Saturday, 30 April 2016

Feminism preaches Fat Liberation - overthrow the Capitalist State, and enjoy unlimited amounts of rice pudding!

1) Awareness of sizeism and how it operates as a system of oppression and it's intersections with capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy i.e. thinness as a beauty standard is actually about the hatred of fatness.

2) Fatness has little to nothing to do with health.

3) Health is NOT a moral obligation, nor is it entirely within our control.

4) Address fatphobia in our spaces, especially in food justice / sustainable food movements.

5) Work to combat sizeism and prioritize Fat Liberation as a part of radical movements.

These people are insane.

1) Awareness of sizeism

There's no such thing. Fat people are physically different and more likely to be sick, obese people die as a result of it. An employer who doesn't want to hire a fat person isn't being mean, they are trying to maximise profits. No-one owes you a job.

"and how it operates as a system of oppression"

Ok, you believe you are oppressed. Why don't you flee your oppression and start your own country, based upon your principles?

Could it be because you cannot physically move without assistance? Could that be it? So the people telling you that being fat is bad for you are not just being mean?

"and it's intersections with capitalism"

You really think a Communist State would indulge you?

Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng concluded there were 36 million deaths due to starvation, while another 40 million others failed to be born, so that "China's total population loss during the Great Famine then comes to 76 million."[6] The term "Three Bitter Years" is often used by Chinese peasants to refer to this period.[7]

"Don't buy any meat if you don't know where it comes from," one Chongjin woman whispered to a friend, who later defected and recounted the conversation to the reporter Barbara Demick for her book, "Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea."

Fear of cannibalism, like the famine supposedly driving it, spread. People avoided the meat in streetside soup vendors and warned children not to be alone at night. At least one person in Chongjin was arrested and executed for eating human flesh.

"white supremacy"

So those asian men who prefer petite asian women are actually secret white men plotting against them! How fiendish we whities are!

Do you know the expression “ぼんきゅぼん (Bon Kyu Bon)?” Well in Japanese it’s kind of like onomatopoeia but not exactly. This expression is used when talking about a woman’s body shape. The first “bon” symbolizes a large bust, “kyu” means having a small waist, and “bon” means having a large curve at hips. Bon kyu bon is the Japanese equivalent of an hourglass figure.

" i.e. thinness as a beauty standard is actually about the hatred of fatness" in the same way that being attracted to vaginas is actually about the hatred of penises. Yep, wanting women is internalised misandry - who knew?

2) Fatness has little to nothing to do with health.

The entire medical establishment says this is idiocy. But lemme guess, the doctors and scientists and nurses and every expert under the sun is secretly plotting against you...

3) Health is NOT a moral obligation, nor is it entirely within our control.

Morally, we are obliged not to cause pain to others in the pursuit of our pleasure. If you have to be carried about, you are a burden on others. You are making yourself ill, so hospital resources et al must be devoted to looking after you rather than someone who really can't avoid their fate.

Unless you are being force fed, it is under your control. You are responsible for yourself. It's not mind control rays from the Patriarchy. There are medical reasons that make it easy for some, hard for others, but just because it is hard doesn't make it impossible. Only your delusions do that.


4) Address fatphobia in our spaces, especially in food justice / sustainable food movements.

Food justice?

You aren't owed food. It's not an injustice that you have to work for your food, it's reality. If you think you are persecuted, move away from the persecution. You will discover that you have to work for that food, or you will starve.

The universe doesn't give a fuck for your sense of entitlement.

There are many causes for obesity, and many cures, some far better than others. In fact i guarantee everyone will lose weight - through diet, through exercise, or through death.

Feminists hate Pilates, too - I guess exercise is fatphobia!

Why adding replacing English with Newspeak is a bad idea.
"The Principles of Newspeak"

Apr 26
People keep

1) saying they don't know what 'genderqueer' means then

2) asking why we added it to the dictionary

What's stopping me from saying I am now Female? SocJus will automatically invalidate the claim because they know i am male. They don't believe in their own words unless they are convenient to believe in - that's the basis of doublethink.

For example, Feminists want all men banned from general public transport, and relocated to inferior versions of it. By their own belief structure, every man could proclaim they are genderqueer and so that rule doesn't apply to them. So how can Feminists maintain the new Apartheid?

Feminists, however, being masters of twisting words and lovers of lies, will always find a way to re-classify males as male without ever acknowledging that that is what they are doing.

Like a Cardassian Court, they have already worked out what the result of the trial is in advance, and it's just a matter of finding a way for the trial to reach that conclusion. They hate men. They claim men do not exist. They will never acknowledge those two statements are contradictory.

The lies comfort them. They'll even let themselves believe in it, briefly, then revel in joy that anyone was gullible enough to swallow them in the first place.

Friday, 29 April 2016

"You can't say that women have always been equal"

(one thing I noticed reading this article is that Feminist historians keep referring to different periods of history as Golden Ages for Women.

How can all these different centuries throughout time be unique in that they allowed women to work and hold power positions?

Can our histories be trusted when it is being re-written by ideologues to meet whatever 'truth' they want it to be at the time?)

Continued from Laws that affect women and men equally are misogyny sexist raaaaaape

"Honestly it's a problem for both genders, but you can't say that women have always been equal, and there still are problems women face today that are outrageous. And feminism is not about bringing men down, it's about setting a level playing field and getting rid of the problems that both men and women face, like gender roles and stereotypes. There are extremists who go as far as to hate others but when isn't there? I can say a lot more about how feminism is necessary but it's almost midnight and I'm tired." (source)
(UGH, another Feminist who doesn't know how to use whitespace)

"but you can't say that women have always been equal"
"in the fourteenth century women’s work ...
was equally paid with that of men....

... he found that their day rates were equal
whilst as full time manorial servants they
got less than men usually in lower paid occupations."

[So when they did equal work, they received equal pay]

I can and do - I say they were different, however. Feminists routinely claim that the evil Patriarchy (i.e. all men, everywhere) conspired to stop women working. This is garbage. Historical documents routinely show women not only working, but ruling, since the dawn of history.

Unless Feminists have Tardises, they simply cannot take the credit for it. Feminism is a recent doctrine and the concept was completely alien to groups such as the suffragettes, and their predecessors, the Suffragists and the Chartists.

"Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of King's Bench" By Great Britain. Court of King's Bench

" As no peculiar objection is stated against the appointment of the present defendant the objection must be taken to be a general one that a woman cannot in any case be appointed an overseer of the poor and that she is by law exempted from serving such an office The statute 43 Eliz c 2 mentions substantial householders which in terms comprehends the present defendant because substantial householder has no reference to sex

So that females are not entitled to any exemption from any thing that appears in the act itself neither must there necessarily be any implied exemption in the statute from any analogy to the exemption of women from serving other offices...

First there is no necessary incapacity arising barely from a consideration of the sex which disqualifies a woman from executing this office

 And secondly even if there were some parts of the duty of overseer which a woman could not execute in person she may appoint a deputy

As to the first the principal duties of the office consist in collecting the poor rates in the parish in settling the parish accounts and in providing work for the poor all of which may be performed by a female

A woman is capable of serving almost all the offices in the kingdom a such as those of queen marshal great chamberlain and constable of England & the champion of England commissioner of sewers c governor of a work house sexton c keeper of the prison of the Gate house of the dean and of Westminster _ returning officer for members of parliament g and constable A the latter of which is in some respects judicial It is well known too that the office gaoler is frequently executed by a woman

But secondly a woman could not execute in person every part of the of an overseer of the poor she may appoint a deputy may perhaps be objected to this that the power of appointing a deputy is confined to ministerial offices only and this is not of that description..."

In other words, a woman could do all the jobs, and if she was physically unable, she could employ a deputy to do it.

The Feminist version of history uses the period of mass conscription - around WW1 & 2 - where men were told they had to fight for their country, but in return, they could expect jobs to be waiting.

Women were told they wouldn't have to fight, but would have to give the surviving men their jobs in return for their safety.
Images of women being threatened have always been used
to manipulate men into fighting to protect them.
But when do we see women fighting to protect men?

Was that a bad deal?

The suffragettes were offered a chance at conscription - presumably with the same bargain. They turned it down.

Recently, the US courts have ruled that women are the equal of men
- and so face equal responsibilities.

Like conscription.

Feminists have now decided this is the wrong sort of equality in Norway. Feminists in the US are outraged at the very idea.

Treating women like they were lowly men? The nerve of them!

" there still are problems women face today that are outrageous"

Yet I don't see Feminism dealing with them. And they mostly occur in countries where outrageous things happen to men - and Feminism, despite it's claims to ownership of equality, never acts on their behalf.

"feminism is not about bringing men down"

You might want to tell Mary P Koss about that one. And those Feminists in Israel and India who fought and won the battle to keep female rapists from being charged.

And the Feminists who made a new Apartheid, and forced men off buses and trams and trains, so that women and women alone had special treatment, special carriages where they were safe while men were forced into the second class seats and told to learn their place.

I don't care what Feminism SAYS. The Communists said they were just about sharing. The Nazis claimed to be peaceful, fighting defensively, an oppressed class punching up...

I care what Feminism DOES.

Feminism actively harms men and boys. When that changes, let me know.

"There are extremists who go as far as to hate others "
... and they were appointed to leadership positions by people like you, who are happy to enable their dirty work and let yourself think your hands are clean.

What NOW does:

How Feminism harms children and men:

Feminism demands superior pay for the same work:

Feminism erases Female Rapists:

Feminism demands all sex be State-controlled:

Feminists hate sex:

Feminists hate men:

Feminism is a hate movement.

And yeah, I'm well aware you Feminists aren't going to read any of these links - the evidence that contradicts your dogma has been available for decades - it's emotion that you're running on, not reason, which is why the other disputants always leapt to emotional attacks rather than disputing my points with evidence.

But you lot aren't the only ones who see this page. It's open to the public. How do you imagine it looks to outsiders when any dissent is met with a torrent of abuse? When reasoned arguments are unknown to your side?

Your group controls the West, by and large, and I expect it will for decades - but every day, more and more will be pushed into our quarter.

It might take a day when a black man is told by a white woman that he can't ride the bus because he's born wrong.

Or it might take having a son arrested when he's done nothing wrong.

But every little bit of harm adds up. Resistance is growing.

And I think we'll win, in the end.

Further Reading:

From "Suffragettes can't save feminism":

...One such example is a recently discovered document listing English women voters in an election which took place in 1843, 75 years prior to legislation recognizing women's voting rights in 1918. At that time, suffrage for men was not universal, but limited to the upper classes, with various groups agitating for parliamentary reform throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The women recorded in the 1843 document would have had to meet the standards met by men. They paid a fee, and it determined how their vote was counted. Note that the article mentions that the high fee paid by Grace Brown gave her 4 votes, where those who paid less got only one vote. These women also enjoyed a privilege denied to men who did not meet legal voting requirements. Adult men who were not heads of households could not vote.

Prior to the formation of the United States, voting in the colonies was largely governed by the same standards used in England. However, contrary to popular belief, women were not universally barred from voting.

As with the women in England's 1843 document, American women who voted prior to the 20th century did so under the same terms and conditions faced by men, save for one: Women were not and still are not subject to being drafted into the military in times of war.

One interesting example of early female voters prior to universal male suffrage is the colony of New Jersey, where gender was not a factor in voting rights until the Democratic-Republican party, which eventually became the Democrat party, took the vote away from Jersey women, minorities, non-citizens, and the poor in 1807 over conflict between their party and federalists.

Even after the U.S. became a nation, men's suffrage was not universal. Voting rights continued to evolve throughout the 19th century, with states slowly letting go of property ownership requirements over the course of decades.

After the 15th amendment was ratified, recognizing black male citizenship and voting rights, southern states passed "grandfather clauses" to roll back their rights, and used Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to get out of recognizing them until the success of the civil rights movement in the mid 20th century. This allowed wealthy and middle class white women to vote while many poor and minority men and women were kept away from the polls.

In 1876, the supreme court ruled that Native Americans were not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment, and therefore could not vote. In 1890, they were told they could apply to become naturalized citizens in their own ancestral land. Laws denying citizenship to various Asian immigrants passed in 1882 (the Chinese exception) and 1922 (Japanese immigrants.)

In 1919 Native Americans and in 1925 Filipinos were told they could earn citizenship by risking their lives serving in American wars.

Various stipulations, including Jim Crow laws and poll taxes, left the majority of the indigenous population of the U.S. and its territories, along with the majority of Asian immigrants, and most minorities, subject to the rule of the American government without representation by officials for (or against) whom they had the right to vote - the same injustice that sparked the Revolutionary war. Asians did not see their voting rights universally recognized until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

Native Americans' right to vote was not fully recognized until 1957, 37 years after the 19th Amendment recognized women's right to vote... 12 years before the first man walked on the moon.

It was not until 8 years after Native Americans were recognized, 4 years after the first manned American space flight and 4 years before we put a man on the moon, that the Voting Rights Act passed, protecting the right of all blacks and other minorities to vote.

Upper class white women got the vote in 1920.

Impoverished black men and women did not truly get theirs until 1965.


European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings, despite the claims by Feminists that all violence is masculine in nature.

Feminists call for a new Holocaust

"Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is misogyny": Ancient Feminist Saying.

"Why do you care so much that feminists supposedly hate men?"

Hans Scholl (left), Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst,
leaders of the White Rose resistance organization.
Munich 1942 (
USHMM Photo)

"Why do you care so much that feminists supposedly hate men?"

A reply to a Feminist question. I doubt it was asked in good faith, but i thought it was time i wrote a definitive answer.

" why do you care so much that feminist supposedly hate men? "

Why would you care if some group 'supposedly' hated Jews or Blacks or Gays or ....

Why does it matter if there's a hate movement with the power to change the laws of the State, despite being a tiny minority?

That calls for segregation of people along the lines of the Ingroup and the Outgroup, that calls for longer prison sentences for the Other - and no prison sentences for their own group?

Every decent person should be concerned by that.

"Like I see you have a blog about it.
You spend a lot of time and energy talking about it."

If people had spent their time and energy preventing communism and fascism from rising, humanity would haven't had to live through multiple genocides.

"Why? What are you trying to accomplish?"

The same thing that the Germans who opposed the Nazis accomplished. Being moral human beings. That is all life asks of you.

Further Reading:

Is feminism a hate movement?

The Cell of the Innocent: Feminists abolish the presumption of Innocence, so that any man who is accused can be imprisoned without a trial

Laws that affect women and men equally are misogyny sexist raaaaaape.


Looks like Outrage culture deliberately misrepresented the situation: A controversial Oklahoma court ruling was widely misinterpreted to mean that under state law, rape charges cannot be brought if the victim was intoxicated.

Ruling here

A response to "Oklahoma Court: Oral Sex is Not Rape if Victim is Unconscious From Drinking"

28 Apr 2016 23:25:52 UTC 'We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.’


Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and persecution to Feminists. Why are they angry about that judgement?

They seem to want to abandon the law and just have kangaroo courts.
"Listen and Believe" in practice.

"decision asvictim1[sic] blaming"?

"Campaigners and legal experts have criticised the "insane" decision asvictim blaming "

Usually a link backs up your argument. The link here just talks about a different issue.

It's almost as if the author thought:

"I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertions so i better pretend to have some legal experts agreeing - they won't check anyway, those idiots will just Listen and Believe (TM)".

‘We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.’ - See more at:
Since the statute applies without any sexual bias, how is it a women's rights issue?

"The court argued that, under this statute of law, incapacitation by drinking didn’t apply as it wasn’t on the list of circumstances that constitute force."

It wasn't a group of men deciding to be mean to women - it was a statute with a loophole. That happens all the time because people are not omniscient, but you Feminists automatically interpret it as malicious and biased against one sex only - despite it applying equally to both sexes.

If Feminists cared about justice, they would want rape laws to apply to everyone, not just to men. They would want female rapists punished, and punished exactly as severely, instead of wanting them to walk free.

If men are so awful that they are writing laws to hurt you, why on earth do you Feminists share a country with them?

Seriously, move away, form your utopia, prove to the rest of the world how much better you are without us.

But Feminists never will. They bitch, and they moan, and they whine, for men to solve all their problems, while patting themselves on the back for being independent.
These are strong women.
This is a Feminist.

Which of these two groups do you think would be able to build a civilisation?


Oklahoma Legislators Seek Change in Sodomy Law After Ruling

Which means this is a non-issue. A loophole, affecting both sexes, was discovered, and will be closed. There's no conspiracy here against women.But if you look at , it's framed as proof of the wicked men in power persecuting women, and the commentators on the Feminist side are only interested in the victim narrative.

Feminist response:

Mostly just abuse - it does amuse me how ready they are to call someone "cunt" and then run screaming to the harassment police if i reply with exactly the same term.

"It's a human issue.
Seriously, you read this article and that's all you have to say?
No empathy for this victim?
No outrage over this loophole?
Wow.. Perhaps it's just YOU who needs to move away. My male people are wonderful, caring human beings."

Notice they avoid dealing with the arguments and focus on emotive manipulation. "Feelz over Facts" is the Feminist mantra.

My counter-response:

"It's a human issue."

This page isn't "human interest news", the article doesn't treat it as a human rights issue but as a persecution of women by men - as do all the feminist commentators I can find here.

"Seriously, you read this article and that's all you have to say?"

No, which is why i linked my comments separately.

"No empathy for this victim?"

None has been shown on this page for men who have been raped but unable to charge their attackers due to Feminist legislation.

You don't seem worried by that - your demand that I SHOW empathy but no-one else on your team has to DO so is very revealing.

"No outrage over this loophole?"

The one that is being closed? Do you get angry over potholes that are being filled? Bad things happen. In this case it was an accident. You don't seem to care because you see that accident as proof of malice. That is paranoia.

"Wow.. Perhaps it's just YOU who needs to move away."

You realise if you moved away from me, that's exactly what would happen? That's how it works?

But we non-Feminists are the majority, and we get on perfectly well. Why should we abandon our civilisation - especially as you show no sign of being able to cope five minutes without us?

"My male people are wonderful, caring human beings"

I hope you gave them a good pat on the head and a tasty treat. Yet you don't seem to care that your sibling paints them as toxic monsters?

Y'know, some Nazis kept Jewish women as mistresses - it doesn't mean they liked Jews. How do you treat men? You join in the group hate sessions quite readily. What does that say about you?

A typical example of Feminist abuse.
It's an abuse of my eye-sight, especially.

1Ouch. Typos. I am worried about their ass-victim tho', I'd see a doctor about that. I mean, I make typos all the time - but I'm doing this for my own benefit, not for something that claims to be professional. Oh well.

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Typical online discussion with a "nice" feminist.

I have these a lot.A "nice" feminist is one who sees the fact that they don't hate men as proof that  feminists don't hate men, or rather, that manhating is not typical behaviour of the group "feminists".

The argument seems to be "you are criticising a group I am emotionally invested in and that means you are wrong because it would hurt if you were right".

Feminist: Don’t say feminists are X because some feminists are not X.

Me: It doesn’t work that way. Some dogs have three legs. Dogs have four legs. You are getting confused about how the language works, rather than focussing on the facts of the matter.1

Feminist: You just hate all women.

Me: That’s a deflection. My character has nothing to do with whether or not what I am saying is true. You should care about what the truth is, and not about who i am as a person.

Feminist: Some feminists are nice! You say Feminists hate men!

Me: Feminism teaches man hating. Feminists appointed man-haters to positions of authority - the nice ones are not protesting the teaching of man-hating at universities, they don’t have interviews with the press, etc.

The very few exceptions, like CH Sommers, are not regarded as feminists by the majority - and it is that consensus and only that which describes who is and who is not a member, there’s no other entry requirement.

You had to go through a formal entry to be a Nazi2 - you don’t need to do that to be a Feminist.

Feminist: I'm not going to read all that.

Me: Ok. Contemplate the following:

1) Some dogs have three legs.
2) Dogs have four legs.

Now 2 is a generalisation. Is it false?

Feminist: That's different, dogs are beings. Feminism is a belief, a movement. Hating all feminists because of a few with extreme and arguably warped beliefs is so wrong.

Me: I hate Nazis. I do not hate all Nazis. I hate Feminists. I do not hate all Feminists. Dogs have 4 legs. Some dogs have 3.

Feminist: Your argument is so backwards. You've tarred feminists with the same brush but you're claiming you don't hate them all?

Me: Look to my actions. The keyword here is "ALL". Look through my writing. Have i said ALL feminists are X? Do i support CH Sommers? In words and in deed, I point to Feminists being X even if exceptions exist.

Feminist: Multiple times I've felt the same but I really can't take you seriously at all.

Me: Don't take ME seriously, my character is irrelevant. Focus on what is the truth. Play Devil's Advocate.

Feminist: Nah, I've genuinely lost complete interest in this now

Me: Nevertheless, in the years to come, you may find yourself able to look objectively at the opposing case. Until then.

Further reading:

1Is the following argument:

Dogs have four legs
Fido is a dog


Fido has four legs.

of the same form as

All dogs have four legs
Fido is a dog


Fido has four legs?

The answer depends on whether you think that

Dogs have four legs

 comes to the same as

All dogs have four legs

; and arguably it doesn’t.

Dogs have four legs is naturally read as expressing a truth – the same truth as is expressed by saying that dogs are quadrupeds.

But that truth is quite consistent with some particular dog having lost a leg in an accident or
even being defective and having been born without one—i.e. the truth expressed by

Dogs have four legs

is (so to speak) about the natural state of dogginess, and is consistent with
poor Fido departing from the norm

Taken from

2The Nazis went to great lengths to determine Germans who had pure Aryan descent in order to ensure a pure German nation. All kinds of criteria was used including caricatures showing Jewish types and the testing of pure Aryans by determining their genealogical Aryan purity.

This was for the express purpose of weeding out Jewish or other non-pure Aryan blood. For example, Germans wishing to join the Nazi party had to undergo rigorous questioning to determine their genealogy.

These documents show the methods used by the Nazis to exclude German Jews from all facets of German society. They were used to determine that an applicant for the Nazi party was a full blooded German whose parents and grandparents were also pure Germans.

To join the SS, one had to fill out an additional document going back to great great grandparents to determine a pure blood German. These documents show the extent to which the Nazis tried to foster a pure blood Aryan race.

Clementine Ford demands others pay for her dreams

Why is it 3rd wave Feminists never create anything
- just demand that others (mostly men) do all the work for them
- then they take the credit?

... and that is so deeply representative of current Feminism.

Feminist has a business idea that counters the current wisdom, that everyone else says will lead to disaster, but rather than invest her own money into a capital venture, which will lead to losing it if she's wrong, she just demands everyone else pay for it and if they don't, it's proof they hate all women everywhere.

Don't talk about it, don't tell others to do it, do it yourself.

But they never will.

Oh... maybe that's not true... what about the movie "Felt"? The one where a female serial killer mutilates and murders her way to the applause of the Feminist audience?

Because killing men is a-ok (but if you say feminism is man-hating, that's misogyny, you rapist!)

Notice how all of the Feminists there whine that Hollywood should make movies they like for them. None of them are interested in making it themselves, not even contributing via IndieGogo or writing a script.

At least the makers of "Felt" put their money where their mouth was - well, that, and taxpayers money!

And if you try to explain that they can actually make movies - there are ways to do it cheaply, to market it and distribute it without cinemas - they just attack you. I had one commentator saying I was the wrong sex to give them advice.

Remember when Feminism was opposed to sexism? I think of all the women who were strong, independent and honest, who marched at my side - and they are all gone now, replaced by this pack of giant babies.

Make movies for me! Or I'll scream!

Also See:

Clementine Ford, the ABC's favourite Damsel in Distress?

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

How Feminists argue

There's really nothing I can add to that.

People keep saying it's Roz, but she was actually a decent person.

Maybe it's a clone that didn't turn out and was badly brain-damaged?

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

What is (current) Feminism?

Analysing Feminist Propaganda:

A reaction to

What is Feminism? It's interesting that Feminists do not point to what Feminists actually DO to define what Feminism is.

Instead, the tactic used is circular reasoning - Feminists define Feminism in this way, therefore Feminism IS this way.

The fact that egalitarianism existed long before Feminism never bothers Feminists, who are much more concerned with attacking a potential rival than they are with truth.

The goal is not to take rights away from men? Citation needed! Because telling men that they may no longer use the same quality of public transport as women sounds like fucking taking my rights away to me.

In fact, it sounds like the sort of shit that civil rights campaigners fought against.

In the past, a black man would be forced to sit in the back seats while a white woman got the front.


As for the vote - that had nothing to do with Feminism, unless you say Feminists have time travel.

Men and women COULD NOT VOTE until roughly the same time - in fact the violent suffragettes so admired by current feminism DELAYED suffrage in those countries.

In others, like Tasmania, there was almost no difference.(source) - the major factor being that WW1 meant that conscription was launched - and the justification used was if you have a cote, the price you pay is having to defend the society that gave you the vote - a price Feminists still refuse to pay.

Feminists want to retcon history so that the evil men had everything and women had nothing.

As for the hijab - it's funny how Feminists fought against it as a symbol of oppression and are now fighting for it as a part of embracing Islamism.

And here we have a typical example of Feminist dogma and parochialism.

Who says that the Third Wave aims to include all women? Was there a Central Committee meeting? Did the Feminist Pope issue and edict?

Nope. The author made it up because it sounded good, and so must be true. That's all Feminists want. They hate objectivity.

As for the incredibly minor problems some people of the United States suffer - who gives a shit?
Seriously, you were talking about Feminist ideology a second agao - that's global. Suddenly you want to whine about a stereotype of asian american women.

Meanwhile, young boys are burnt alive by Boko Haram, and gay men tossed out of buildings by ISIS.

Well, I can see why Feminists don't want egalitarianism to be popular - who the hell will care about the pea under their seven mattresses if they can hear the screaming of the little boys in the flames?

What do Feminists complain about? Men propositioning them - oh no! Yes, the horror of men finding them attractive is more important than gay men being tossed out of buildings. How awful.

And of course, it's only men that are seen as being predatory - the women who ask for a threesome, or ask straight women for sex, cannot be acknowledged by Feminism.

Heterosexuality is wicked; Homosexuality - well, of the female variety - is sacred.

And disability has nothing to do with Feminism - it's not Feminists who are solving those problems! Feminists HATE actually solving problems themselves. They leave that to the malescum!

If you are crippled,
are you going to turn to a Feminist to 'solve' your problems by blaming men
- or people who will fucking solve the problems
I looked at the rest but it seems to be the same victim narrative repeated ad infinitum.

Feminism is a cancer upon the collective human body. It wants to destroy science, by denying the existence of objective truth, by removing males from education, and by teaching women to blame every ill upon men rather than trying to improve the world.


And it's time is ticking.

Either it succeeds in destroying the West in it's quest to destroy masculinity - and so fall to the Islamists...

or it fails, and becomes as absurd as Communism, embraced only by young fools before they venture out into the real world.

Tick, tick, tick.

We have had enough, Feminists.

Time for you to

fuck off.

A Reaction to: "Teach the SJW Controversy!"

About 34:00 in (talking about how Feminists get away with inciting violence against men) - the way Feminists got around it in Australia is that it's illegal to discriminate against a protected group.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is run, thanks to a Feminist PM, by and for Feminists, and the protected groups are:

1) Women.

That's it. can do anything you like to men and not violate their human rights, because they legally have none.


I think the problem is that post modernists hacked the university system. It's discussed in "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman"  and it's not something new.

However, the fact that it has now corrupted even Astronomy is chilling.

What will happen when these SocJus indoctrinated people try and deal with the real world? They certainly cannot produce real science.

And that means, unless we cut this off at the universities and other tax  funded institutions, the countries of the West will be crippled, whereas China etc will be just fine.

The West will fall.

Other countries will carve us up, while Feminists urge men to die in their name and spit on the body bags of the men as they come back.

Then they'll bury the Feminists and impose their cultural values on us, and use Feminism as the reason they had to put us out of our misery.

Look at the willingness of Feminists to embrace Islamism. They are actively working to destroy democracy. There won't be a concept of Free Speech once they are done.

So this is it. We stop the rot, or it's the end. I think we can do this. It'll take time - but the 45,773 supporters of the petition prove that it's not too late.


Very lively debate but it tended to solidify my agreement with Sargon's plan. The people who felt it was wrong seemed unable to identify how it would violate human rights to have a review.

After all, Nietsche's ideas are not taught as facts yet students can and often do disagree or agree with them, and succeed regardless of the personal opinion of the lecturer. I have seen lecturers play the Devil's Advocate very well for points of view, to inspire clarity in their students - why do you believe what you believe?

I think that that skepticism is the core of why I loved Philosophy. "Doubt everything, including this".

Whereas Feminism teaches "Listen and Believe", it teaches that students who disagree are betraying their 'family' (wow, that is purest cult-speak). Feminism teaches students they must proselytise. I have to wonder how long until it teaches them that they must spread the word at the barrel of a gun?

Monday, 25 April 2016

Is removing SocJus control over academic courses censorship?

After listen to TJ talking on Twitter, I have decided I am not a libertarian. I don't think universities should deliberately teach untruths, especially when one of those is that a group of people is dangerous and should be exterminated.

I don't think it's the free market, because they are tax payer funded in a huge number of ways - universities have had special treatment from the governments for a century at least, on the grounds that they produce good citizens.

That's the basis of publicly funded education in the first place.

I'm sympathetic to libertarianism - but I remain a social democrat. A leftie, a liberal in the old sense of the word. And I think I'm in pretty good company.

This is what he is responding to:

Petition by Sargon of Akkad to suspend Social Justice courses:

This goes into depth but if you have seen the one above and are already aware of what SocJus is, you can skip it.

Janice is very thorough and a little dry, so grab a cup of teas and some biccies. I always get the feeling I should be taking notes, she really should be teaching this stuff as an academic course.

Personal Note:

One of the great tragedies of my own life is not being able to finish university, to finally complete a degree.

I've listened to lectures on Political Science, read essays on Medieval History, and texts on such obscure subjects as the history of drug laws, and when a relative of mine was attending university and doing politics, I was thrilled that she would have the chance that I did not.

Unfortunately, what I discovered was that all of the Political Science courses were now just re-badged Gender Studies, meaning her degree was worthless, and that all it would do is teach her to be a professional victim, surviving only on subsidies, creating nothing1.

So I have signed that petition, and I hope it at least creates some interest in the upper regions of society, some faint curiosity, as to what has changed, and whether that change is desirable.

And if it's time to change back to academic rigour and the pursuit of objectivity.

I think it is.

Do you?

1Whereas I live off a disability pension and create... settlements in Fallout 4. Yes, i know, but i'll wave the cripple pass and say that at least I did have a reasonable working life for a while there

Sunday, 24 April 2016

Nicki Minaj: Women should negotiate wages, like men have to.

"As she has risen to fame as a rapper, Nicki Minaj has also become an outspoken advocate for equality. "

Rubbish. Talking about how you make lots of money isn't equality. When David Bowie figured out musicians were losing out by not owning the rights to their own music, no-one applauded him as  champion of equality, or of anything but being a canny businessman.

Nicki's willingness to spread has given her enormous wealth,
and obviously that means she can give advice
to people who aren't able or willing to compete as eye-candy.
This is real female empowerment.

Do you want to fuck with her? No.
portrait of Mae Jemison
Mae C. Jemison (M.D.)

You will never accomplish as much as she did.

"The Pinkprint artist has publicly voiced her opinions on racism,
misogyny and sexuality throughout her career,
particularly speaking out in support of female empowerment."

Has she? Female empowerment? So what, precisely, has she identified as an area where females don't have power and men do? Or do you mean female supremacy, in which case she can suck me hairy balls.
Apparently she has trouble with eating bananas. And covering her tits.
So strong and empowered, wow.

"In a video interview with TIME, Minaj broaches the topic of equal pay, advising women to be direct about how much they feel they are due."

That can work. Or it can fail. You see, we all look at the men at the top, the very few who climbed Everest and think "I could do that too", and for a few that will be true, but there's an awful lot of bodies of failures you have to walk past.

Far, far more men fail than succeed. We take risks. Our skeletons line the seas. A few achieve greatness - the rest an unmarked grave.

Here we have Nicki doing sexwork
- one of the fields that Feminism wants to criminalise,
at least for the men involved.

So she's now their champion?

How does that even work?

“One thing I learned along the way in business is the necessity for you to be unapologetic about asking for how much money you deserve”

And in return, your employer can decide you are delusional and hire someone cheaper. If your estimate of your value is off, you can end up broke. Are you willing to take that chance? If so, welcome to the high stakes game!

Hope you know what to do when you fail - because most successful people have failed over and over. Being broke and starving and living in your car, cleaning up for interviews and hoping your expensive suit isn't ruined on the way to the interview because it's impossible to replace - that's life, baby!

"she says. “At a very early stage in my rap career, I was making six figures for shows"

So you were living a life almost no-one else will lead - found success through blind luck - yet people are looking to you for advice? Why?

Seriously, I don't get it. This is like asking a lottery winner what the secret to picking the winning numbers is.
My head hurt reading this article.
I think my brain cells may have committed suicide to escape the situation.

"…If I heard there was another rapper making that, I thought, ‘you know what? I get out there and demand or command a crowd. I get out there and make my fans happy. I get out there and give a real show. I want that, too.’ And I pushed myself to be better with my showmanship, but I also decided, you know what? I want to be compensated well.”

Yup. Which hundreds of other rappers did just as well. They didn't get lucky, you did. It's random. It's not divine purpose or proof of your wisdom.

nicki-minaj-plastic surgery photos before-and-after-3
She had a lot of risky surgery - think about how many did the same and failed,
or had more musical talent but didn't have the cash for the many operations. (source)

"She encourages women to own their greatness"

That's gibberish. Makes readers feel good tho' and that sells advertising. Kudos for having total contempt for your audience there.

So here's an idea. Get an accurate picture of your capabilities, don't swallow guff about being 'great' or you'll end up dying from the needle or the shotgun. Focus on being grounded, sensible, objective, yet passionate about what you do - because that is what the 'greats' did over and over.

David Bowie was a brilliant musician and businessman but he never settled for mediocrity or being safe. He always pushed the boundaries and even as a very old man was trying to see what he could do that was new. Which is why he will be remembered and whatsername won't be.
I suppose the butt implants could be classed as a capital investment?
I really don't want to see the dividends tho'!

“I would tell women starting out in business, if you know you’re great at what you do, don’t ever be ashamed to ask for the top dollar in your field”

Yup. And remember, if it goes bust, you will have a sweet deal on homeless shelters compared to men - it's pretty much prison only if they need a square meal and a roof over their heads.

  “If I’m great at what I do, I can’t be denied. "
The screams of a million great musicians, artists, sculptors and more who were forgotten in their lifetimes and most afterwards, who knew bitter hunger and the betrayal of unrecognised talent, they echo on the winds that past through her ears and out that butt.

"Some things may be overlooked but no one can deny my brand"

(*Waves hand!*) I deny it.

I don't care about you - if you weren't there, another would fill that niche. I won't mourn you. I mourned Amy Winehouse and she had only a few songs I liked - but fuck, she sung her heart out on them.

“It just feels like young women are being empowered..."

More goodfeel buzzwords. Did Gawker media take over Why doesn't anyone ever ask what the fuck that means exactly?

Take us out, Amy!

They tried to make me go to rehab but I said, 'No, no, no.'
Yes, I've been black but when I come back you'll know, know, know
I ain't got the time and if my daddy thinks I'm fine
He's tried to make me go to rehab but I won't go, go, go