Feminists Don’t Want Equality; They Want to Defeat and Dominate Men

We men have been lording it over women for at least 12,000 and probably far longer than that. Patriarchy was usually the only way to be for any society.

However, in recent years in the West, patriarchy has started to crumble, mostly due to the assaults of the feminists. This is a good thing in most ways. However there are still quite a few battlements in the bombarded fortress which are active and not good for women.

And women have started to institute a matriarchy over men too in some ways. Like the #metoo nonsense. It was inevitable. Most groups fighting for their rights don’t really want equal rights. They want to defeat the people dominating them and turn the tables to where the dominated are now dominators.

So the remains of patriarchy continue to oppress women while the newfound matriarchy now oppresses men. Both sexes are both oppressed and oppressors now.

PUA/Game: Nice Guys and Bad Boys: The Final World

RL: LOL I dunno man. Women say they hate liars but they themselves lie their fool heads off all day long. And they love to hook up with extremely dishonest bad boys who cheat on them all the time.

Jason: But why are these guys stuck with “bad girls”? It’s because they have no integrity! And now the bad girls are hypocritically demanding integrity from these “losers in life”(sarcasm).

Bad boys can get any woman they want, pretty much. They get the hottest women of all. And they don’t care if they get bad girls or nice girls for the most part. Why would they care about that? They’re jerks. Why would jerks care about the integrity of the women they are with? Only decent men care about things like that. Bad boys probably like bad girls because they realize that bad girls are somewhat sociopathic just like they are. Peas in a pod.

Honestly, I think women are sick. There’s something wrong with them. They’re masochists. They actually want to be treated like crap by bad boys.

I don’t necessarily blame them for this, as I think that they can’t help it. Actually I do not blame women for most of the things I complain about them because I think they can’t help being bad like this. I think the badness is hardwired in.

Women are too decent to go out of their way and choose to be wicked. I mean sure, there are females who are anywhere from somewhat to completely psychopathic, and I do blame them for being pond scum. But face it. Women are the gentle sex, the sensitive sex. They’re basically kind-hearted and compassionate, and we men sure as Hell are not.

Instead I think it’s got to be wired in from caveman days. If you think about it, only 40% of men bred back in those days. So 60% of men had no kids. And almost all women bred. So back then there were harems just like in tribal Sub-Saharan Africa.

These arrangements typically mean that the worst, baddest, cruelest, and most evil men defeat all the other guys and rule over the defeated by terror while keeping as many women as possible for themselves. The rest of the guys are standing around with their dicks in their hands saying, “Duhhhh.”

So back then, the mean and sociopathic cavemen had these harems of women, and they were so mean and nasty that the rest of the men, possibly being less aggressive, were kept from taking these guys’ women by sheer force.

Look at Elephant Seals for an analogy in the animal world. Actually in much of the animal world, only a subset of males breed, and most males do not breed.

You can see that a setup like this might not only select for sociopathy and bad boys in men, but it might also select for the women liking these cavemen bad boy sociopaths and even putting up with being mistreated, as these caveman psychos were probably pretty mean to their women. So women who were not into being treated like crap by some maniac simply never bred and died out. It’s a just-so story but it’s as good as any.

Anyone got a better theory?

There isn’t any better theory.

The only alternate theory is the feminist theory. The feminist theory as usual is a complete lie because everything feminists say is a lie. Feminists simply say that it is a big lie that women prefer bad boys, are basically masochists, and hate nice guys.

Instead they say that women hate nice guys because deep down inside, nice guys aren’t very nice! They’re actually mean! As usual this makes no sense at all, since why would women pass up the nice guys for being hidden mean guys while flocking to the jerks who by all measures are not only openly vicious but are dramatically more mean and bad than any nice guy.

Feminist liars also say that women reject nice guys because nice guys are just being nice and hanging around women pretending to be their friends in hopes that the woman will eventually have sex with them. Oh noes! That’s terrible! Those evil men! How dare they try to get laid! Those poor virginal damsels in distress! Feminists come rescue them!

So nice guys are actually evil harassing, assaulting, raping scum! #Metoo! And the bad boys who are far more harassing, assaulting, and even raping than any nice guy are the ones they pick! That makes no sense at all, like anything any feminist ever said about anything.

It’s pretty simple. Women like masculine man. They go for bad boys because bad boys are masculine. The caveman residue alluded to above might also factor in. Nice guys? Well, they seem like wimps, and women hate wimps because they’re not masculine. Wimps are too feminine and most straight women are not into dating male lesbians, except the ones who go out with me.

And this is coming from a guy who has dated maybe 200 females in my life, so I’m not some loser whining, “Women only like bad boys! They don’t like nice guys like me!”

Plus I am a bit of a bad boy myself. But why do you think I do this? Part of it is I am just a rebellious motherfucker who doesn’t believe in fathers, bosses, rules, or laws (especially the first and all the subsequent ones follow from that one). But also I have been running Bad Boy Game my whole life because I know women love it. It’s all just a way to get women.

Women don’t like nice guys because they think they are wimps, pussies, and fags! That’s the truth of it. However, when they grab a Beta Provider to settle down, marry, and have a kid, it seems like a lot of the time they want a nice guy for a husband and father as long as he is not too much of a pussy.

It seems like back in the Day I was a pretty nice guy though, although I have always been a hardcore inveterate cheater. But I have usually had open relationships with women. I used to just lay it out right away that this was an open relationship, and I would say, “I don’t care what you do. I don’t care if you date other guys. I just don’t want to hear about it. What I don’t know won’t hurt me. And vice versa.”

This was back in the 70’s and 80’s when people were promiscuous, and crabs was about the worst STD you could get. It was groovy and cool to be polyamorous although no one ever called it that. A lot of the women and girls back then seemed like they liked being in open relationships because it made them groovy, cool, hip people.

I had girls who would go around bragging to our friends that we had an open relationship. I had a girlfriend recently put on her Facebook page that she was in an Open Relationship (with me). She acted like she was proud of it.

A lot of females want to be bad girls and break the rules, so to speak. A man granting them the status of an open relationship on their end is very empowering, and females love to be empowered because typically they are not allowed to have much power or agency in this world where they have to spend most of their time fending off the advances of annoying and uninteresting men.

They especially like being given power over the Sex Game because like I said, they are always playing defense, and it gets old after a bit.

But back when I supposedly had the Looks, being a nice guy was not much of a hindrance because I figure Chad can be a nice guy, and no one really cares.

I mean sometimes women would bitch me out right to my face, insult my masculinity, etc. I would just sit there and take it like an idiot and feel terribly hurt, whereas nowadays I would probably throw an object across the room at any woman who talked like that to me.

But soon enough they would go back to fucking me four, five, or six hours a day, so obviously they weren’t too disgusted by my lack of manliness. Looks pretty much trumps everything else when it comes to women. Chad breaks all the rules because the rules simply don’t apply to Chad.

Hey Feminists: Men Don’t Actually Hate Women

It is a feminist article of faith that all or most all men hate women. This statement is repeated endlessly and has been stated over and over by all of their biggest heroes and scholars. On feminist sites, the notion that most all men hate women is repeated ad nauseum on a daily basis.

I always found this view odd because I know men pretty well. And over six decades, I have not commonly met men who objectively hate women.

On the other hand, I have met many sexist females who think that men are quite inferior to women. In fact, this is exactly what almost all feminists believe. Feminism is simply female sexism against men. They’re female chauvinist pigs, they’ve been this way from the start, and they’re this way to this very day. I don’t think they’ll ever change because the very notion of feminism is predicated on notions like all men hating women and men being quite inferior to women.

If we men really hated women, you would hear it all the time. I would have been hearing it my whole life. I know this because men don’t hide things like this. If men hate hate something or someone or some group, they just come right out and say it. Men are not embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they hate this or that person(s) or thing(s).

In fact, hating is a very masculine behavior and it is quite encouraged in male society, provided you hate the right things. Men who are incapable of hate are regarded as wimps and pussies who will not stand up and fight for themselves. Cowards, in other words. We think they are pathetic.

Most men absolutely do not hate women. I should know. I’m a man. Now whether we treat them as we should is another matter.

Of course, there are men who hate women, and I have met some of them. It’s not cool in male society to say you hate women. People will call you gay if you do that. In other words, straight men are supposed to love women. If you hate them instead, this means you must be homosexual.

What you do hear is men saying they are done with women, they are over them, women are too much trouble, etc. But that’s not hate. And most of them are not serious because you meet the same guy later on and he’s dating or he’s got a girlfriend or wife. And many women say the same thing about men. You often hear this from members of both sexes after the age of 40. You don’t hear it much before that.

What many men are though is sexist. Sexism is not hate. It’s completely different.

It’s this idea that women are a somewhat inferior form of human. They’re not really on our level. Sure, you love them, but they’re just not on the same level as we are. Sort of like how we feel about kids and our pets. Your cat and your young child are in a sense below you, right? They’re just not on the same level. And in a lot of ways, they your cat and your kid are inferior, at least at the moment. But that’s not hate.

All of these feminist women who insist that men hate women are completely out of their minds. It’s been a mass delusion of feminists ever since day one that men hate women. Feminists want to believe this. They want to believe that we hate them because it’s necessary for their crazy, victim-addicted point of view. It’s the biggest lie of them all.

Another big fat lie is Patriarchy. Yes, men have lorded it over women and kept them down for thousands of years, and even for most of American history. But that’s lifting now. Feminism has succeeded in more or less dismantling patriarchy in the US, and they have instead assembled a Matriarchy in its place which of course oppresses men.

There are still some of the remains of the fortress of Patriarchy left, but a lot of the fortifications have been destroyed by the feminists, to their credit. Get off the paranoid “Patriarchy is out to get you” trip, women! It’s crazy nonsense.

These are just two of the insane lies that feminism peddles. Go study feminism sometime. It’s constructed on a house of cards made up of mostly flat out, straight up lies. Feminists are hostile to science, truth, and facts because it doesn’t back up their stupid lies that they have constructed their entire ideology on.

Say no to feminism. If you’re a woman and you love men, it’s time to stand up and say no to feminism.

No Feminists, the Three Recent Mass Shootings Had Nothing to Do With Misogyny

Of course, the feminists are on full rant, blaming misogyny for all three recent mass shootings. The Gilroy shooter was supposedly motivated by misogyny because he praised an old Social Darwinist tract  that is full racist and misogynistic writing. Nevertheless, there’s no evidence that the shooting was motivated by hatred of women, and in fact, this man said little or nothing about women one way or the other. Nor did he target women in his shooting. He shot at anyone.

The moronic Left media state that the Gilroy shooter’s manifesto, which was basically apolitical and if anything an argument against unchecked population growth, contained  racist and misogynistic statements. He lamented that “Latinos and Silicon Valley twats” were flooding into his town. Sounds like he was upset about rampant population growth in his town.

Yes, he mentions Latinos, but he also mentions Silicon Valley types, and they tend to be either White, Asians, or South Indians. So either he hated Whites, Latinos, Asians, and South Indians equally (or just about everybody), or race had nothing to do with the shooting.

The FBI has since found a hit list of possible targets this man had composed including all sorts of government offices, churches, and organizations from all over the political spectrum. The more you look at this shooting, the more it seems to have not had any politics at all.

The moron feminist media claimed that “Silicon Valley twats” was a misogynistic phrase, apparently implying that he hated female Silicon Valley workers. Yes, twat can refer to female genitalia, though it’s not often used that way. Yes, you can call a woman a twat just as you can call her a bitch or a cunt, and it can be an insult when used this way.

But the way twat is most frequently used in the US simply means something like idiots, fools, morons, dumbasses, etc. So the comment was not misogynistic at all.

Instead he commented on “Silicon Valley clowns,” which isn’t bigotry at all except that our modern bigotry hunters, determined to excavate every bit of hate lurking in the caverns of even the most innocent of sentences, will probably dig some up. After all,  when you go looking for a certain thing, you have a way of finding it, even if it’s via hallucination.

The El Paso mass shooter is also somehow a misogynist in addition to being an “incel,” though no one knows his sex life, and he wasn’t complaining anyway. This is because he was a White Supremacist (fact), and White Supremacists are all automagically linked to misogyny via links with MRA’s, incels, PUA’s, etc. Or so say the serial liars at the SPLC, but they lie half the time their mouths are open, so they aren’t a good source about anything.

First of all, half of incels are non-White. Yes, some White incels are White Supremacists, but many more are not, and most incel boards now have polices against race-bait posting.

In general PUA ideology says nothing about race, leaving aside that clowns like Roissy and Roosh have adopted racialist ideology. PUA ideology is about heterosexual men getting laid by women. There’s no racialism inherent in such a philosophy of seduction unless I missed that lecture in Pick-Up class.

MRA’s are notoriously for being non-racist or anti-racist, and racism has never been a part of the MRA scene to my knowledge.

Yes, many White Supremacist men are quite sexist, and fascism often has strong links to sexism. But fascists never made a habit of murdering women. They just wanted them at home, in the kitchen, or in church (or the German translation of such), taking care of kids, cooking meals, and gaining spiritual sustenance. Kinder kuchen kirch.

A number of the more hardcore White Supremacists do seem to hate women or at least have a very low opinion of them. The crowd around The Daily Stormer and Vanguard News Network (though the latter is more sexist than misogynistic) is a good example of that. But the quietist aspect of the movement as seen in the American Renaissance site is not misogynistic or sexist at all. Neither is Greg Johnson’s more hardcore Countercurrents site.

It’s true there are few women in the White Supremacist scene, but that is probably because hardcore racism and fascism appeal a lot more to men than to women. In fact, fascism is actually designed to appeal to men.

Nevertheless, many White Supremacists and White racists of any type do not hate women at all, and nor are they sexist. If anything, from my depraved dope, booze, and sex-drenched point of view, I find them squares, fuddy-duddies, and party-poopers. They talk a lot about protecting their women, and they seem to mean it. They probably pedestalize women more than anything else.

So of the three mass shooters, only one has misogyny issues, and his shooting had nothing to do with his issues with women. So the feminists are 0-3 on their theory, which is about how they score on every bit of their fact-free ideology.

Alt Left: Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

by Ernest Everhard

But we did, Nathan. And that’s precisely the problem.

In the unlikely event that Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs magazine and I were ever to sit down and discuss policy we’d like to see implemented, I’m sure we’d agree on a great deal. We Need to Revive the Fight for Overtime Pay, reads a July 9, 2019 headline.

No argument here.  Doubtlessly Robinson is an advocate of universal single payer health care, preferably with basic dental and eye care included. Probably an advocate of renewed vigor in the union movement. Probably for ending neoconservative petrodollar warfare in the middle east. Probably for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics. You get the picture.

At times his enlightenment goes beyond that: Discipline, Strategy and Morality, or why beating up unarmed writers is a poor way to advance left-wing ideas… reads another article, regarding antifa’s recent violent assault on right leaning author Andy Ngo.

While Robinson has no kind words for Ngo, he rightly condemns antifa’s assault on him: “The attack on Andy Ngo does not, to me, meet the criteria for justified violence. A Quillette writer with a GoPro is a nuisance. Punching him might be satisfying (to some, not me). But it is gratuitous and unjustified. It’s wrong. It does nothing helpful, and actually harms the cause of the left.”

Agreed, though to be fair and in the interests of equal time, it’s worth pointing out that there are those who claim that Ngo is no innocent angel or martyr here either.

But I digress. As far as left wing pundits are concerned, expect good stuff from Nathan Robinson. Most of the time.

However, in a recent piece in Current Affairs, Don’t Believe What They Tell You About the Left, he drops the ball, and does so in a manner that reveals the heart of what’s wrong with so much leftism, both past and present. The article criticizes Intellectual Dark Web pundit Bret Weinstein for asserting that the left’s ongoing demonization of White people will drive more and more of them to the embrace of White Nationalism.

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight white male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight white man.” Nothing of the kind.

The closest thing I’ve ever gotten is “perhaps as a straight white male you should exercise a bit of caution and restraint before loudly giving your opinion on matters that other people may have somewhat more personal experience with.”

But when people insist they “won’t apologize for being white,” I still wonder who has been asking them, because nobody has ever asked me to do anything but show respect for marginalized people’s perspective and critically examine my own assumptions and advantages. Which seems a fairly modest ask. 

Robinson goes on to insist that there are no such voices on the left condemning white males categorically, and that these claims come exclusively from right wing sources. The article favorably quotes one Sam Adler Bell:

These people are not getting the message “everyone hates white straight males” from left wing media. They’re not watching left wing media!! It’s absurd. They’re getting that message from right wing media *interpreting* left wing media for them.

He then goes on to suggest:

Don’t get your understanding of left concepts from Prager University videos. Get them from books! Or from leftists. Go to a DSA meeting and meet some people and listen to what they have to say.

Okay. I like the idea of going to the source. Get your views on the left from right wing sources, and what you’ll get is a telling glimpse of the private obsessions of the right wing mind. The vast majority of the time, these have little to do with the obsessions of the left.

What you’ll get instead is a Shapiroesque gish gallop or a Petersonian word salad, wherein you can count on one hand the number of inhalations the speaker takes before getting into the evils of communism, government intervention in the economy, the need for high income tax cuts and deregulation, one hundred million dead in the 20th century, and no small number of mentions of Venezuela and of course endless hosannas exalting endless private wealth accumulation and concentration.

Whatever the Koch Bro’s pay them to say, basically.

And that hasn’t changed in decades now. Listen to the right wing on any format, and what you’ll get is the clear sense that the western world reached its absolute satori around 1981 or so, when Maggie and Ronnie were slashing taxes, privatizing and deregulating left and right, and sticking it to the unions at home and the commies abroad.

From there, what we have to look forward to is a millennium of glory, as outlined in the gospels of Rand, Mises, Friedman and Hayek. If this actually sounds pretty lame, that’s because it is. An endless future of sweatshops, indebtedness and boom and bust cycles doesn’t sound that exciting to me. Sorry guys.

Plus, I should hope that we’re all smart enough not to be enticed into White Nationalism, no matter how shrill and stupid the anti-White rhetoric on the left gets. Too wrongs don’t make a right, after all.

And let’s especially give Adolf Hitler’s resurgent fan club a pass. Let’s not forget that he did start a war that got tens of millions of Europeans and white males killed, that devastated the nations of Europe and permanently ended their global hegemony. With friends like Adolf, White guys certainly don’t need enemies. Fortunately, this groundswell of neo-fascist reaction against social justice culture doesn’t seem to be a huge big thing.

And no, Trumpism doesn’t count. Neither does the Tea Party. Reactionary politics tap into impulses in the American (and European) body politic that are decades, centuries even, old. It reincarnates on a decade, maybe a generational cycle, but there’s nothing here that hasn’t been here in numerous different forms for ages now. So a surge of White supremacism as a response to social justice excess isn’t a thing, in any event.

So if you want to see what’s going on on the left, check out leftist sources. Agreed, and the reverse is true. Don’t just believe that Jordan Peterson is a Nazi and that Sam Harris is a genocidal neocon. See for yourself (said no leftist ever). Unfortunately for Nathan J. Robinson, doing precisely that actually damns his basic claim.

Frustration with the Left of the kind he’s criticizing isn’t coming from the Heritage Foundation or Liberty University. It comes from people like myself and many others who’ve had countless encounters with left wing people online and in real life and report having very similarly frustrating experiences. Common themes include:

  • Robinson has had good luck with Leftists if the only anti-White, anti-male hatred he’s encountered is strictly tongue in cheek, or hyperbolic expressions of frustration with White and male privilege. If such expressions abound, that should tell us something about the character of the Left in the social media age, and that something isn’t good. If expressions of hate for anyone (except the legitimately horrible; Hitler etc) have become acceptable on the Left, that’s a pretty clear indicator that we’ve lost the plot. Remember when we hated racism, not White people? When we hated sexism, not men? This was the cant on even the radical left as recently as the 1990s. If you don’t think the Left has a White hatred problem and a misandry problem, you’re not paying attention to a host of sources: Twitter, Tumblr, a host of woke blogs, r/socialism, most of Leftbook, a good portion of Breadtube, most online feminism, etc etc. It takes a glaring dose of willful blindness not to see that the Left has become about flagrant racial and gender partisanship. It shouldn’t be.
  • Leftists are too often not direct and honest in conversation. One wonders if protest is the only way they actually have of communicating with other people. In encounters with ideological rivals, the tendency online is to post vague expressions of disapproval in a scolding and parental tone, intended to gaslight their target into assuming a purely rational, “what did I do wrong?” kind of stance. And then eat them alive. Another is a “whew boys, look at this” sort of post, followed by mocking laughter. This is the entire format of The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube. You know, the channel with the cackling asshole in the background at all times. Chapo Trap House is largely about this as well. While satirizing the right is fun and easy, if that’s all they do, one starts to come away from media like this with the impression that what leftists stand for is how smart, clever and funny they think they are. Are actual ideological and policy positions expressed on these shows? Or is it ALL gaslighting? I don’t honestly know. We’d do well to learn from the brilliant Kyle Kulinski, who always lets you know exactly what this is – or should be – about policy wise.
  • Leftists have a love of sloganeering, thought stopping rhetorical tricks, witty portmanteaus and reciting, sometimes word for word, official dogmas. I’ve read the same copy-pasta, word for word, on gender related subjects I don’t know how many times now. And as bad as the intersectional feminists are for this, they have nothing on the classical Marxist-Leninists and (worst of all) the Maoists. Now these are a thankfully small minority on the Left, but do show how we’re not immune to the ills of flagrantly cult like thinking.
  • Closed ideological systems, which contain within themselves easy means to dismiss any and all criticism of themselves. Critics are simply White males defending their privilege, reactionary capitalist roaders, kulaks, etc. They all have a stake in the maintenance of the present “oppressive” system. That the cherished dogmas of the Left, like Marxist-Leninism once upon a time and intersectional feminism today, could be flawed (while still making some correct observations) is inconceivable.
  • Related to this is a tendency to display “moral relativism in monstrous incarnation.”  Which refers to the tendency of Leftists to judge actions on the basis of the “classes” of people who perform them, or whether they belong to a “marginalized” vs a “privileged” group. Leftist hating of White males isn’t really hatred because hatred is “power plus prejudice” and since feminists and minorities have no power (according to their own self referencing dogmas) they can’t be bigots. Violent actions visited upon the kulaks or other enemies of the people are okay. Kto Kovo, right?
  • Frequent expression, or at least implication, of truly bizarre and extreme views. Consider, for instance, the occasionally cited Schrödinger’s Rapist, which implies that all women everywhere should at all times avoid all men, because they have no way of knowing which men are the rapists and which are not. This has clearly not been thought through, and doesn’t reflect the way that virtually all progressives and feminists live their lives in the real world. Gee, I wonder why? Yet even if such ideas are not meant to be taken at face value, what does their popularity among Leftists and feminists say about their underlying mindset? Most of them may not all really hate all men and white people, but their doctrines certainly open the door to legitimizing such hatred, and anti white male exacerbation is a recurring motif in Leftist spaces in a way that would not be tolerated (and rightly so) were the racial and gender identities switched. Are we to believe that only White males have flaws in their character that require self reflection and repentance? At what point do “power” and “privilege” simply become legitimizing rationalizations for why it’s okay when the Left’s charmed circle of preferred identities hate?  I guess the idea that we should not be discriminated against based on our race or gender isn’t really the idea after all. This all says something, whether the Nathan J. Robinsons of this world want it to or not. If men, White men especially, are put off by this ongoing pandering to female moral vanity, can we really blame them?
  • Fragility. Put up serious arguments against Leftist dogmas and watch their adherents fall to pieces or go into full on attack mode. You’ve caused them personal injury, and they’re damn well going to let you – or your employers or people you do business with – know it. They sure the Hell let Andy Ngo know it, among others. Of course, they’re the first to accuse their opponents of likewise being fragile, with “White fragility” being a common thought stopping slogan among critical race theorists to denounce the tendency among whites to dislike being held collectively responsible for historical mistreatment of minorities.

I should like to point out that I, and many others, were not told about any of the above second hand by Bret Weinstein or Dave Rubin. We weren’t all good, dutiful socialists until Stefan Molyneux or Carl Benjamin somehow brainwashed us into falsely believing all of this. They are experiences that I and countless others, including some of these very “rightwing” YouTubers have had, and they aren’t isolated occurrences. They are the rule and not the exception, I’m afraid.

And I hate to say all of this, because I am a Leftist at heart. I don’t even completely disagree with the tenets of today’s Left: intersectionality and so on. Robinson is right in that we’d do well to listen to those with more experience with particular kinds of discrimination, and not be so quick to get defensive.

The problem is the weaponization of intersectionality and the inflation of standpoint theory into claims for full-blown infallibility. Plus, we can reasonably question just who the intersectional ideologues are speaking for, and how representative professional journalists and academics really are of the downtrodden and marginalized?

We’re not stupid, Nathan. We know when these ideas are being manipulated so as to establish social dominance. We’ve been through it with hip, politically correct ideologues time and time again, and the fact our frustration with it gets chalked up to the “alt right” simply compounds the problem.

Where Robinson gives himself, and the mainstream Left away, however, is in this pair of quotes:

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight White male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight White man.” Nothing of the kind.

One of my colleagues, for instance, has a tendency to joke that all men should be fired into the sun. (At least, I believe she is joking.) Men sometimes email to complain, saying they do not feel “welcomed” into the Left and that these jokes are hurtful because they imply that all men are bad.

I am not very sympathetic to the men who write these notes, because I am of their gender, and I do not feel wounded about remarks advising that men be fired into the sun.

In short, Nathan J. Robinson has not himself ever been told to fuck off for being a straight White man, so we’re to assume that never happens. Nathan J. Robinson himself doesn’t feel wounded by remarks advising that men be fired into the sun. Therefore, such remarks are well and good.

Well, I hate to have to say this, Nathan, but it isn’t all about you. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not wise for Leftists to countenance White male bashing in their ranks because doing so drives away a huge potential base for support. Support the Left needs to actually win elections, take power and actually implement policy that can really help poor and marginalized minorities.

Maybe that support and the politics it can achieve is more important to the broader cause than professional educated professional activists getting to be right and dumb Rightists being wrong about a cherished point of dogma, such as ‘power plus prejudice or of the ego stroking satisfaction of displaying their unbound feminist wittiness in the face of yet another neanderthal male.

But many Leftists will never consider this, and thus the core of the problem on the Left reveals itself, and why self-reflection (except a vain sort of self criticism of one’s own ideological shortcomings, itself a very totalitarian and cultish concept) seems never to be on the table with most Leftists:

The Left Has an Egocentrism Problem

Too many Leftists are caught up in a kind of narcissism wherein their projected self-concepts as warriors fighting on behalf of the underdog (the precise origin of the derisive use of the phrase social justice warrior) must be shielded at all times from any kind of doubt or criticism.

Thus, their reactions to disagreement are always ones of emotionalism, hostility and defensiveness. Never due consideration of what their opponents actually have to say, even if the end result of such consideration would reveal the critics being incorrect and the Left’s position vindicated by the facts.

One gets the sense that, like the religious fundamentalist, many Leftists demand blind faith, and the very notion of fact checking thus offends them. To doubt is to be racist, misogynist etc.

It’s so much easier just to handwave any and all dissent as the shrill hysteria of this or that rightwing pundit, and maybe even call for their deplatforming, milkshaking or the like.

So much easier than meeting the challenge head on. The bubble of self satisfaction doesn’t get burst that way. Not to say that rightwing pundits on YouTube or elsewhere are correct in their own world views. The Right has its own problems. However, the lack of self awareness among so many on the Left is simply breathtaking.

Perhaps this is why most of the intellectual and activist vigor on the Left is poured into digging in their heels over metapolitical dogmas aimed at asserting a kind of ideological infallibility: standpoint theory, power plus prejudice, white male fragility, dissension from feminist and race theory equating to racist and sexist oppression, and “hate” speech as a form of actual violence (justifying censorship).

As opposed to fighting the good fight for actual policies that will help real people in the real world: universal health care, free education, a living wage, ending petrodollar warfare, a new new deal, getting money out of politics and so on.

Witty Leftists so love their portmanteaus, so I have one of my own: too many Leftists are egolitarians. Its meaning should be obvious. So if you are reading this, Nathan J. Robinson, or whoever else on the Left who’s reading this, let’s work at not being egolitarian.

Let’s make this about the policies we all know we need, that Kyle Kulinski and Bernie Sanders so love to repeat so often. I’m not calling for perfection, purity testing or vigorous tone policing. Rather, let’s try to make this about ourselves and our self concepts a little less and about achieving good political results for the most needy and the most marginalized a little more, if we could?

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Alt Left: Modern Feminism as a Psychopathic Movement?

I am starting to think feminists are psychopaths or at least modern feminism is a psychopathic movement. All feminists have told me flat out that women have a right to hit us men all the want to. In fact, they take delight in hitting us. There have been many articles in feminist press about hitting men. These are filled with comments from gleeful feminists talking about the men they have hit or assaulted and how fun it was. The rest of the comments are, “You go, girl. Hit those men! Beat those men! LOL!”

I asked every feminist I know if we ever had a right to hit them back, and they all said no. Ok, that’s psychopathic. They get to hit us all they want to, but it’s illegal for us to hit back. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

When women are unrepresented in like anything but even 1% they scream and yell and carry on and demand equality of outcome at all costs. In a number of cases now though, women are beating men. More women in college, more women getting degrees, more women in all sorts of high paying professions.

So men are now underrepresented in all sorts of fields, in school, etc. Response of feminists? Crickets! Women can’t be underrepresented 1% in anything and we have to force equal representation for women, but women get to beat men and over-represent them in anything, and that’s wonderful.

Incidentally, there have been many gloating articles in the feminist press about how women are kicking men’s asses in some field or other or in school, and the women are all cheering it on. They’re chortling and carrying on like it’s a party. “Beat those men!”, they scream with delight. They get to beat us in everything, and we can’t beat them in one thing. That’s psychopathy. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

I sincerely believe that feminism is a psychopathic movement.

Alt Left: 80% of US Women Refuse to Identify As Feminists

Studies of millennial women appear to show that 20% of them identify as feminists. Not sure if that’s a good figure, as it was hard to find the actual survey, and I averaged together the rates for the different races of women, Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White. When I averaged together the rates of the four races, I got 20%. The link for those figures was to a page doing surveys on millenials. An article saying 20% of women identify as feminists linked to a page doing surveys on millenials.

In addition, an average of only 27% of European women identify as feminists. So 73% of European women reject modern feminism.

On the other hand, most said that they were full equal rights for women, maybe 80% support that. So you can argue that they support feminist goals while rejecting identification with the modern feminist movement.

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity. Bottom line: feminism has a bad name. Why? They’re fanatics. Case in point: your average feminist, wild eyes, danger hair and the rest.

The 3rd wave sites I have been on are not so dykey and anti-feminine as the truly insane radical feminist sites where the women are nearly diagnostically psychotic, but the man-hating BS is definitely still there, though quite a bit toned down.

Plus a lot of 3rd wavers are heterosexual, really like to have sex with men, and are often horny as Hell. Feminist men almost get mobbed on those sites.

Alt Left: The Single Factor that Moderates Feminist Man-hatred

Love of dick.

There’s one thing that moderates a feminist. Does she still like dick? Is she strictly dickly? As long as they still like cock, the man-hatred never gets ramped up to extreme levels.

The worst manhaters of all are lesbians, either biological or straight women who turned lez due to extreme man-hatred. Many of the extreme manhaters are straight women who have simply given up on men to become cat ladies and marry their vibrators.

As long as they’re still fucking us, they just can’t hate us too much. At some point  they run into a wall and can’t hate us anymore. The cock-love serves to block the man-hatred at some point.

I hear that there are misogynists who have a lot of sex with women, but it doesn’t seem to work that way with women. You don’t hear about a lot of man-haters who have lots of sex with men other than prostitutes, where this is quite common.

Yes, many prostitutes are extreme manhaters. Many have turned lesbian due to their extreme man-hatred. How they can stand to keep having sex with us all the time is beyond me. Much worse are former prostitutes, many of whom have a near-psychotic hatred of men. Former prostitutes now vicious manhaters are extremely common in the radfem movement.

Granted, prostitutes no doubt see the very worst of men, but then so do players and womanizers. Which may be why so many womanizers are misogynists. Womanizers and prostitutes both know the opposite sex too well. Familiarity breeds contempt. They’ve both seen the bad side of the opposite sex in spades, whereas most of us are spared the worst and remain dreamy-eyed, swooning, and addicted to the opposite sex far into middle age.

Ignorance is bliss, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much knowledge can be downright fatal. That’s called a reality overdose, something most of us spend our lives downing Pretty Lie Pills to avoid. Being lie-addicted seems silly, but if it keeps you above the ground, so be it. You do what it takes in life and damn the rest.

Alt Left: Radical Feminism Is Not a Tiny Fringe Movement in Feminism

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity.

Having spent a lot of time on feminist boards, I would definitely say that those associations are reality based, in particular on radical feminist forums. Radfems are 22% of all feminists. That means that there are 4-5 million radical feminist women in the US.

SJW liars say that radical feminists are a tiny fringe group in feminism. That’s not true at all. It’s a huge movement. And most of the big names in feminism were radical feminists, including Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Robin Morgan, Sheila Jeffries, Julie Bindel, Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon.

The entire #metoo movement and the very concept of sexual harassment itself, especially the pernicious hostile workplace environment amendment to the theory, came straight out of radical feminism. Sexual harassment theory was birthed by Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon, two of the most deranged manhating bitches that ever lived. These are the intellectual braintrusts behind metoo.

Come November, You Go, Girls!

DpG_iI5UcAAT66D.jpg large
Go for it, ladies! Get out there and kick some ass. Women have good reason to be upset. I mean from what I can tell, Kavanaugh was simply a rapist as a young man. Whatever that means legally, there’s no way he should be on the Supreme Court. This is no #metoo crap with women freaking out over men flirting with them, asking for their number or asking them for date, or freaking out and screaming sexual assault when some man is testing the waters on a date. This is the real deal, real, legal rape. Not the bullshit feminist rape that has 1,000 different definitions and now has a meaning as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. Not the nonsense that no one even knows what it is. Not the nonsense that says you raped her because you couldn’t read her mind. Not the BS that says every time a woman has sex when she doesn’t really want to, it’s rape. None of that feminist manhating lunacy. We are talking about the real deal here. Real, criminal rape, violations of the law against rape, the kind that can get you arrested and thrown in in jail or prison. Kavanaugh and the Original Night Stalker have a lot more in common than you think.

Are Men Really Entitled to Women's Bodies?

It is a feminist article of faith that men are either entitled to women’s bodies or we think we are entitled to women’s bodies.
This notion strikes me as so absurd.
The average woman has three sex partners in a lifetime. Your average man has sex with six women in a lifetime. If men were actually entitled to women’s bodies or even if they thought they were, they would literally go grab sex anytime they wanted, and those figures would be far higher.
The idea that we men have or think we have a right to female bodies is absurd. Don’t these feminists realize that even men who are very good with women can go weeks, months, or even years without sex because, well, no woman seems like she wants to out with them? Including yours truly. If I am actually entitled to women’s bodies, I assure you that I would go grab me one real soon.
If it’s this bad for the players, think of the sexless nightmare the incels go through. Feminists say, “Incels think they have a right to female bodies!” Well, if incels feel that way, why don’t they go grab one, then?

Alt Left: Whither the Alt Left?

Sami: Robert, every single counterpoint you make brings us back, full circle, to the ultimate question concerning what the Alt-Left is really about:
Does it aspire, truly, to become a genuine, mass-based political movement with a clearly-articulated platform, that can change this country for the better from the ground up? Or is it a mere, irrelevant intellectual exercise on a few blogs?

 
There were 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook recently. It has now dropped down to ~6,000.
Also the existing Alt Left seems to have been colonized by regular Democratic Party people pushing anti-Republican partisan politics along with typical SJW stuff. The best analysis of the Alt Left right now is that it has been co-opted by Democratic Party liberal entryists.
And then the movement itself died down for some unknown reason. We had a terrible problem with being swamped by rightwingers and Libertarians the whole time we were popular on Facebook. It was a never-ending nightmare keeping the rightwingers out.
The problem is that nowadays when you go anti-SJW, you get swamped by rightwingers. And everyone on the liberal-Left is pretty much automatically an SJW.
And there is an odd process whereby as leftwing people get more and more anti-SJW, they start moving more and more away from left economics towards more openly promoting capitalism. This makes no sense to me. Why on Earth would capitalism be opposed to anti-SJWism? Feminism is just a group of women to sell women-oriented products to. Capitalists would love to cater to Blacks to sell them stuff. Capitalists will fall over backwards to cater to and suck up to gay people if only to get them to buy stuff. Why should capitalists care about Muslims? Capitalists would love to cater to this group and sell products especially for them. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for capitalists to be anti-SJW. It makes no sense. And it makes a lot more sense for them to go full SJW if only to sell more stuff to new groups.
It makes somewhat more sense that left economics be tied in with SJWism, as both are about equality, but there’s no reason left economics should hate or oppose heterosexuals, Whites, or men. Why should it? None of those three groups have anything to do with economics. Also the Left has always been sexual liberationist, but now that feminism has taken over the Left, the Left has become as prudish, Victorian and sex-hating as the Christian Right. Puritanism has no logical connection with the left or left economics. Why do Left economics have to do with sex and fucking? Nothing.
The Alt Left was an attempt to sever this horrible intertwining of left economics with SJWism and rightwing economics with anti-SJWism, but we haven’t had much success at that. When liberal Left people go anti-SJW, they abandon Left economics too. And no one subscribing to Left economics wants to go against SJWism. So economics and the culture war are still horribly tied together, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle them. It’s so frustrating.
There are several online magazines which people are referring to as Alt Left. There are some folks on Youtube calling themselves Alt Left, and there are others who are being referred to as Alt Left. I would say that it’s a very small movement, but it definitely exists.
Part of the problem is that people like me are too lazy to promote it. I have my own Alt Left group on Facebook, and I encountered quite a bit of interest in the subject. I was also on some of the other Alt Left groups, and there were a lot of interested and curious folks. The problem is mostly just laziness. It’s incredibly hard work to grow these movements, and I for one am just too lazy to do the hard work. But there are others still working on this project.
There is also the Realist Left, another small project that definitely exists.
A political scientist in Poland got interested in us and wrote a couple of pieces about us in political journals. A couple of other political journals over there also wrote us up. Mostly no one has the faintest idea of who we are, so first of all, we need publicity more than anything else.

Update: Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

Updated post on the rape and sexual assault charges against Brett Kavanaugh. New information is in italic.
My personal opinion is that Brett Kavanaugh is or was a serial rapist who raped women at least 14 times, sexually assaulted women three times, and tried to rape women at least once between ages 17-24, mostly between ages 17-21. His friend Mark Judge assisted in most of these rapes and attempted rapes.
The scorecard on Brett Kavanaugh. Between 1982-88, Kavanaugh, aged 17-24, committed:

  • 14 rapes
  • 3 sexual assaults
  • 1 attempted rape

Conclusion: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom. Brett Kavanaugh, age 17, grabbed her in the hallway and dragged her into a bedroom where his friend Mark Judge was waiting.
Kavanaugh and Judge turned the music up loud so the others could not hear their planned rape of Ford. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, got on top of her, and tried to tear her swimsuit off. She screamed and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. She fought him off the whole time, and after a bit of a struggle, managed to get out from under him. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her and began playing games with a fake penis, asking her to touch it. Brett Kavanaugh then stood up and pulled out his penis and waved it in front of her face, daring her to touch it. He then forced her to touch his penis. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 and 18 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Feminist Retards: We Will Keep Screaming Until Rape, Sexual Assault, and Child Molestation Are Ended Once and for All!

Feminists actually believe that there will come a time when no man will ever rape or sexually assault a woman and no man will ever molest a child. God, feminists are stupid! Feminists think that men commit sexual crimes because they are taught to be some ridiculous rape culture. So you, me, and all of the rest of us men grew up in a “rape culture” that taught us to rape women!
Look feminist morons.
From the very beginning of recorded time, men have raped and sexually assaulted women and other men, and they have probably molested children. These behaviors are found in all societies that have ever been studied by anthropologists. There will always be crime and criminals. I will die in 20-30 years, and there will still be lots of crime and plenty of criminals. As long as there is crime and there are criminals, you will have rapists, sexual assaulters, child molesters.
Trying to eliminate human criminality and human evil is a fool’s errand. No sane person thinks we will ever be rid of these things.  With crime, all you can hope for is to reduce the rate of it. With criminals, all you can wish for is that there will be fewer of them. For the crimes of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, all we can ever wish for is to reduce the rate of it. Intellectually handicapped feminists can scream all they want that they will not stop screeching until rape, assault and molestation are wiped off the planet, but that doesn’t mean that  the rest of us have to listen to their foolishness.
According to feminist pinheads, every society on Earth must have a rape culture then because feminists say if there is one rape in your culture, then you have a rape culture!
It’s not a matter of excusing this behavior by saying “boys will be boys” but instead it is a recognition that human violence against other humans and the human potential for evil will never end. It has always been a part of our legacy as a species.
Feminists have this idea that they will create this utopia where males will have it drummed into their heads not to rape and molest, as if we don’t get that drummed into our heads a million times as it is.
Supposedly the rape culture BS goes back to the toxic masculinity garbage. Toxic masculinity (which is just normal masculinity really) apparently causes men to rape, assault and molest! So if we wage war on toxic masculinity and get rid of it, we will get rid of rape, assault and molestation! Idiocy. In this stupid utopian vision, all men will be feminist mangina cucks who are shedding off all their masculinity, toxic or not.
Part of this agenda says that all men have to be called out. You, me,  and all  other men have to be called out for this brain-dead campaign. Even if we don’t rape, assault or molest ourselves, we need to police other men constantly. Every time we hear a man say a sexist remark, we need to stand up and call him out. Now I don’t even know what a sexist remark even is. I don’t even know what sexism is. Like racism, it’s one more word that’s been MOAB’d by feminist and SJW ridiculous abuse of the term that it doesn’t mean much of anything anymore. What’s the definition of racism? If it makes some idiot Black person mad, it’s racism! Well, how will we know if we are making racist remarks? We won’t! We will only find out when your Black overlords loom over our heads  with hammers, informing us that we just said something racist and to take it back or else.
What is a sexist remark? Nobody knows! Apparently it’s whatever some fool woman says it is! If you said something that made some female dingbat mad, it was sexist! How do we know not to say sexist things? We don’t! We have to wait until some feminist harpie  appears with a meat cleaver, threatening to chop our penises off for uttering something sexist, demanding that we take it back or they take a penile scalp.
I hate all of these stupid words and in general, words like this are banned on my website. You can’t run around screaming fool words like racist, sexist, homophobe, antisemite, transphobe, etc. here. Yes you can call people racist, but they have to be pretty egregious. The word sexist is permanently banned on this site because it has no meaning other than a knife feminists use to castrate us men.
I agree that the world misogynist has a meaning. Feminists scream “Misogyny!” about every other sentence. 95% of the time some feminist bonehead yells, “misogynist” it’s a false alarm. On the other hand, misogyny does exist. You can see quite a bit of open misogyny in the Manosphere. PUA sites are cesspools of misogyny. MGTOW’s wrote the book on misogyny. Incels are steeped in some truly dangerous misogyny. And MRA’s engage in a fair amount of misogyny themselves. Outside of those places, I don’t see much of it.
The only sane definition of sexism is if a man thinks men are superior to women.  However, women are just as sexist as men in my opinion. I meet a lot more sexist women than sexist men. The number of female chauvinists out there who think that men are inferior to women is very high. I know a couple of them very well. Having been abused by female sexists and chauvinists who cackle with glee in their smug superiority of us men while radiating contempt for us men as inferiors, I can tell you right now that sexism feels pretty bad when it’s coming from women and directed at men.
If it feels that bad for us, think how it must make women feel. It must make them feel as bad as it makes me feel. I would not want to subject any woman to the feelings that I experienced from experiencing sexist abuse. If we don’t like it when they do it to us, we should not do it to them. We men should not act like we are superior to women and treat them as if they are some inferior breed of human. That’s the only definition of sexism that makes sense.  As long as you don’t feel that way,  you’re not a sexist no matter how many times some Down’s Syndrome feminist accuses you of being one. If you feel that women and men are equal and men are not better than women, then your conscience is clear.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Rape Culture Idiocy

Is there anyone on my site who thinks this rape culture folly even exists at all? I mean I’ve never raped anyone in my life. None of my friends have ever raped anyone in their lives. I don’t know any men who have ever raped anyone in their lives, at least that I know of. Where’s the rape culture. If this was a rape culture I probably would have been raping all this time.
Rape culture theory says the US has a rape culture that encourages men to rape females, that lets males off the hook when they do it because police officers, DA’s, judges, juries and our fellow men in general all sympathize with the rapists and let them off the hook. This is madness. Most men don’t sympathize with real actual rapists, I mean males who break the actual laws against rape. I’m talking real rape here. Real rape is legal rape. There’s real rape and there’s feminist rape. Feminist rape is whenever some female says she got raped, it was rape, no matter what happened. Feminists expand the definition of  rape every year and make ever increasing and ever crazier demands in terms of consent.
The intention here is obvious. Many feminists hate men, hate masculinity and especially hate heterosexual men. This is especially true of radical feminists. I assure you that if radical feminists could make heterosexual sex illegal for men, they would do it. In fact the feminists who first made up these laws hated heterosexual men, said all heterosexual sex was rape, and seemed to be trying to make it as illegal as possible. I refer to Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon. All sexual harassment came directly from Dworkin and McKinnon, two of the most insane man-hating bitches that have ever lived. Robin Morgan also made some statements about shutting down heterosexual sex and forcing all women to be lesbians. They weren’t exactly shy about their goals.
Do male cops really sympathize with actual rapists, I mean stranger rapists like the guy with the ski mask and a can of mace types? Do male judges really sympathize with these guys? Male DA’s like rapists? We men in general like rapists and support them and try to get them off the hook?
This whole theory sounds completely insane. There is no rape culture in this country, for God’s sake. Now if you go down to Latin America or over to the Philippines, India, Egypt, or South Africa, now you are getting somewhere. If we had a rape culture, all of those men would not have lost their jobs for flirting with women (sexual harassment) or touching women (sexual assault). There would have been no #metoo nonsense. There would have been no #timesup crap. The Kavanaugh hearings would not be rocking the nation like they are. The fact that all these things are happening are arguments against the existence of a rape culture, not in favor of one.

Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom, and somehow she got into a room with Kavanaugh, age 17 at the time, and his friend Mark Judge. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and tried to tear her clothes off. She fought him off the whole time. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her, pulled out their penises, and forced her to touch them. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Kavanaugh was one of the men who stood over her, whipped out his penis and forced her to touch it. Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Feminism in Academia and Social Work

Rod Fleming: The trouble is, they’ve infested academia, and the schools of education and social work were the very first to fall. Essentially, all teachers now are Postmodern, ‘intersectional’ feminists and all social workers believe the nuclear family is an abomination and the State is the only body capable of raising children. In other words, that they know better than parents do, how to bring up their own kids.
This is not new; the creeping infestation has been going on for decades. It’s just that the reaction to Trump’s election threw it at the fan and the secret is out. Google the Orkney child-abuse scandal.

Yes, they have infested the academy. They are mostly in the Women’s Studies program, although my field of Linguistics got taken over by the worst SJW’s a long time. Really all of the social sciences have gone SJW, and all universities are hotbeds of SJWism. However, I am acquaintances with two university professors, one in the US and one in Europe. Both of them hate modern SJWism. The American professor is so famous that he has a Wikipedia entry. They both act like they have to be very quiet about this or they might lose their jobs though.
Wait, Rod.
Your Reaction gets in the way of a lot of your otherwise decent theory.
3rd wave intersectional feminists do not want to get rid of the nuclear family. Some 2nd wave radical and other feminists talked about that. These were usually coming from a Hard Left Marxist POV.
You would be hard-pressed to find an “abolish the nuclear family feminist” anywhere now. They don’t exist anymore. And I don’t know anyone, no matter how leftwing, who thinks the state does a better job of raising kids than the family does. They didn’t even believe that in the USSR.
If you work in mental health though, you better be on board with modern feminism. If you’re not and your views get out, the feminists will try to get your license pulled. I could not believe how hard my male therapists sucked up to women. It was actually rather disgusting.  I want a therapist who’s a man, not some cuck.

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

Game/PUA: Where Does "Seduction" End and "Sexual Assault" Begin?

Shi: While I agree with the remaining article, I beg to differ with the following paragraph.
RL: Males have this idea that if they just keep grabbing at her over and over, eventually she’s going to cave in. In my experience, it doesn’t work that way. Once she starts batting your hand away like that, you can touch her two, three, five, or 50 more times, and she will just keep pushing your hand away while getting increasingly angry. My experience has been that you won’t eventually break her by continuing to touch her. It doesn’t work that way. So if she’s batting your hand away, quit touching her.
If a girl allows me to touch her 50 frikking times, and still brushes me aside each and every time. Well, I’m definitely taking her to bed.
It is important that she yells at me and creates a scene. I get such an incredible hard-on by that.
HER: “I don’t want you to touch me, pervert. I’ll call my boyfriend/the cops if you do it again.”
ME: “I don’t mind your boyfriend. I’m drunk, baby. Just one more kiss and I will be gone from your life. Forever. Promise. Maybe two kisses.”
I have to be a little drunk or high on something to pull this stunt successfully.
Li’l naughty me expects to be smacked on the face or kicked in the groins before taking a hint.
50 cold shoulder rejections of my handsy self is a rather huge number. There IS A NUMBER OF TIMES by which she should cave in. It’s never gotten that far. Maybe 10-15 rejections on the dance floor at the most. But, not before I got my fingers wrapped around her waist, hips and boobies.
(p.s. – I don’t have much experience with American women as I’ve never been to USA. That might be an extra level of difficulty.)

You can’t do that here in the US. Shi advocates this stuff all the time, but if you try to do what Shi advocates here in the US, you are going to get accused of sexual assault. I am not sure what will happen to you, but most of the #metoo allegations that caused so many men lost jobs and destroyed careers were for doing exactly what Shi is talking about here. Or even less.
Every time you touch her without getting her consent beforehand, it is literally sexual assault. If she likes it, it’s not sexual assault anymore. In the present day US, if you keep grabbing at a woman, and she keeps knocking you away and getting increasingly angry, you are literally sexually assaulting her. And according to all this #metoo shit, you need to be arrested for that. Even after the first time she bats you away, feminists say that’s called “No means no,” and you literally have to not touch her even one more time.
So I am pretty scared to keep grabbing at them when they start pushing me away like that.
Actually it is much worse than that. If you touch her or grab at her even one time without getting permission first and she gets mad and bats you away, you literally just committed sexual assault right there. And the feminists say you need to be arrested on sexual assault charges for doing just that.
The problem is that one of the definitions of sexual assault is “dating.” So by defining sexual assault in this crazy way, the US feminists have succeeded in making dating effectively illegal.
Because at least on every date or similar seduction situation I have ever been in with a female, I started touching her or kissing her in some way or another. I never once asked permission. I just did it. I have literally done this 10,000’s of times now with hundreds of females.

  • If you go on a date with a female, you need to start touching her at some point.
  • Reach out and take her hand in yours as you are walking along.
  • Reach around her waist and put your arm around her as you walk along.
  • Put your arm around your shoulder.
  • Reach down to her leg and put your hand on her upper thigh.
  • Reach over to her arms and start lightly touching her arms with your fingers.
  • If she has a pocket on her dress, ask if you can put your hand in it. When she says yes, do it.
  • If you have something in a jeans or sweater pocket, coyly ask her if she can take the item out of your pocket for you. They will get a twinkle in their eye and do just that.
  • Lean over and kiss her, usually slowly and gently. Put your hands on her softly as you do it.
  • When you are sitting down, reach your arm around her shoulder and put your hand on her tit.
  • Or just jump her. On a car seat next to you, parked in front of her place, just attack her and start kissing her really hard. On a bed at her place, look at her and then just jump her and start kissing her really hard.
  • Grab her and shove her up against a hallway and start kissing her really hard. If after a minute she tells you to back off, do it. Then an hour later, do it again.
  • Each and every one of these actions is a sexual assault except for where you put your hand in her dress pocket. But if she goes for it, it’s not sexual assault anymore. Yet you never know if she is going to go for it or not until you try. The British call this “trying it on.” They call flirting with a woman “chatting her up.”

But if you keep grabbing at her over and over, and she keeps pushing you away while getting angrier, the #metoo movement is definitely calling this sexual assault. On the other hand, your chances of going down on this are about zero because no DA will take such a stupid case. Yet I don’t feel like pestering women.
The problem here is that with women, a lot of the time “no” doesn’t mean “no” at all. Instead, “no” means “try harder.” If females want to know why males act so rapey, it’s for that reason right there – females deliberately promote and encourage rapey behavior in males!
What do you think, guys? Let’s hear your thoughts.

  • How do you feel about touching and kissing women without their permission (something I advocate)?
  • How do you feel about continuing to touch and grab at her as she bats you away and gets increasingly angry (something that gives me a queasy feeling these days).
  • What’s sexual assault?
  • Where does dating end and sexual assault begin?
  • What do you think of the latest feminist consent idiocy where you have to ask permission anytime you want to touch or kiss a female in any way?

Alt Left: A Conversation about the Plague Called Modern Feminism

Rod Fleming: The Right in this case are libertarians whereas the Left are authoritarians.

We don’t have any rightwing libertarians in power here in the US. All of our rightwingers, and they are the worst humans on Earth, are the authoritarian Right, and in general, they are part of the anti-male war on sex too. There is an alliance between American conservatives and feminists to stick it to American heterosexual men.
But yes, the rightwingers who are standing up to #metoo garbage are the libertarian sort, like on Spiked.

Rod Fleming: “economically centrist, socially conservative (in that we believe in things like ‘children should be brought up in supportive nuclear families’ ) free-thinking Libertarians,”

Someone like this would not be a libertarian in US culture. All US Libertarians are ultra-right on economics, no exceptions. This person you describe for all intents and purposes does not exist in US politics. There’s no such thing.
But you are correct. Any person with a politics like the above would be driven out of every liberal and Left forum and pilloried as Republicans. It is the “social conservative” part that would get you. Social conservatives of any variety, even mild ones like you describe above, are not allowed anywhere near anything liberal, Left, or Democratic Party in the US. I am banned from many liberal and Left forums on the Net on the grounds that I am a: fascist, racist, sexist, Republican. In fact, I am none of these things! I am practically a Communist!
I am still not on the Right. These leftwing scum keep screaming that I am on the Right, so I took them at their word and wandered around every rightwing movement I could find. I hated every single one of them. I continue to search rightwing sites everywhere and I still hate every single one I see. I have not yet found a rightwing or conservative faction that appeals to me in any way, shape, or form, and I still utterly hate every conservative site or faction that encounter. If I am on the Right like all you leftwing garbage insist, why don’t you kindly point to some rightwing movement or web page somewhere where I can fit in without wanting to punch every conservative I see? I mean show me my movement.
Conservatives are the enemy of all mankind. I am basically a liberal deep down inside. I despise the conservative way of thinking.

Rod Fleming: At the same time, Feminism, which has always been sex-negative, has reached unprecedented levels of influence because of the way that Postmodernist Feminism has infiltrated and corrupted the education system.

What about Third Wave sex-positive feminism? My feeling is that it’s not all that sex-positive!

Rod Fleming: Rabidfems (essentially Postmodernist Feminists who have replaced Marx’s scapegoat, the bourgeoisie, with men, especially white men),

More true of radical feminists. Sort of true about Third Wavers, except most do not have Marxist roots.

Rod Fleming: want to absolutely control the supply of sex, even to the point of policing women’s sexual behavior, because 1) they loathe men and think they can hurt us by stopping us having sex (good luck with that one, hit me up if you want the names of some good bars in Angeles, boys)

Well, women always want to control the supply of sex. But now they have a lobby called feminism where they do this openly and blatantly. In Sweden they made it illegal for men to go overseas to get a foreign bride as a lot of Swedish men have. Sweden is a pure feminist Hell, the most feminist country on Earth. Feminists have actually been running the government for years now. Feminists have completely destroyed that wonderful country.
Is the purpose of modern feminism really to control the supply of sex in society? I mean, women do a pretty good job of that on their own, don’t they, with or without feminism? Why do women need feminism to control the sex supply as they do this as a matter of course anyway?
I am convinced that modern feminism wants to stop straight men from having sex. Gay men can have sex all the men and boys they want. In fact, many feminists would prefer if most or all of us straight men were gay because then we would leave them alone. Many modern feminists hate men looking at them, flirting with them, and asking them out, and if we were all gay, that would end.
The theoretical roots of both 2nd and 3rd Wave feminism lie in the worst man-hating feminism of all – radical feminism via Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon, and the rest. They were all quite open about wanting to more or less make heterosexual sex impossible or illegal, and this is exactly what they are doing with #metoo garbage and rape hysteria.

Rod Fleming: they think that if they can absolutely monopolize and then control the supply of sex, they can control society.

Women already always monopolize and control the supply of sex, and this has never given them control over society. How will this give them control over society if they do it in the guise of feminism when it never worked earlier?
Feminists want control over society so they can stick it to us men good and hard, that’s what they want. I have said this many times before, but this is paybacks. Feminism is 100% pure revenge against men and 0% anything else. They are mad at what we have done to them, and they are going to make us pay for it.

Rod Fleming: I mean, these are people who want to ban SEX DOLLS because they ‘demean women’s bodies).

Radical feminists hate those stupid dolls, but how do 3rd Wavers feel about them?

Rod Fleming: They torpedoed Milo because he refused to condemn the man who seduced him when he was 13.

Yes, those scum called Milo a pedophile because an older man had sex Milo when Milo was 13! If anything, Milo was a victim of a “molester”. He wasn’t one himself! Let’s call all kids who get molested child molesters then, right, feminists?

Rod Fleming: That would be bad enough, but then we have Rag, Tag and Bob-tail, the Omega-males snuffling round the skirts of the rabidfems, hoping that by backing them up and betraying their brothers, they can pick up some sympathy sex. That right there is the lowest form of human life, of all.

I don’t agree that male feminists are all Omegas, though of course some of them are. A lot are simply Betas. And I think some Alpha men are calling themselves feminists now because you pretty much have to. However, all male feminists are automatically wimps, cucks, girls, girlyboys, soyboys, wusses, and especially faggots. These manginas have gone over to the enemy. The women are for all intents and purposes the enemy nowadays to the extent that they support feminism.
There is something particularly horrific and pathetic about the creature called the Male Feminist, a traitorous cuck to the Brotherhood if there ever was one.

Alt Left: Feminist Cancer Strikes Oxford, Soon Goes Malignant

Feminist poison strikes Oxford, turns many female students into man-scared and man-hating dykes or shut-ins, turns men into terrified incels. 
This is leftwing progress! The Modern Left is pathetic!
[By Damian Thomson, from The Spectator, 13 June 2015] Oxford’s New Feminist Hit Squad: Cute Tumblr. Scary Politics.
“We’re at the tail end of Trinity term at Oxford, when the university finally begins to look like the ‘city of dreaming spires’ depicted in the postcards. The dismal weather cheers up; the quadrangles are soaked in sunlight; and the students — just about to leave for the summer — grab these precious few weeks to do Oxfordy things like punting and slurping Pimm’s.
Even the swots and the lefties are filled with the spirit of Brideshead. Parties spring up on every available lawn; the chatter of gossip and teasing grows louder and louder until the sun goes down, people start throwing up and the college authorities herd the revellers on to the street.
But this year a group of undergraduates — mostly women — will be shunning all this. They will be staying in their college rooms, fingers flying across their keyboards as they scowl at the screen. They are the hard core of a feminist cult that has gripped Oxford and makes life miserable for hundreds of undergraduates across the university. The cult uses Facebook to snoop on students who aren’t ‘proper’ feminists. It tries to force young women to use its extreme rhetoric and denounces them if they don’t.
Its digital tirades can poison college life. One young woman told me that new friends she’d made at Oxford suddenly shunned her in the dining hall after the word went out that she held ‘incorrect’ views on women’s rights. (She was so worried about repercussions that she asked me not to mention which area of women’s rights she felt strongly about.)
I’m going to call the cult ‘Country Living’. That’s not quite accurate: it’s actually spelled without the ‘o’, a gynecological pun that’s the only evidence of a sense of humor you’ll find among its leaders. I reckon calling it Country Living will make them cross. Which, to be fair, is not difficult. These lasses are very, very cross all the time. If there was an Oxford blue for taking offence, they’d be champions.
Country Living is an internet cult that polices behavior both online and offline. Its manifesto can be read by anyone who visits its page on the blogging platform Tumblr, which is mocked up to look like a 1970’s student magazine. Here we learn that anyone can become a C-word, which is a badge of honor, not a term of abuse. Those four letters have been ‘reclaimed’ by the group. (Like feminists everywhere, Country Living does a lot of reclaiming.)
But to earn this honor you must pass tests as severe as the binge-drinking initiation rituals of an all-male Oxford dining society. You must promise to ‘accept that gender is a social construction and embrace its fluidity’. You must ‘recognize your place and privilege within intersectionality’.
And if you fail to do these things, Country Living wants to know. It has spies all over Oxford. They’re not necessarily ‘members’ of the group — as with many religious cults, it’s not clear who is and isn’t a member, and fellow-travelers are often the most snoopy zealots.
A student can be chatting with friends in the Missing Bean, an espresso bar in quaint Turl Street, and say something ‘problematic’ — the Country Living buzzword, meaning anything that deviates from its rigid feminist doctrine, obsessed with transsexual rights. The Country ladies are ferocious earwiggers, and if the student is on the cult’s radar, the remark will find its way back to HQ. Which, bizarrely, is not an office but a Facebook group.
This is where Country Living rules on the correct ideological approach to any current issue. Its Facebook pages are designed as a ‘safe space’ for feminists — meaning an unsafe space for anyone who deviates from the line. As with many sectarian outfits, the smaller the deviation, the bigger the hissy fit. ‘The ultimate crime is not being a Tory man, but being the wrong sort of feminist,’ explains one woman student who, like everyone I talked to, asked not to be named.
The Country set love shutting down debates on their pages. Just after the general election, whose result came as a nasty shock to them, their Facebook administrator Shaina Yang announced that ‘I can’t allow these discussions [about the Tory victory] to continue until we release a clarified statement of what CL rules say is okay and isn’t okay on this topic.’ No wonder that, according to a survey by the Oxford Tab newspaper, a third of Country Living Facebook members were ‘too nervous’ to post in the group.
Such nervousness isn’t confined to Facebook. ‘The influence of CL goes way beyond its membership,’ says one male undergraduate. ‘Girls who come up to Oxford as mild feminists pick up the message that they have to take offence at anything that might be considered misogynistic. So boys have to monitor their own language, pretend to be worked up about trans issues, if they’re to stand any chance of getting laid.’ Something similar happened during the early Seventies heyday of old-style feminism, when guys would denounce patriarchy in order to get laid. But they didn’t have an internet Stasi to worry about.
Adds another student: ‘You see members of the college rugby club glancing around anxiously to see if there are any women present before they can tell a joke. Ironically, they’re the ones who need a safe space.’ I ask him how he can tell the difference between Country sympathizers and the hard core. ‘Weirdly dyed hair is one clue,’ he says. ‘But a better one is “problematic”. The hard core insert it into practically every sentence.’
All this is Oxford at its worst. The university has always been a playground for egomaniacs and control freaks, unlike milder, more studious Cambridge. Although there are Country members in other universities, its origins are no accident.
‘We insist that grammar and spelling are elitist and don’t matter because of a hundred years of linguistic study showing that. When people who insist on hyper-patriotism get language wrong, we use the errors in their language to suggest they aren’t qualified to judge complex matters.’ That’s a comment by one Alyson Cruise on a financial website, bearing the same photograph as the Country Facebook admin Alyson Cruise, a trans woman at St Catherine’s College (who didn’t respond when I contacted her).
If they’re the same person, then it’s bit rich of Cruise to judge errors in language, since her own grasp of syntax on Facebook is pretty rudimentary. But the urge to correct the grammar of the lower orders is very Oxonian. No other university is so intellectually snobbish. Even the Bullingdon Club is at times — look at the proportion of Firsts and future power brokers among its members. Country Living would hate the comparison, but they and the Bullers are both elitist, secretive and enjoy ridiculing people on the basis of linguistic clues. Among the Oxford social elite, letting slip a lower-middle-class word such as ‘lounge’ is what the hyper-feminists would call ‘problematic’. ‘I’d love to see a fights between CL and the Bullingdon,’ muses a student. ‘The feminists would scratch their eyes out before they’d thrown their first chair.’
Unlike the 235-year-old Bullingdon, however, Country Living is unlikely to become a venerable Oxford institution. A backlash is under way. Louisa Manning, an ex-member, has broken ranks to denounce its ‘patronizing, self-righteous tone’ — and revealed that as a mixed-race woman, she had been instructed by the group ‘to identify as white when talking to people of color’. She also accused the administrators of ‘Facebook-stalking members’ profiles’ to determine whether they were ‘legit feminists’.
She also accused the group of spreading a version of politically correct racism. People of mixed race — like herself — felt they were being ‘erased’ because they didn’t fit neatly into an ethnic category. She wrote: ‘Being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of “passing privilege” and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of color.’
Imagine if allegations of racial bullying were made against a Tory drinking club. The Oxford University authorities would investigate immediately. But Country Living is left-wing, so it is left alone.
Fortunately the group is unstable and beginning to divide into factions. Ordinary undergraduates are finally summoning up the nerve to tease them. The chances are that Country Living — like thousands of cults throughout history — will tear itself apart in an orgy of name-calling, finger-pointing and accusations of heresy. But not before its fanatics have succeeded in spoiling university life for other students — and themselves.”

Alt Left: The Right Are Now the Free Love Sexual Liberationists, and the Left are the Sex-hating Puritanical Prudes

Pathetic!
It is truly pitiful that the only people protesting these sex-hating, sex-banning, Neo-Victorian, man-hating dyke prudes called feminists are the reactionaries. Isn’t that pitiful? Who’s standing up for the Sexual Revolution against the Left’s attempt to bring us back to the Comstock Era. The reactionaries! Who’s standing up for free love? The reactionaries! Who’s standing up for guilt-free flirting, dating, sex and love? The reactionaries!
Since when did reactionary scum ever become sexual liberationists? And what happened to the Left. I am straight out of the free love Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution was one of the great liberation movements of the great 1960’s. And now the Left, the very people who kicked off this revolution in the first place, have become extreme sex-hating Puritans who threaten to get men fired, get their careers destroyed, and arrest, try and imprison them for the crime of flirting with, dating, and having sex with females! Incredible!
The Right are now the great freewheeling sexual liberationists and the Left are the frigid, impotent, sex-hating Puritanical prudes! How sad is that?

Game/PUA: The Big Lie: Trump Admitted to Sexually Assaulting Women

The Left, of which I am unfortunately a part of, just won’t stop repeating this stupid lie.
The Lie goes like this:
When Trump said, “I just grab em in the pussy,” he was admitting to sexual assault. Except he wasn’t and what he described wasn’t sexual assault at all. Trump said and I am paraphrasing:

When you are a famous as I am, you can get away with anything sexually. You can do anything – even grab em in the pussy. And they let you do it because you’re famous.

Ok what Trump admitted to was not grabbing women in the pussy against their will, though he definitely didn’t ask permission before doing this. He said he got away with all sorts of sexual things, all the way up to grabbing women right in the pussy,  and women don’t mind, let him do it, and actually like it because he’s so famous.
So he grabbed women in the pussy, but because he was so famous, they enjoyed it and allowed him to do it to them without objection.
Ok, look. If you grab or touch her and she likes it and lets you do it, it’s not sexual assault. It’s only sexual assault if she doesn’t like it and tries to stop you after you do it.
So Trump confessed to 100% consensual behavior on the part of him and various women in the grab em by the pussy comment.
It’s pretty sickening the way the (Feminist) Left has lied about this comment. Trump is monstrous enough without making up crap about him. Just focus on all of the outrages and atrocities he does commit. We should have our hands full with that. There’s no need to make up lies about him. The truth about him is bad enough.

Alt Left: How the Feminist Cult Brainwashes Its Adherents

Absolutely superb article by a woman showing exactly what feminism has become – a cult no different from Scientology or the rest of them that brainwashes its members into believing a whole stack of lies and seeing the world in a brand new bizarre way. Women leaving feminism nearly need deprogramming to undo the brainwashing that feminism did to them.
And incidentally, being a Gender Egalitarian is a great thing to be. The problem I have with women calling themselves feminists is that feminism is all about women. It’s not about us men at all. In fact, many feminists say they could care less what happens to any of us men. So the feminist cult member ends up walking around the world constantly asking, “What about the women? What about the women?”
But that’s no way to look at life.
That’s no different from the White nationalists running around saying, “What about the Whites? What about the Whites?” White nationalists are always going on about Black crime against Whites, especially White women. After a while, I realized that this was very offensive. Why should I only care about Whites or White women victimized by Black criminals? Why should I care more if a White woman is attacked by a Black criminal than if a Black woman was attacked by the same type of person. I thought about this a while. Of course it should not matter who to me who got violated by the Black criminal. It was incredibly offensive that I should only care about the White victim and not about the Black victim. The victimization of either was equally bad! 
We’re all human, dammit. The only sensible way a concerned and progressive person should look at the world is, “What about the humans? What about the humans?”
[From Spiked, 10 February 2016, by Catherine Johnson, writer and student] Originally published in Spiked as How I Became a Feminist Victim. An Oxford Student Explains Why Feminism Fails Women.

How I Became a Feminist Victim: An Oxford Student Explains Why Feminism Fails Women

As a female student in a nightclub, I expected to get some unwanted attention. What I didn’t expect was for feminism to turn me into someone so terrified of unwanted attention I stopped going out. In the past, someone groping me would only annoy me for a minute – that would be the extent of it. If they were being really pushy, I’d go to my male friends and stay with them because they’d enjoy making it clear that the guy’s attentions were unwelcome. And yes, other men were more likely to listen to my tall, imposing male friends than me – a shy, skinny 18-year-old. You could call it male privilege, I’d call it the benefit of self-confidence.
And that was all fine. No harm, no foul. That was, until I discovered the (now-infamous) Oxford feminist group Cuntry Living. It was a big thing in Oxford; everyone was talking about it and, curious, I joined. I read the posts, I contributed, and I engaged in discussion about everything from rape culture to misogyny in our curriculum. I learned a lot, and slowly, I transitioned from a nervous, desperate-to-please ‘gender egalitarian’ to a proud, full-blown feminist.
Along with all of this, my view of women changed. I stopped thinking about empowerment and started to see women as vulnerable, mistreated victims. I came to see women as physically fragile, delicate, butterfly-like creatures struggling in the cruel net of patriarchy. I began to see male entitlement everywhere.
The experience also changed my attitude to going out. I would dress more cautiously and opt to stick with female friends in clubs. And, if the usual creeps started bothering me, I became positively terrified. I saw them, not as drunk men with a poor grasp of boundaries and certainly not as misguided optimists who might have misread my behavior but as aggressive probable rapists.
If I was groped by someone, I didn’t give them a scathing look or slap away their hand, and I certainly didn’t tell them to fuck off. Instead, I was scared into inaction. How could I countenance such a violation? How could I possibly process something so awful? After the event, I would go outside and cry.
And then I would leave – feeling traumatized. I saw the incident, not as some idiot being a bit too handsy, but as sexual assault – something scarring to dwell upon. It was something to whisper to friends in a small, hushed voice – something to preface with a trigger warning. And the appropriate action of friends, upon hearing this, was never to question how upsetting the incident had really been. It was to sympathize, express shock and horror, and say things like ‘I don’t know how you coped’. Not support, but pity – anything else would be tantamount to victim-blaming. Any suggestion that such incidents weren’t really that big a deal (and shouldn’t be treated as trauma) was repellent to me.
Victim feminism taught me to see my body as inviolable – any action visited upon it was violence. Eventually, I stopped going out. It wasn’t worth the risk. It took me a long time to realize what had happened. Feminism had not empowered me to take on the world – it had not made me stronger, fiercer or tougher. Irony of ironies, it had turned me into someone who wore long skirts and stayed at home with her girlfriends. Even leaving the house became a minefield. What if a man whistled at me? What if someone looked me up and down? How was I supposed to deal with that? This fearmongering had turned me into a timid, stay-at-home, emotionally fragile bore.
Thankfully, I learned a lot from the experience. Teaching women that we exist as probable victims (to the probable attacks of men) is not freeing or empowering. Modern feminism trains us to see sexism and victimhood in everything – it makes us weaker. It is also anathema to gender equality. How are we to reconcile with our male ‘oppressors’ when we view them as primitive, aggressive beasts? How are we to advance female agency when everything from dancing to dating is deemed traumatic?
The answer to the problems we face as women is not to submit to the embrace of victim feminism but to stand up for ourselves. We must throw off the soft, damp blanket of Safe Space culture and face the world bravely. If we do not do so now, we will consign any prospect of real equality to the ash heap of history.
Catherine Johnson is a student at the University of Oxford.
 

An Interesting View of Masculinity

Found on the Net:

Feminized and passive men don’t solve problems. There are men in this world committing rape, murder, and all kinds of wickedness. When a man is feminized, he becomes passive and won’t stop those who are doing evil things. Feminized men are passive men, and passive men don’t draw lines in the sand, won’t stand up for principles, and won’t protect, provide, and defend those who need it most.
But masculine men will stop evil men from committing evil. The same traits that supposedly make men “toxic” – warmongering, colonialism, and greediness – also make men courageous enough to stop evil men from doing evil things.
As Allie Stuckey once said, “we don’t need less masculinity, we need better masculinity.” This world doesn’t need feminized, passive men. This world needs better men, braver men. It needs good men who will stand up against men of evil intent and declare, “This is the line in the sand. and you will go no further.”
We don’t need less masculinity. We need more.

Interesting view.
Of course the feminists and the Cultural Left themselves will hate this because they hate nothing more than masculinity, heterosexuality, and men. I would add Whites but they are not important to this argument. T
The hatred of the three things above is because intersectional 3rd Wave feminism is an integral part of the modern Cultural Left, and 3rd Wave feminism hates masculinity.
It doesn’t hate heterosexuality and men nearly as much as 2nd Wavers do, but the insane #metoo consent insanity that they put in seems to be an effort to put a halt to all heterosexual sex, although they don’t realize that. The #metoo, consent, sexual harassment, exploding rape definition insanity was actually put in by radical feminists in an effort to slow down or stop heterosexual sex as much as they could by making a lot of it illegal.
Sexual harassment theory was created by Katharine McKinnnon and Andrea Dworkin, two of the most psychotic, manhating bitches who ever lived.
Dworkin’s opinion was that all PIV sex was rape, and this  criminalizing of a lot of normal heterosexual flirtation, dating, and sex was an effort on her part to put theory into practice.
It was McKinnon who expanded quid pro quo sexual harassment – a legitimate area of law – into hostile workplace insanity, an ever ill-defined and undefinable standard that has exploded the workplace and much of public space for that matter, as everything down to lingering looks is criticized as a form of sexual harassment, violence, and rape.
3rd Wavers have mixed feelings about men. The man-hatred is still there, but it’s in the background. As I said in an earlier post, 3rd Wave man-hatred can’t go too far because 3rd Wavers like dick too much, so it only goes too deep. They want to hate men on some level, but there is that raging sex drive now kindled by porn culture that keeps driving them back to us. And they do love men on that level – a love and sex level.
This sort of ambivalence towards men is actually typical of straight women period, but it is much less strongly expressed in most straight women, who tend to voice puzzled frustration with men more than out and out hatred for them.
I hardly ever encounter out and out man-hatred in any women I date. I would add that if you are dating a man-hater, watch out. No matter how much she likes or loves you and sex, that man-hatred is always going throw a monkey wrench into your relationship. You won’t have a stable relationship as long as she has that poison in her brain. How many women have good relationships with misogynists? Well, it’s the same thing when it’s the other way around.
About the theory above, I like it, but I fear that it will be abused by sadistic, BD/SM, sociopathic misogynists who seem to be increasing in number nowadays. Sadly, more and more women, especially young women, seem to enjoying and even preferring these psycho men. This trend really has me worried.

Alt Left: What Feminists Get Wrong about #Metoo (Besides Just about Everything)

It is taken as axiomatic that the high rates of sexual harassment, sexual assault, grey rape and straight up legal rape that men commit against women as exemplified by the recent #metoo campaign and characterized wholly and completely by misogyny or men’s perennial, profound and deep hatred for women. While I am sure it’s true that men who do this sort of thing as a matter of habit don’t have the highest opinion of women, that’s not what is driving the behavior.
The feminist line becomes even more insane when they say that the entire spectrum of behavior – sexual harassment, sexual assault, grey rape, and legal rape – is a spectrum of violence and implicitly rape. Let’s take this apart.
Sexual harassment is nothing more than flirtation except it is unwanted on the other end. Feminists have made clear that even asking for a woman’s number or asking her on a date can be seen as sexual harassment. Sexual assault can be seen as nothing more than dating as all dating is based on sexual assault.
Technically, every time you touch another person without receiving explicit consent beforehand, you commit sexual assault. The nature of dating is that one party, generally the man, starts touching the woman with parts of his body, usually his hand but also other parts such as feet or lips. This is almost always done without receiving consent beforehand. He simply does it and sees how she reacts. Why does he do it? He’s trying to get laid.
So according to feminists, when a man asks a woman for her number or asks her out on a date when she does not want him to, this is somehow violence! How is it violence? The guy’s trying to get a date. How is that violence? Feminists are off their heads. And when you are out on a date and you clasp the woman’s hand in yours, put your arm around hers, or lean in for the kiss without getting permission beforehand, this is violence! How is that violence? He’s trying to get some physical intimacy going.
Trying to argue a woman into bed, even by debate style? Violence!
None of that crap is violence but feminists are paranoid lunatics who see misogyny and violence lurking behind every corner.
How about the argument, axiomatic among feminist retards, that men’s sexual misbehavior is motivated by misogyny and is not motivated by sex at all.
The feminists started a theory a while back that “rape is about violence and power, not sex.” This theory, which like all feminist theory has never even been tested, has been adopted as an unexamined truth by an entire society. I believed it myself for many years as a result of being indoctrinated into this view by a feminist mother. However, in recent years, I have come to question this line.
I would argue that even rape is often motivated by sex. The evidence for that is quite clear. When rates of pornography use go up, rape and molestation rates go down. So men watch porn instead of raping and molesting. This implies that rape and child molestation and driven in part by sexual desire.
Gay men engage in sexual harassment, sexual assault, grey rape, drug rape and actual rape of each other and straight men at far higher rates than straight men due to women. Gay porn has long been based on violence, humiliation, and degradation. Only recently has this filtered over to straight porn. BD/SM is huge in gay culture and rates of sexual sadism are far higher in gay men than in straight men (37% of gay men versus 5% of straight men). Only recently has it become popular among straights.
This shows that straight men’s sexual misbehavior towards women is not due to misogyny as all feminist retards believe. Instead it is simply the normal way that males go about acquiring sexual partners.
Males have very high levels of aggression and violence combined with a very high sex drive that demands to be engaged. These things combine to create a perfect storm of sexual violence that is not directed at one gender anymore than the other.
In other words in addition to being essentially natural born killers if not homicidal maniacs, men in general tend to be natural born rapists. We harass, assault, grey, and out and out rape our sexual partners regardless of gender simply because this is what we are men do. We men are simply rapey as all get out.

Alt Left: Resolved: All Feminists Are Toxic

I just posted this question to Reddit r/feminists. I swear to God I tried to be as pro-feminist as possible. I went out of my way to try not to say anything antifeminist, though I nevertheless had to be honest. Every single thing I wrote in my comment is 100% fact. I got two comments, and I was immediately banned. I was shocked as I was not expecting that. I am still trying to figure out why they banned me. Was it because I mentioned that man-hatred was still a problem among feminists?
The percentages of feminists who are 2nd and 3rd Wavers is a good question, but feminists have no use for facts, science, truth or data like all Identity Politics scum, so it’s not surprising I did not get any answers. Actually you will probably never get any answers because feminists don’t like to argue hard factual questions about much of anything.
I don’t imagine there’s a feminist anywhere on Earth who would try to answer what the % of 2nd Wavers to 3rd Wavers are, although it’s an empirical question. Actually if you try to ask it now, you will get more handwaves saying there’s no such as 3rd Wave because we are now in the 4th Wave of this idiotic bullshit. Never mind that the 4th Wave differs in no important ways from the 3rd wave and that most feminists nowadays objectively appear to be 3rd Wavers.
Here’s the question:

My question is which group of feminists is stronger now, 2nd or 3rd Wave? And what percentages of feminism are divided into 2nd and 3rd wavers? I believe that the 3rd wave is more numerous now, but I am really interested in what % of feminists are 2nd wave radical feminists.
Definitions below:
2nd Wave feminists to be mostly radical feminists at the moment, if we define Second Wave as TERF and TESW’s opposed to among other things:

  • Legalization or decrim of sex work
  • All sex work (strippers, cam models, porn stars)
  • Sex dolls
  • Pornography
  • PIV sex
  • Anal sex
  • Fellatio (sometimes)
  • Romance (sending flowers, etc.)
  • Artificial birth control (too dangerous for women)
  • Beauty industry (to the point of deliberately advocating that woman make themselves appear ugly to oppose it)
  • Femininity (to the point of promoting women to act and dress like men)

And an extreme hostility towards men in general exemplified by:

  • A theory that eliminates the class struggle of proletarian workers versus ruling class capitalist owners and replacing it with a gender struggle with men as a ruling oppressor class and women as an oppressed “proletarian class.”
  • Extreme emphasis on Patriarchy and Rape Culture theory.
  • Extreme celebration of lesbianism and hostility to heterosexuality in general for women. General sex-negative and near-puritanical mindset.
  • Support for lesbian and female separatism.
  • Support for curfews for men, putting men in internment camps, reducing the male population to 10%, etc.

All of these view are extremely common among radical feminism. There are few who do not go along with all or nearly all of these positions.
So that’s 2nd Wave.
Everything else is now 3rd Wave. Even Socialist and Marxist feminism, formerly 2nd wavers, are now 3rd Wavers. Most other strains are also 3rd Wavers with the exception of New Feminism (unclassifiable?) and some strains of Liberal Feminism like Equity Feminism, which are best described as 1st wavers, the descendants of the suffragettes.
3rd Wave differs from 2nd Wave in the following ways:

  • Sex positive.
  • Pro-porn, pro-BD/SM, pro-prostitution, and other sex work
  • Reduced celebration of lesbianism
  • Support for heterosexuality for women
  • Pro-PIV sex, fellatio, anal sex, etc.
  • educed emphasis on rape culture, patriarchy, etc.
  • Reduced hatred for men, although it is definitely still there
  • Much more open to dating, relationships, and marriage with men
  • No support for separatism
  • Support for sex dolls
  • Opposition to male curfews and internment camps, reduction of male population, etc.
  • Pro-romance
  • Pro-artificial birth control
  • For socialist and Marxist feminists, rejection of radfem replacement of class struggle with gender struggle and replacement or owners and workers with men and women as oppressor and oppressed groups. Extreme emphasis on class roots of women’s oppression in capitalism and a recognition that male workers are also oppressed under capitalism.
  • Pro-transgender
  • Pro-femininity
  • Pro-beauty industry (makeup, tight clothes, heels, spandex, etc.)

First answer: Hard to answer something when the question seems way off. Where are you getting these definitions from?
Me: The definition of radical feminist beliefs comes from me being on their websites and studying them for long periods of time. Although I am open to any rational people who want to tell me where I am wrong about them. My definition of 3rd wavers should not be controversial, or it is, I want to know why.
Male curfews and internment camps…? Who have you been reading?
Me: Major radical feminist thinkers have advocated curfews for men in articles. Although the articles was later said to be satire, it did not seem so at first and they always say that everything inflammatory they write is satire. All of the comments that followed for months after those articles were published treated the articles as if they were serious. Commenters even offered their own serious takes on the subject, with one man suggesting that cities be divided into male halves and female halves with mingling allowed during the daylight hours but after dark, each sex would have to retire to its own section of town.
Numerous radical feminists have suggested that men and sometimes even boys be placed into internment camps and be kept there “until they can learn to behave themselves in a civilized fashion.” Radical feminist Julie Bindel recently wrote an article in the Guardian suggesting this in all seriousness. The article promoted a scandal, but she is still on the staff.

Alt Left: Comparative Man-Hatred among 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminists

Actually I have been on 2nd wave feminist boards, and a lot of them are fairly attractive or ordinary looking women. You would think they could easily get a man. But most of them hate men so much that they either deliberately turned into lesbians, or they gave up on men and became cat ladies. A number of them say if there were any good man around they would date them, but they dated for years and they think “good man” is an oxymoron.
Many feminists who happen to be lesbians are lesbian feminists or “political lesbians.” They’re not even real lesbians of the biological type like we are used to. Instead they are just straight women who hate men so much that they turn into lesbians to give us the finger. I have heard that most political lesbians don’t even have sex though, which makes sense if they are really just straight women who are manhating retards instead of real lesbians.
If you go on Jezebel there are a lot of younger women who are 3rd wavers, who are more sensible than 2nd wavers. A lot of them are goodlooking, as goodlooking as any women out there or maybe even better looking. A lot of the younger feminists are hot for some reason. A lot like dressing sexy, wearing makeup and being feminine.
The 3rd wavers like men far more than 2nd wavers. 3rd wavers are pretty much straight women and most of them really like men. Even the manhaters like men. A lot. Which is part of the problem because some of them are manhaters but they also love men and the manhating drives the men away. They want the attention of men even when they complain about it. A lot of them love sex too and seem to be quite horny. Instead of hating men they seem to be saying that they hate a certain type of men, but they are less cynical than 2nd wavers as 3rd wavers think there are lots of good men out there, but maybe they are a bit hard to find.
A lot of them are single and they seem like they are hard-up for some reason. If you go on Jezebel and act like a normal man, about 5-10 of those 3rd wavers will jump on you and almost rape you in the comments thread.
3rd Wavers are manhaters too, but mostly they just have mixed feelings about men not too dissimilar from the feelings that nearly all straight women have towards us disgusting pigs, especially as they get older, and the man-hatred is toned down a lot from 2nd Wavers. 3rd Wavers are pro-porn and pro-prostitution, while 2nd Wavers, as Sex-Negative feminists, are anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-all sex worker, and lately even anti-sex doll.
These wailing hyenas don’t seem to understand that a lot of us men will get tired of having sex with our hand after a while. 2nd wavers are extreme Utopians. They wish to usher in some new feminist utopia in which gender, masculinity and femininity are abolished and molestation of girls and domestic violence, rape and murder of women by men has vanished off the face of the Earth. If there’s one case of this on Earth in a year, 2nd wavers will just up and down and yell for the next month. They literally will never be happy until the violence/abuse rate against women is down to zero, which of course is never going to happen. So 2nd wavers are pining for and insisting upon a world that not only will never exist but can never exist.
3rd wavers are also known to be sex-positive, while 2nd wavers are sex-negative feminists. 3rd wavers still scream misogyny a lot, but not nearly as much as 2nd wavers. They also don’t talk about patriarchy and rape culture as much as 2nd wavers, although they do discuss these things, one of which, rape culture, probably doesn’t even exist in the US.
However, they are all SJW’s on steroids. In fact, they are much worse SJW’s than 2nd wavers, who mostly confine their SJWism to screaming “Misogyny!” 500 times a day.