#feminism

We’re all beholden to a paymaster but we have the freedom to choose

4B900A56-FAB5-49E5-B894-13C335E4F28D

CNN gleefully chose to publish an article written by the plainly unbiased and objective author of the book “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” Jill Filipovic:

If you’re going to vilify others for supposedly disrespecting a song, you should probably choose to sing it loud and with pride, not just sing a few of the words. The upshot of Trump’s cynical anthem ploy is to feed racist white anger at blacks who don’t stay in their place — football players are apparently supposed to risk their own health and safety to entertain spectators and line the coffers of mostly white team owners, but not demand basic human rights.

Surely for feminists she might consider that these NFL players ‘choose’ to play cognizant of all the risks associated with it. Take it another step. Isle of Man TT motorcycle racers are often privateers fighting for glory with little or no pay. 250 people have died in practice and races there over the time it has run. Where are Filipovic’s tears? She should note that women are also risking their lives in the TT. Surely another chapter in her book?

Interesting to see that seats for certain NFL games are selling for as little as $3 each. Of course better games starring more popular teams show firmer (albeit deeply discounted) pricing but one can’t help but think this is a continuation of the backlash against the kneeling saga. Regardless of the views of the players, their employers (aka the fans) are evaluating them by their wallets. Seems like the message hasn’t got through. If they wish to continue to kneel deep discounts which incorporate the social cost to the fan have to be provided until the ultimate financial impact to the players is reached.

Filipovic complains at the oppression of blacks. She overlooks that Asians post WW2 in America had even fewer rights and privileges. They adapted and overcame and now are among the highest paid ethnic groups from one of the lowest. So much so that the market now says, according to Thomas Sowell,

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans — and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.”

CM doubts Filipovic will fight for the oppressed white mortgage borrowers.

Now Clinton lost the 2016 election because sexual harassers like Matt Lauer were the problem

BFD89AE0-BEFF-4967-A9DC-404A6BF6974B.jpeg

Just when the lame excuses couldn’t get any worse, the NY Times’ Jill Filipovic, in ‘The Men who cost Clinton the Election’ thinks that Clinton lost because of the male journalists (recently fired for claims of sexual harassment) were too tough on her and too easy on Trump. We are 12 months on from the election and despite the 10,000 excuses we’ve heard as to why she lost, this one is truly grasping at straws.

Filipovic wrote,

Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality…Mr. Charlie Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump.”

So Matt Lauer went for the jugular? Isn’t that the point of these debates or commander-in-chief forums – to make the politician squeam under pressure? So her deleting and bleaching 30,000 emails was not a relevant topic?

Mr Halperin painted her as a ruthless and corrupt candidate, when her foundation was exposed for pay to play, the hiring of Debbie Wassermann-Schulz as her campaign director after she brazenly knifed Bernie Sanders during the DNC run-off or receiving the debate questions in advance from Donna Brazile?

Indeed, it is hard to see how Charlie Rose had an impact on the 2016 election when he was tough on her post the event.

Still one can’t escape the fact that for however horrible Trump might have been as a inarticulate, vulgar and bullying GOP candidate, all the more reason she should have smashed it. Had she not taken the election as a coronation, actually visited the areas most in hardship instead of sticking to the $1,000 plate dinner fund raisers in the hubs of NY, LA and San Francisco maybe she would have learnt that it wasn’t a formality. Instead she stuck to identity politics and in the end lost to a candidate who openly stared down the barrel of a camera lens to tens of millions after the ‘grab the p*ssy’ episode and said “no one respects women more than I do” in debate two. Even women saw this and still voted for him.

What Filipovic fails to realize is that gender is an irrelevant benchmark for politics. All that matters is ability in the eyes of the electorate. For Michelle Obama to shame women who voted for Trump is part of the problem. Whether ability is delivered is another question but for millions of struggling Americans not living the dream they took a risk to vote for someone that wasn’t intertwined in the political machine that had failed to get them out of financial squalor. They may not have money but a vote is a great equalizer. Sure, Trump’s complete lack of political experience is telling with the constant cabinet reshuffles and both parties trying to distance themselves from his firebrand style of politics.

So indeed had Lauer been exposed as a sexual harasser before the event then would the outcome of Clinton’s 2016 campaign really have changed? Unlikely as Hillary Clinton was carrying so much baggage that even blind Freddie could have seen through the fact that for as horrible Trump was, she was even worse on so many levels.

Indeed if Filipovic wants to indirectly promote the idea that it was time for a ‘woman’ president, at least give we mere males (and females) some faith that you have a deeper bench than Hillary Clinton. Does a cake store put anything less than its best and delicious looking product in the shop windows on the grand opening day? No. As much as you may wish to point the fingers at a misogynist, sexist bro culture as the blame for her loss, make no mistake that most men (and women) will happily endorse competence over gender because it is in their rational best interests for the long term to do so. So instead of blaming men, perhaps look inside at what women exist in US politics (or any country for that matter) that can carry the torch of freedom on merits alone.

On a final point, while the feminists are at it, where was the outrage at the gushing over the hunky Canadian PM Justin Trudeau when he won his election? How many tweets and messages of teenage crush were seen which focused on his physical characteristics rather than his political acumen (which sadly are missing since being in office). It is a great pity that the Conservative Party in Canada didn’t elect Rona Ambrose over Andrew Scheer as leader. Go on YouTube and watch her decimate Justin Trudeau in every debate. If I was Canadian I would have voted for her given she had raw ability, intelligence and unwavering strength. She just happens to be a woman too.

When feminism goes too far

6C21B296-4A32-43F6-BFD4-F19CAF51817A.jpeg

Any “person” who is rightfully comvicted of sexual assault should have the book thrown at them with full force. No arguments. However when Teen Vogue journalist and feminist Emily Lindin wrote that there is no problem throwing innocent men out of jobs and destroying their lives through false allegations that takes some beating. Indeed CM warned that the #METOO campaign might indeed turn into a witch hunt ruining the futures of innocent men forced to defend themselves.

Lindin justified her stance by saying “First, false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population),

The benefit of all of us getting to finally tell the truth + the impact on victims FAR outweigh the loss of any one man’s reputation…If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.

Indeed “what” price are you actually paying Emily when it is those innocent men who will actually pay it on your behalf? That’s right she is paying zero. In the process perhaps the innocent man ( and sole breadwinner) who is jailed for sexual assault loses the family house, wife and 3 daughters. That’s right Ms Lindin, you’ve scored 4 own goals in the process.

Perhaps Lindin could have written that she will visit these innocent men and thank them personally for doing jail time all the while she celebrates her feminist buddies committing perjury.

Any person that willingly makes a false allegation should equally have the book thrown at them. Indeed perhaps she should read up on sexual violence committed against men (hugely underreported) but that would run against her loony narrative.

We should be glad she has said this though. Free speech is wonderful in that she expresses such a stupid position that the exposure to sunlight becomes the best disinfectant. Way to go Emily. May more people like you expose how stupid victimhood becomes when you go actively searching for it. To that end there can be no doubt you’ve never been a true victim of sexual assault to say something so preposterous. No real victim of such a crime would ever back what you wrote. After all why would any innocent person who had that stolen from them want anyone else to experience what they did?

Sexual and domestic violence against males – the statistics

63968E7E-3925-446E-BEC4-DC8473E814BA.jpeg

It is perhaps unsurprising to see some women come out and blame men for their ‘silence culture’ in the aftermath of the Weinstein saga. Indeed it was some of the sisters who chose to stay silent while they collected the trappings of stardom as others suffered. If we were to believe the Me Too crusade we would think that only men commit sex crimes, right? The US National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) conducted in 2010 showed that 25 million men and 53 million men had claimed they were victims of some form of sexual violence by an intimate partner or acquaintance. Both figures are shocking to be sure but the statements in a rather one-sided piece from Heather Jo Flores in The Independent with respect to Me Too.  were of particular interest:

Men, it’s not our job to keep reminding you. Remind each other, and stop abusing. It’s as simple as that. Until men speak out against men who abuse, this will never stop. How about y’all post “I ignored it and I won’t anymore” instead? Because #hearyou doesn’t cut it. Just hearing us doesn’t cut it. Taking action, speaking out, and showing zero tolerance for abuse is the only way through. Silence enables. Be the change..So why do men need to have multiple victims come forward before anybody says a damn thing”

If Flores opened her eyes she might see that we are exactly as she claims we are not.  For much of the utter rubbish men may brag about amongst themselves (e.g.bro-culture), talking up how they conducted street justice is never one of them. Take a look at the multiple social experiments on domestic violence which show random men stepping up to defend women they have never met who look to be in trouble. That is taking action. Immediate. No looking the other way. They are hardwired to protect her. It is instinctive. In the reverse, no one defended the male being attacked in the same video. If anything males smirked, some feeling sorry for him, others joining in but not stepping in the way. Where were the girls that leapt into action to protect the defenseless male? Yes, nowhere. The pot calling the kettle black?

A study conducted by the IDF showed mixed battalions had far higher casualty rates than segregated ones because the enemy would deliberately target the women knowing the men would be men and do extraordinarily risky things in harms way to protect the women. It was not that the female soldiers were any less effective in combat. These weren’t random acts of stupidity but a sense of moral duty not found in training manuals. Indeed it is men being men.

Many of us are told from our tender years that we must never hit women. To open doors, walk behind women going up escalators in case they fall, to walk on the kerbside to prevent women from potentially being drenched by a passing car hitting a puddle. In Japan one would be amazed at the reactions of surprise if one suggests women exit the elevator before men. There is a look of “are you crazy?” Followed by a polite smile and bow. We certainly feel a strong bond to defend. Is it any wonder men are 93% of war casualties?

Flores goes on to say, “Yes, I know men get abused too. Once in a lifetime, maybe a handful of times, in extreme situations. And they get abused by men, mostly. Just like us..I write this to ask: why are we still demanding that women out themselves as survivors, again and again and again, rather than demanding that men out themselves as abusers? Violence against women is a daily reality,.”

In the 12 month period conducted in the NIPSVS survey 6.46mn women and 6.1mn men were victims of sexual violence by their partner, an acquaintance or stranger. 4.74mn women were victims of physical violence by men and 5.365mn men were victims of phyiscal violence by women. Hardly a handful of times, nor at the hands of men.

1.555mn men claimed their intimate female partner hit them with fists or a hard object vs 1.289m women claiming the reverse. 3.13mn men were slapped by their women vs 1.85mn in the reverse. Awful stats on any measure. Still it puts paid the notion that men are generally victims of other men once a blue moon. When it came to psychological intimidation around 20.5mn men were victims of it vs 16.5mn women.

The NIPSVS survey was conducted again in 2011 and revealed much the same trends.

If men must out themselves as abusers, perhaps female abusers should do likewise and male survivors should speak out just as women do.

According to a UK study,

“Male victims  (39%) are over three times as likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.

The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased seven fold since 2004/05. From 806 in 2004/05 to 5,641 in 2015/16…In 2015, 119,000 men reported to English and Welsh police forces stating they were a victim of domestic abuse. 22% of all victims who report to the police are male. In 2012, 73,524 men did…

Men don’t leave abusive relationships for various reasons – the top reasons being: concern about the children (89%), marriage for life (81%), love (71%), the fear of never seeing their children again (68%), a belief she will change (56%), not enough money(53%), nowhere to go (52%), embarrassment (52%), not wanting to take kids away from their mother (46%), threats that she will kill herself (28%) and fears she will kill him (24%). 

Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.

The percentage of gay or bi-sexual men (6.2%) who suffered partner abuse in 2008/09 is nearly double the number for heterosexual men (3.3%). Lesbian women (12.4%) as a percentage also suffered far more partner abuse compared to heterosexual women (4.3%).

Ms Flores then goes on to say,

Don’t forget that, for 500 years in Europe (and still in many many countries) a woman saying “no” was punishable by death, legally. Show me one example of a man being legally executed for saying no to sex, and I’ll consider changing my position.

While men may not be at risk of being executed for refusing sex, find one Anglo, Asian or European country where women can be. Answer is none. It is only in certain cultures that practice female genital mutilation among other arcane laws that would seek to do so. A sect which feminists, who have no qualms shaming Western society, often choose to turn a blind eye to. It is hardly a credible argument that connects her belief that male silence and ignorance of female abuse is somehow linked to a claim of something that happened half a millennia ago.

None of this points to pleasant reading. Sadly it is this prevalence to continually point fingers at men for not doing enough. Unfortunately it is sometimes these same feminists who are busy trying to change ‘men’ so they stop being men. That somehow we should feel ashamed for being men. That we should take responsibility for every wrong doing conducted by a small minority and be brow beaten for not being the very men you are trying to force us not to be. Ms Flores you can’t have it both ways.

Crass but are you really shocked?

If you read the Pravda on the Hudson (NY Times) they are in an uproar over a spoof video of President Trump hitting Hillary Clinton with a golf ball. It is a pretty crass stunt to be sure but is anyone surprised? They shouldn’t be. Presidential? No. Befitting of the office? No. Exercise in good judgement? Not really. Violence toward women was his main aim?  Hardly.  Playing the mainstream media to his tune? Absolutely, 3,2,1…explode. The problem is that the media will give this lots of airplay and bring in all manner of experts to discuss something that is actually pretty trivial. Given Hillary’s book promotion blaming everyone (even Republican males bullying their wives to vote Trump) this was likely his response to say ‘sore loser’. Doesn’t condone it but I am sure the world will move on.

Nearly ever liberal feed I’ve read deplores his childish antics here and insist he focus on all the other pressing issues at home and abroad – the very same issues they continually claim he is absolutely mentally unfit to deal with. So which is it? So to these same liberals – if he genuinely achieves proper successes on any pressing issue will you congratulate him? No, thought not. Literally playing the man, not the golf ball. It’s this whining that probably ensures he’ll torment them an extra 4 years if they don’t change their tune.