Things I learned on twitter

 

#1 You can kill people with jokes.

cwcz2xzxaaaglhl

#2 Signs prevent teh rapes

It is physically impossible to follow your daughter into a public restroom(a common rape location apparently) if there is a (gender role reinforcing :P) sign on the door.

#3 University clubs are the same as the university itself

There they cannot have policies about what they want at their club, unless of course it is a womynz only club – they it can have any policies that they want. #equality

Advertisements

1) Make Bed 2) Regret it 3)Lie in it

So I was reading some old rad-fem drivel by everyone’s favorite “feminist ally”* Jonah Mix and I happen across some comments by women outraged at his maleness. It was hilarious, TL;DR – his blaming of porn for everything is terrible because he is a man and therefore should be using his male privilege talk to other men only – makes sense, just like women should never become doctors lest they have male patients to whom they would need to explain things about their own male bodies – that would be madness.

You can read more in the comments of this feminist current post, it’s great: Celebgate why aren’t we talking about pornography 

But it gets better – turns out there is an entire blog (on tumblr obviously) devoted to helping Jonah Mix check his while male privilege manfeminists.tumblr.com

So you can breathe a sigh of relief if you were worried that rad fems would unite and start being effective at eroding freedom – never gonna happen.

*A man who is too submissive to call himself a feminist lest he be considered uppity by his female superiors

#radfems #triggered #jonahmix #HomecomingOfChickensForRoostingPurposes #lol #allmenrape #TERF #hashtagmassacre

Youtube unboxer on biology

I’ll make this quick ’cause this video is so saturated with wrong you could write an entire book about it. In no particular order:

Claim 0: “Boys will be boys” was once perfectly acceptable …

Slavery was once perfectly acceptable – this is not an argument.

Claim 1: UK universities have closed chemistry departments because feminist quotas lead to tons of women taking chemistry but then they lose interest because women are not naturally inclined towards science, so they take psychology instead and then the chemistry department has to shut down ’cause everyone left.

  1. That’s batshit insane, they still have chemistry in the UK, google it.
  2. Psychology is a science
  3. Historically women were prohibited from taking psychology because women are not “naturally inclined” towards it, obviously

Claim 2: In studies (which he does not cite) baby boys will stare longer at a machine than a face.

Babies cannot stare at a “machine” at all since they’ve no concept of what a machine is, also machines did not exist during most of human history and they likewise did not exist while our prehuman ancestors evolved into humans. It is impossible that humans evolved such that human babies who are male are interested in machines.

Also the first mechanical computer program was developed by a woman
(Ada Lovelace), the first programming language was developed by a a woman (Grace Hopper) which perhaps might cast some doubt on this completely unsupported theory that “women can’t technology”.

Claim 3: “.. It’s the reason why children gravitate towards different toys”

Usually parents buy the toys based on stereotypes about what children might like. Children gravitate toward whichever toys they are given.

Claim 4: “That’s not saying that women are more irrational it just means that they are more predisposed to being so potentially” (At approx 4:10)

I am not saying that your arguments are idiotic just that they are inclined towards being idiotic most of the time… potentially.

Claim 5: “It[testosterone] offers creative thinking”

Jay Cutler – undisputed king of creative thinking.

And that’s just the first few minutes out of 21, Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all.

Bonus:

At about 4 minutes -“Feminism always gives the impression that girls are mandatory and men heh they’re optional” – Really?! Always? Name 1 mainstream feminist that says that.

Only dumb people like freedom, apparently

Victor Malarek is a Canadian journalist who has been researching the issue of prostitution for many years and wrote several books on the subject, one of which I had the (dis)pleasure of reading.

I suggest you Bing his name to find some of this many interviews and speeches on his books, you will note that while he does a good job discussing the problems of forced prostitution one part of his argument stood out to me as a freedom enthusiast: Iat one point he tells an interviewer “there are all these buffoons out there that think that porn is about free expression… it’s smut” – my question is what research has he done on the issues freedom and censorship? If he had for example read up on the cases the Comicbook Legal Defence Fund was involved in he would be aware that prohibiting things simply because thy are discussing or offensive has very real and dangerous consequences – consider the case of Tom Neely & Dylan Williams

Here is a good quote about their experience visiting Canada with comic books:

“These drawings look like children…” and he flipped to another page and pointed out a panel in which two characters are kissing, and said that he thought would be inappropriate if they were “children.” I told him that I remembered an interview with Blaise where he said they were “first year art students in art school.” and he asked “Can you find anything in this book that would indicate their age?” Dylan flipped through and found a panel of a character mentioning an “unemployment check” and that a kid wouldn’t have that. The guard said “okay that might help…” and that he’d have to take it back inside for another look.

Think about that for a moment – being questioned by law enforcement about the age of cartoon characters because they are kissing – it’s not some paranoid fantasy it is already happening and it is the natural consequence of the evidence-free approach to porn that Malarek and many others actively promote.

Guess who masochism is named after?

If you are an avid viewer and reader of radical and mainstream feminist media you might have come across this classic video by AntiPornography.Org and left wing radical activist Ben Barker:

In this video they try to argue that sadomasochism is inherently misogynistic due in part to the fact that sadism is named after the Marquis de Sade (a man *gasp*) The reason why this is funny is that immediately after discussing the fact sadism is named after a man they conveniently forget to discuss the etymology of masochism giving the impression that masochism is always associated with women, it is of course .. drum roll please.. also named after a man – a man who paid women to dominate him during sex, because wouldn’t you know BDSM preferences are not specific to any one gender.

Ben seems like a swell guy but next time maybe Bing the terms you are going to discuss so that you avoid glaring omissions that undermine your point.

Go away! Why are you not listening to me?

One of the recurring themes of the writing on radical feminist website feministcurrent.com is that feminism is not for you because only cis women who studied “radical feminist analysis” (whatever that it) are the only people who can truly understand feminism. This is undoubtedly going to help recruit countless people into the movement.

Let’s have a look at a specific article by feminist current founder Meghan Murphy, it is titled “The problem with the ‘I am a feminist’ campaign.”

In this article she argues that campaigns that encourage more people to identify as feminists are not very good because people may not realize that it is a political movement which has no room for individual preferences, which is an interesting choice for a person who operates a website that has a very specific definition of feminism which is very different from other peoples definitions and this includes people who edit dictionaries – that’s just an aside of course the main problem with this and many other similar articles is the entitlement that underlies it. Other people do not owe you very much and they do not have to do anything to understand your position on things so it is very odd for someone to say – “well.. you could join the movement to abolish oppression of us but I am not sure you have the cred” because of course a very reasonable response might be – “I guess you’re right, I’ll just keep doing what i was doing before then.” I don’t know where radical feminists get this idea that everyone owes them things, do you do? You can feel free to comment although you probably are unworthy of this blog so maybe you’d better not.

 

 

Women shave their legs because all men are paedophiles

As I am writing this the most commonly shared article on the radical feminist website feministcurrent.com is “You’ve heard of rape culture, but have you heard of pedophile culture?” written by one Alicen Grey. The article attempts to but does not succeed at discussing the potential harms of how women are represented in the media for the simple and sadly very common reason of not stating any specific harms.

The post which you can read at here on feminist current instead attempts to shock you by advancing the very dubious argument that all removal of body hair and attempts to look younger = all men are paedos (this is a rough paraphrasing). The explanation of beauty standards of course leaves more questions than it answers – for example why do male actors remove body hair, why do male athletes athletes do the same?

This post like many radical feminist writings and speeches does not meet the most basic requirements for contributing to intellectual discourse – it fails to state a specific hypothesis and it fails to provide any evidence for the claims that it tries to convince you of.

P.S.

“In pedophile culture, I often catch men in public checking me out with eyes full of lust, until they see the hair on my legs — at which point, they resort to a theatrical display of disgust.”

Have you considered the possibly that people simply find you unattractive, just as you would probably find a man with enough back hair to wave a rug out of to be unattractive?

P.P.S

“Small labia, tight vaginas, intact hymens, baby-soft skin, hairless limbs and vulvas, eternal youthfulness, tiny frail bodies… As tumblr user reddressalert wrote, “how do we not recognize that this is essentially a description of a baby or a toddler?””

If your description of a toddler includes “intact hymens” and “hairless limbs and vulvas,” I would suggest you might have a very unusual way to describe toddlers. I would simply describe them as “very small children.” But what do I know being a man and all.

5 Ways Men Can Help End Sexism

Today we are going to take a look at Jonathan McIntosh’s video “5 Ways Men Can Help End Sexism”. While this presentation is undoubtedly very well meaning it suffers from many of the same problems as other presentations about social issues in general often do.

This is not a comprehensive review of that video just an overview of the most problematic parts.

You can follow McIntosh at @radicalbytes

@0:14
The problems with this video start almost as soon as McIntosh begins to introduce the subject of the video. One of the first things he says is: “How can men help or how little should we be helping” – this assumes a subservient role for men which is unjustifiable because facts including facts about sexism are not “owned” by any one group of people, men can understand feminism as well as a woman.

@0:37

“Feminism is a sociopolitical movement with the central goal of ending sexism and dismantling gender based oppression”

McIntosh’s definition of feminism is not very good, he does not cite where it is from and it uses loose, colloquial terminology – a better, more accurate definition can be found in the Oxford Dictionary of US English:

“The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.”

@ 4:10

“It is especially vital to listen to women of color particularly black and indigenous women” – why not Asian or Latino?

@ 4:50

“we shouldn’t go around interrogating or demanding answers from women”

It would never occur to me to ask random women about sexism since they likely would not know very much about it, being a woman does not make you an expert in all things related to women.

@6:50

“If you make a comment and a woman dismisses or disagrees with you, don’t take it personally. She doesn’t owe you anything and her disagreement does not necessarily mean that she herself is angry or frustrated with you as an individual. That being said, it is completely understandable for women to express anger about sexism. Sexism should make everyone angry.”

“you don’t get a cookie for being a decent human being.”

Basic decency and social norms are not suspended when talking about feminism – I am not obligated to understand other people and their problems. Women certainly have the right to dismiss people and to not listen to them but they should expect that those people will not like them very much and will be much less likely to care about their problems in the future. As far as the comment about not getting a cookie – people are much more likely to do things they are incentivized to do, so while no one is obligated to appreciate efforts by men to understand and address sexism the less you appreciate it the less most men will do it.

There are also some good points made in the presentation as well, such a the fact that gender roles can be harmful to men as well, however his seeming reliance on exclusionary radical feminist theories which are usually shallow and unscientific detracts from the presentation.