay grade. What I am trying to do here, as a professional journalist, is to convey the reality of what sex means in the social media age. And what I am also trying to do, as a father of six, the youngest three of whom are teenagers, is to explain to parents, teachers and other responsible adults why young people must be warned very strongly about these dangers.

This is not 1977, the year I graduated high school. This is not 1983, the year I graduated college. It’s not 1989, the year I got married. Heck, it’s not even 2008, the year I left The Washington Times and embarked on a career as a freelance correspondent and blogger. Social media has exploded during the past decade, technology has advanced to the point where rapists are livestreaming their rapes on the Internet, where mass murderers publish their “manifestos” online before they commit their deadly rampages. What does this mean for “casual sex”? To quote the recently departed Prince: “Party over. Oops! Out of time.”

Welcome to 2016, boys and girls. There is no such thing as “privacy.”

Also, we must realize that such concepts as slander, libel, invasion of privacy, harassment and due process of law — the legal means by which people might defend their reputation against such an attack as Rosie has made against Jason Lee Weight — are ultimately futile. Once such an accusation is published, it can never be unpublished. The Internet is forever, and so everything Rosie has published is permanent.

Does it matter, in terms of Jason Lee Weight’s reputation, whether Rosie’s accusation is true? No. Any reasonable person could read her account and, if you wanted to give Jason Lee Weight the benefit of the doubt, you might say Rosie’s story has an unreliable narrator problem. Here is a woman who, by her own admission, is afflicted with serious mental illnesses. She is emotionally unstable, the kind of woman who posts topless selfies on the Internet and she was off her medication the night when she allegedly met Jason Lee Weight at this party. Therefore, in the benefit-of-the-doubt reading of her story, we cannot be sure that Rosie’s account of this alleged encounter is strictly factual. Furthermore, if you’re arguing Jason’s case in defense lawyer mode, you could say he had no idea Rosie was mentally ill and he had never even heard of vaginismus, much less did he know that Rosie was suffering from this rare sexual dysfunction. By her own admission, says the defense lawyer, Rosie kissed Jason at the party, accepted his invitation to go back to his place, voluntarily went with him into his bedroom, removed her clothes and . . .

“Your honor, my client is an innocent man!” the attorney says in the dramatic courtroom scene. “He and this young lady had a very loving and entirely consensual night together, and there is no evidence at all to support her claims that he held her down and forced her to perform sexual acts. Besides which, your honor, that bitch is crazy.”

Well, this might win an acquittal in a court of law, and this would be followed by a press conference in which Jason Lee Weight and his attorney celebrated his legal vindication. But even then, you see, there is still Rosie’s version of events. She can’t prove it happened the way she says it happened, but neither can her account be disproven.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Internet jury, I am not here to argue in Jason Lee Weight’s defense. It is of no concern to me what you think of him or what you think of Rosie. Instead, as a journalist with three decades of experience, going back to the Dark Ages of newsprint before Al Gore invented the Internet, I am here to tell you that social media has made casual sex extremely dangerous, if not practically impossible, for anyone who cares at all about their reputation. A few months before this alleged June 2014 incident, Jason Lee Weight’s Kickstarter campaign to fund his series Sam Sweetmilk had failed, falling about $10,000 short of its original $33,000 goal. Since then, however, the Sam Sweetmilk team has managed to crank out its second episode and, we might suppose, Rosie has become increasingly enraged by the thought that some people believe Jason Lee Weight is a nice person who deserves success:

“Basically I wanted to finally speak out, and say directly that, Jason Lee Weight is a rapist.”

OK, Rosie, you wrote that and put it on the Internet.

We do not know what happened on June 28, 2014, and Jason Lee Weight cannot be compelled to say anything about this accusation.

Here in the United States, we have what’s called the Fifth Amendment, and the 1966 Miranda ruling requires that every suspect be informed when he is arrested that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, et cetera. Every young American ought to be able to recite the Miranda warning by heart. Shut your mouth and lawyer up. You have the right to an attorney and to have your attorney present during questioning, see?

You’d be surprised how many punks never figure this out. They try to explain themselves to the cops and next thing you know, the punk has confirmed that he was at the scene of the crime at the time it went down, and the best the punk can hope for is a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against his buddies, and hey, “Snitches get stitches.”

Shut your mouth and lawyer up, because guess what? “Not guilty” is not a synonym for innocent, and lots of criminals are never brought to justice for their crimes. The charges were dropped for lack of evidence, or maybe a witness decides it would be a good idea to skip town before trial, and who knows what kind of legal errors a lawyer might be able to find in the way the police and prosecutors handled the case? So it often happens that a criminal gets away with his crime and, if he’s smart, he turns away from the outlaw life. He stops hanging around dopeheads and hoodlums, and he makes sure that he never again finds himself wearing handcuffs or locked into a jail cell. He becomes a law-abiding citizen.

Well, according to Rosie, Jason Lee Weight is a rapist who will never be brought to justice for the crime she says he committed in 2014. And I’m sure Jason is telling his buddies, “That bitch is crazy.”

True, perhaps, but “not guilty” is not a synonym for innocent, and the damage to Jason Lee Weight’s reputation is permanent.

The Internet is forever, boys and girls. Whenever I see my teenagers texting on their phones, I warn them to be careful. Never say anything in a text message (or any other digital communication) that you wouldn’t want to see screencapped and published for all the world to see. Never think you can get away with doing something wrong in secret, because you are living in an age where secrecy is never entirely certain and privacy is a fading memory of what life was like before the Internet.

Someone on Tumblr replied to Rosie:

i have reported this post to the person in question.
since you have no evidence of him being a rapist, this is libel / defamation of character and i have suggested he file suit against you.

To which Rosie replied:

it’s sad, that they ^ believe that’s the kind of action to take when reading a rape survivors experience.
And of course I have evidence of Jason Lee Weight being a rapist – HE RAPED ME

To which the other Tumblr account replied:

this is 100% the kind of action to take when you see someone libeling another human being, regardless of circumstances. your story could have been told without names, yet you chose to defame the character of this person.
i hope you have a legal case against him, because if not, he certainly has one against you.
anyway, forgive me if you saying that he raped you is not evidence in the criminal justice system.

You see? Everybody with a Tumblr blog is now playing Internet lawyer. You don’t need me for that. What you need me for is to explain the meaning of “crazy.” If a guy meets a girl at a party, how does he know if she’s crazy? Well, if he says “let’s go back to my place” and she says “yes,” that’s probably a sign she’s crazy. No sane girl would say yes to such an invitation. The dude might have herpes. He might be a rapist.

She barely knows this guy and she’s leaving the party with him? Crazy. Then she goes back to his place, goes to his bedroom, takes off all her clothes and thinks he’s not going to have sex with her? Crazy.

This is what I’ve explained to my sons. There is a direct correlation between (a) a woman’s willingness to engage in casual sex, and (b) a woman being crazy. As a general rule, the quicker she drops her pants, the crazier she is. Every guy is prone to believe that his own personal charm suffices to explain why this woman he just met is willing to leave the party with him for a quick hookup. “He shoots! He scores!”

Yeah, he’s a natural-born winner. The ladies can’t resist him.

That’s what he’s telling himself anyway, as he blazes past the flashing yellow lights and warning signs: “CAUTION: CRAZY WOMAN.”

The Greeks called it hubris, this arrogance that leads a man to destruction. Young guys who become accustomed to success in their romantic pursuits never see the warning signs. A guy like Jason Lee Weight — smart, funny, not bad-looking — might easily have been through a dozen such hookups by the time he was in his early 20s. In a culture that encourages shameless promiscuity, an attractive young fellow with an appetite for adventure will have no shortage of opportunity, and probably doesn’t realize he’s gambling in the Crazy Bitch Casino. Any man who keeps playing that game will eventually meet with disaster.

Did nobody warn Jason Lee Weight? Or had he beaten the odds so often that he didn’t mind pushing his luck a bit? It doesn’t matter. We are talking about unverified allegations here, and I am speaking of general principles, rather than attempting to defend a guy I never met. But you can imagine that a guy leaves a party with a girl, they go back to his place and she gets naked in his bedroom, he’s thinking, “Score!” He’s never heard of the word vaginismus, nor is he cognizant that this girl is mentally ill and off her medication, so when the consummation of their tryst proves difficult (trust me, you don’t want to know the alleged details), our doomed protagonist is not prepared to cope with this unexpected problem, which he has never previously encountered. He can’t even spell “vaginismus,” OK? He barely knows this girl, and has no idea what kind of mental health issues she’s got. How is a guy supposed to know what to do when he hits the Jackpot of Insanity in the Crazy Bitch Casino?

Perhaps no jury in England would convict Jason Lee Weight of any crime, because there are plenty of guys who can tell stories of the time they hit their own Jackpot of Insanity — off the record, of course.

You have the right to remain silent, and the Internet is not the proper venue to hear testimony about your ordeal in the Crazy Bitch Casino, but lots of guys talk off the record to a professional journalist.

A week after Rosie published her accusation on Tumblr, the Sam Sweetmilk account on Twitter sent out this message:

“You can’t feel sorry for yourself. You have to keep going.”

Can we guess what this was about? Yeah, I think so.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” More than two centuries later, fools are still being schooled, and we can see the lessons on the Internet every day.

My sons have been warned. Have yours?




 

Category: Crime, Sex Trouble

A Pro-@TedCruz Rant

Posted on | April 22, 2016 | 318 Comments

by Smitty

Category: Uncategorized

Who Are These Losers?

Posted on | April 21, 2016 | 69 Comments

Never Take Advice From Feminists, unless your goal in life is to become a Crazy Cat Lady. Everyone with a modicum of common sense should understand why seeking advice from failures is unwise. If you want to get rich, you probably wouldn’t ask a homeless drunk on the park bench for advice on how to do it, and neither would any sane woman seek romantic advice from Jaclyn “I’ve Gone Down and Dirty With Strangers” Friedman.

Want to get herpes? Feminists are experts at that, but if you’d like to avoid incurable viruses, maybe you should seek advice elsewhere — Mom, Grandma, any adult with common sense who actually has your best interests at heart. This category excludes Jess Zimmerman:

 

Jess Zimmerman . . . is by all evidence a World-Class Fool. Nothing is ever her fault, you see. Bad things just happen to her because the world is a vast patriarchal conspiracy to make pudgy girls feel sad. She deserves to be loved. She is entitled to admiration (as “the woman who doesn’t prioritize appearance” and exercises her “ability to reject patriarchal standards”) so the failure of others to provide Jess Zimmerman with love and admiration is a social injustice. If you don’t love Jess Zimmerman, you have violated her civil rights.

That was a year ago, when Jess Zimmerman was arguing that men should support “man-hating” feminism because it’s actually good for men to be constantly insulted by deranged ideologues. Or something.

OK, so Jess Zimmerman says men ask her for romantic advice:

Of course, I don’t really want to make a living giving men false hope. But what if I wanted to make a living yelling at them about why their false hope is dumb?
This is a thing I do frequently now for free. Somehow, despite increasingly noisy misandry, I have amassed a small cadre of men who think I’m a good person to confide in. These are friends and partners, so it goes without saying that they are generally not confiding f–ked-up attitudes about women, but they’re also straight men with feelings; consequently, I’ve seen my share of “how do I make her fall back in love with me,” “how do I make her regret rejecting me,” “how do I change her mind.”
The answers are “you can’t,” “you can’t,” and “you can’t,” respectively, but I’ve come up with enough different ways of saying this that occasionally one gets through. It’s something I’m happy to do for the people I care about, but it is not effortless. I’ve fielded hundreds of late-night texts, balanced reassurance with tough love, hammered away at stubborn beliefs, sometimes even taken (shudder) phone calls. I’ve actually been on agony aunt duty for male friends since high school, so if it’s true that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something, counseling bereft dudes may in fact be my only expert skill.

STOP!

Who are these “straight men with feelings” who can’t navigate their relationships without consulting Jess Zimmerman? Look, I remember what it was like to be clueless at 15, but eventually you get the hang of it. Careful observation, trial and error, a commitment to excellence — by the time you’re 18 or 19, maybe you are not yet an acknowledged Master of the Art of Love, but you’re not the kind of hopeless amateur who would seek advice from someone like Jess Zimmerman.

Losers. This is the only word to describe any guy past the age of, oh, let’s say 25, who doesn’t realize that once a woman decides it’s over, it’s over. You had your turn at bat, and you struck out.

Could I tell you stories? Yes. Should I tell you? No.

As far as you know, my life has been an endless series of spectacular triumphs, each one surpassing the one before. Lose? Me?

Never happened. This here cowboy walked away from the rodeo wearing that big championship buckle, so to speak, and never mind how many times I got thrown off and stomped during my years on the circuit.

Pain? Cowboys don’t feel pain. And they sure as hell don’t go whining to some idiot feminist “friend” because they couldn’t finish the ride.

Here’s a clue, young men: Women know you are vulnerable. They know they can hurt you. Some women enjoy hurting men. There are women who are unspeakably cruel, remorseless sadistic monsters whose idea of amusement is ruining men’s lives. These women are called “feminists.”

Used to be, we had other words for these monsters, but nowadays they prefer to be called feminists. They have organized a political movement based on dishonesty, selfishness, and cruelty. They call this “equality.”

Guess what, guys? You are never going to win the “equality” game.

You know why? Because feminists decide what is or is not “equality.”

Feminism is a game in which the rules are designed to ensure that men always lose. A feminist will humiliate a man for the fun of it, mock him behind his back, and celebrate his destruction as social justice.

If a feminist walks into the room, guys, this is your cue to exit. Avoid feminists to the greatest extent possible. There are plenty of good women in the world. Why associate with heartless, lying, evil witches?

Did you know Jess Zimmerman slept with her college professor?

We used to have other words for women like that.

Now we just call them “feminists.”

Never take advice from those sadistic monsters.

 


Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »