Monday, February 22, 2016

Why I'm Not a Feminist, pt 1

I distinctly remember being asked one day about halfway through my tenure in student activism and leadership if I was a feminist. My canned response was “If by 'feminist' you mean 'do you believe in the equality of men and women,' then yes, but if you mean something other than that than no I'm not.” Several months ago my journey into rejecting feminism as part of my liberation from Progressive dogma came when a Catholic friend who identifies herself as a feminist asked the same question. Thus began a journey of self discovery using research and reviewing the arguments and data from both feminists and anti-feminists on the merits of feminism. The result:

I am not a feminist. In fact, I am an least, anti-third wave feminism.

Why am I not a feminist? There are several reasons that I not only reject contemporary feminism but actively oppose the movement that has become a religion in the West. The two I will address in brief here are the total rejection of Due Process by feminists as well as the rejection and suspicion of Freedom of Speech by adherents of feminism. There are other reasons but in the name of brevity I'll save those for later.

Due Process of Law has been rejected by the leaders of contemporary feminism. Feminists argue that when a woman states that she has been raped she should be listened to and believed. Until the rise of I Stand With Kesha, the most stark example of this position had been the case of 'Jackie' at the University of Virginia, which had been reported in a 9,000 word article in Rolling Stone magazine in an investigative article purposefully designed to provide evidence of a campus rape culture that doesn't actually exist. The Washington Post investigated the claim made in the Rolling Stone piece and found no evidence whatsoever to back up 'Jackie's' claim and in fact found substantial evidence that made her claims simply not possible. Yet many feminists say 'Jackie' must be believed simply because of her accusation. Simply 'Listening and Believing' spells the death of due process of law.

What is due process? Due process are the guarantees of legal protections for someone charged with a crime. These guarantees are enshrined in the US Constitution in the 13th and 14th Amendments. They include: Due process rights extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it. The term substantive due process (SDP) is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause.

For our purposes, due process means in sexual assault cases that no, we should no simply 'listen and believe' but must insist that the proscribed legal processes in the Constitution and the body of law in the West be respected. Is the process perfect? Hardly. These principles reflect our culture's until-now unchallenged belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The presumed innocence of the accused has been a cornerstone of western civilization since the signing of the Magna Carta in 13th century England. Yet feminists today will say that innocence until proven guilty is part of a patriarchal system of oppression, going so far as to label all men as potential rapists. That is, presuming that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty is tyrannical and assuming that 49% of the population is a potential violent criminal. This factored heavily in to my rejection of feminism.

Free speech is also rejected by feminists. Examples abound, ranging from #Gamergate to the case of Matt Taylor (the scientist who landed a probe on a comet) wearing a shirt that had scantily clad women on it during his press conference being harassed by feminists until he was moved to tears. The best example of the insane reaction from feminists comes from the Verge, a bastion of Progressive cognitive dissonance. Taylor's achievement was one of the biggest achievements in the history of science but instead he was ostracized for wearing a tasteless shirt.

Perhaps a more glaring example is Youtube and Twitter. On those platforms conservative voices are being silenced because conservative commentators reject feminism and tend to do so in a very vocal manner. Whether it's the case of Milo Yiannopoulos being unverified by Twitter, or the recent case of Twitter banning journalist RobertStacy McCain for his strident criticism of third wave feminism, movement feminists have taken a hard line against freedom of speech, claiming thatrejecting feminism is hate speech and is even likened to misogyny .

Feminism is a movement characterized by an authoritarian sociopathy that rejects human decency and enshrines hatred and division of people. What contemporary feminism is lacking is a gifted demagogue who can lead them into a Utopian society that, like every Utopian society, inevitably collapses under the weight of its own violent dictatorship and power mongering. At the moment a feminist demagogue isn't on the political scene. Both Clinton and Sanders are too incompetent or corrupt to fit the bill. 

Wednesday, February 17, 2016


BREAKING NEWS: It is my distinct pleasure to announce that I have formally been appointed as a member of the Patriarchy. I take my duty very seriously to report to everyone about what this sophisticated, all reaching conspiracy does.  Don't worry intrepid reader: I'll be reporting from the inside of the Zionist – er, Patriarchy from time to time while still reporting on the madness of Social Justice Warriors.

The following is a transcript of the first meeting of the Patriarchy that I attended, with my induction ceremony deleted. Trust me you don't want to know what was involved in that. I'm still sore.

Scene: A poorly lit room somewhere in western Europe. On a dais is seated the projected hologram of someone who looks suspiciously like the bad guy from the new Star Wars film. The dais sits, somehow, at the head of a long table. Not a single person sits at the table. Every position at the table is a hologram projection station. At each 'seat' is the projection of a different member of the Patriarchy High Council. Each station is active save for one.

Supreme Leader: Gentlemen, I trust that the rampant oppression of women by the white, male and sometimes Jewish power structure is continuing unimpeded?

Across from the Supreme Leader is seated a young, smarmy looking man in his late 20s or early 30s. He's clutching a Wu-Tang one of a kind album in one hand and in the other are grossly inflated HIV drugs. We'll call him 'Smarmy'

Smarmy: Your Greatness, things are going well despite the setback in Europe. As you will recall from our last meeting we had assumed that the coordinated sex attacks by a tacky and not terribly subtle group of 'refugees' across major European cities would have earned a response by feminists. To our total surprise the feminists either ignored the attacks completely or called for a general curfew of men regardless of identification.

Supreme Leader: Yes, I was surprised myself. Our adversaries are at-times canny. They've even gained control of the major social media outlets.

To Smary's left is seated a renowned biologist and atheism advocate. Publicly he claims to be a feminist but he was recently exposed for his true opinions.

Biologist: They managed to use social media to get me temporarily disinvited from a famous skeptics conference I was going to attend.

Supreme Leader: Didn't you Tweet a videocomparing feminists to Islamists?

Biologist: Unfortunately that was a misstep.

Smarmy: It was hilarious though.

Biologist: The affair turned into a victory. I was recently reinvited to speak, which I will be doing.

Caesar: That's a great start darling but the feminists and SJWs are now censoring Twitter feeds. My many wonderful followers can't see what I'm tweeting most of the time.

Caesar is a gay conservative anti-feminist journalist for one of the bigger conservative internet news sources that will likely be censored once the feminist candidate for president is elected.

Smarmy: Isn't that new Trust and Safety Council that Twitter established almost all anti-free speech advocates?

Candidate: It's true. Thankfully I've avoided this topic on the campaign trail. I'm not sure I can lie convincingly about free speech.

Caesar: You've done a masterful job of making young impressionable leftists believe that your plan to tax the rich to pay for everything is remotely plausible. Daddy is very pleased.

The one empty seat is reserved for Daddy, a candidate for President of the UnitedStates. His membership in this body would shock no one. Candidate is a old, Jewish, white male who has managed to divide the SJWs and Feminists in the US in the presidential primaries. He is presently running as a Democrat, claims to be a Democratic Socialist, and has slowed the Feminist candidate's ascension to the nomination. Amazingly no one has noticed that anti-semitic, anti-white racists in the US are supporting an old white Jewish man for president.

Candidate: I've been manipulating the impressionable my whole career. It's what I do. But how do we manipulate the Trust and Safety Council?

Supreme Leader: Do you have any connections within the organizations that make up the Council?

Candidate: Unfortunately I don't. I'm not sure where the impressionable demagogue who runs Feminist Frequency's allegiances lie in the election. If she supports my candidacy then I may be able to get a meeting with her.

Supreme Leader: See if you can get a meeting with her. If you can...Bring. Her. To. Me.

With that the Supreme Leader sits back and vanishes, drawing the meeting to an end.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Modern Feminism: Scaring Women Since 2000

I've written about fear an awful lot in the past weeks and with good reason. Fear dominates society in the West: fear of debt, war, terrorism, and the loss of civil liberties. These are all things worthy of being afraid of, even if how we understand these issues may vary a lot from person to person. Fear is a normal, if rare, part of the human condition. Western society is especially afraid these days for any number of reasons, which cannot be good for the collective health and psyche of people in the West.

People are also afraid of phantom threats ranging from alien abduction, the New World Order, and the Patriarchy, none of which has evidence that supports their existence. Yet each gets blamed by adherents for all manner of evil in the world. Only one of these threats doesn't immediately get its adherents associated with tinfoil hats and vast government conspiracies to control the world for the benefit of a few people at the expense of the enslavement of the rest of the world: the Patriarchy – and, to be honest, plenty of people claim that the Patriarchy is some kind of phantom subconscious conspiracy that enslaves the world.

The dimensions feminists use to scare women with claims of a Patriarchy ruling the world are so numerous that I'd have to write a book to chronicle all of them, but there are a couple of handy examples. The first is the trial outcome of GregoryAllen Elliot, which involved Elliot tweeting angry statements towards women who sought the censorship and public punishment of the creator of a game some (READ: Feminists) found offensive; public punishment included attempting to find the game's creator and his place of employment so that feminists could harass his employer into terminating him. Elliot tweeted angry messages to these women and was charged with harassment. This case served as the first case in the Canadian courts on the topic of freedom of speech.

Elliot was found not guilty of all charges, resulting in many feminists decrying the outcome and claiming that it adds to the climate of fear some women face online. Feminist activists are so afraid of the alleged harassment that women face online that Feminist leadership has even called for the UN tocensor the internet of 'hate speech,' which is a truly Orwellian proposition. Keep in mind that we're talking about angry messages sent via Twitter, Facebook, and other words, messages sent from long distances that pose no physical threat to anyone. In the name of protecting the feelings of the easily offended feminists would censor people in the public sphere.

A great example of this is the case of Richard Dawkins tweeting an amusing cartoon comparing contemporaryfeminism to Islamism. The response from the Femisphere was swift: direct harassment of Richard Dawkins followed by his being disinvited to speak at theNortheast Conference for Science and Skepticism for tweeting a video that hurt some people's feelings.

As I've said earlier, fear is possibly the most powerful tool for political radicals to achieve their goals. In the name of protecting people's feelings, today's SJWs are ready to sacrifice free speech. Don't believe me? Recently a conservative activist went to Yale university with a petition to repeal the First Amendment, which many students signed. This is a prime example of why feminism is an authoritarian movement, as any attempt to curtail freedom of speech in the name of protecting people is the hallmark of all illiberal movements in history.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Creating a Campus Climate of Fear

There's been a lot of talk lately about conditions on college campuses. The news and online commentators have covered college protests about all manner of things from 'offensive'Halloween costumes to fecal swastikas  to students demanding that their campus police be disarmed because ofperceived racism, college campuses have once again become hotbeds for radicalism. This radicalism is deeply embedded in the various student leadership organizations of the university campus. To illustrate, let's return to our mythical student government association and watch the process of rule by fear in process:

Scene: Student Senate Meeting. Place: Student Union Building. Date: Wednesday evening, 5pm.

Student senate leaders file in for the meeting, with the senate chair arriving first. We'll call him Daniel, an ethnically mixed male of ambiguous sexuality. He's wearing worn out jeans, a suit jacket, a dress shirt more appropriate for a frat party, and hasn't shaved in several months. He's 20 years old with a scruffy, patchy beard.

He is followed by the 12 members of the student senate, about half of whom have either a Starbucks cup in their hands or a 30oz bottle of water in case they find themselves in a desert unexpectedly. Shortly thereafter the student body president arrives with her VP; both are self-described 'Left Marxists' who secretly harbor anti-semitic attitudes dressed up in a concern for Palestinian suffering.

Shortly after their arrival they are followed by their cabinet members, who are largely radicals. The Equal Rights Advocate and the Multicultural Affairs Director take prominent seats near the President and Vice President.

The Agenda: Watching the presentation of the Alternative Student Union, an unofficial student organization that operates 'outside the system.' The Student Body President and Vice President are both members of the organization, as is about 1/3 of the Senate. The informal leader, a charming young African American woman named Alice, is walks in dressed like a normal and unassuming student. After the preliminary call to order and approval of the agenda, Alice is given the floor.

Alice: “As we know, the university administrators recently armed campus police. They did so because they are racists and are afraid of students of color. Ignore that the small police force has several women and people of color on the force – they armed them because they are racist and fear students of color. The ASU will be taking over the Board of Trustees meeting and stopping their business until they agree to disarm campus police. We'll be doing this Friday. Next Monday, the university president is having a public hearing about tuition. We'll be interrupting that meeting despite the fact that he needs to decide how to avoid raising tuition. The affordable education of every student is unimportant because we know better than the student body. We will keep doing this until they meet our demands. Any questions?”

A senator, we'll call her Maria, raises her hand: “Will this be like the last meeting? Make a lot of noise, no-platform the president and board members, and pretend we speak for the student body even though fewer than 5% of them voted for us?”

Alice: “Absolutely. The ASU was unelected, and we only ask ourselves how we feel about these issues, so we can speak accurately for the whole body of students. Bring signs and drums. The more noise the better. Noise helps intimidate them and the students who oppose us into silence.”

The Multicultural Affairs Director raises her hand: “I know that the police here are racist because they pulled me over while I was driving because I wasn't wearing a seat belt.” She shakes her rainbow colored hair. “They have no right to judge me on appearances or the lack of a seat belt.”

Alice: “Absolutely. I totally agree.”

The Student Body President raises her hand: “Someone make sure to bring snacks in case we get hungry. We need to be in this for the long haul.”

Her Vice President interjects: “I can have a rapid response team of people ready to deliver snacks at any moment. Snacks are essential.”

Obviously I'm making fun of these people but the elements are there. Any area of disagreement is reduced to racism, sexism, the Illuminati – er, I mean Patriarchy, or other forms of 'institutional oppression.' It never occurs to people that those who operate universities have a broader view and more information than students do. Not that logic matters all that much, as fear is the essential tool of Social Justice Warriors.

The federal rate of rape is actually lower on university campuses than it is in the broader society, yet fear of rape rules the day. Why? Either SJWs are ignorant of the facts or, more likely, they just don't care because fear is the ultimate political tool for achieving the revolutionary change that Cultural Marxists so desire. Universities have become homes for institutional collectivism. An essential element of collectivism is the assumption that the proletariat are too dumb to know what their needs actually are, thus enabling an elite (at universities, the activists and student leaders) to speak for them on any issue. It's rare for elected student leaders to not assume a side in a controversial issue and pretend to speak for the entire student body.

Why the focus on campus activism? Student leadership is one entry point into the political pipeline that feeds into the party and wider activist system that serves as the engine of American politics. In some states former student government leaders can become members of corrupt 'non-partisan' student lobbying organizations at the state and federal level – I say 'non-partisan' because while they refrain from endorsing specific candidates and parties, those who run these organizations tend to overwhelmingly be Cultural Marxists; this is reflected in trainings they offer for student activists that are radical and leftist in nature. But that topic I'll save for another day.