Sunbathing On Mars
Here is another article giving examples of women's self-indulgence, selfishness, hypocrisy, delusion, and misandry.
One factor that improves the credibility of an accuser of sexual assault is multiple accusers. It seems unlikely that someone is lying about being sexually assaulted if several others come forward with similar accusations. Unlikely, but not impossible. Take, for example, the case of "mattress girl," Emma Sulkowicz. After she accused a fellow Columbia student, Paul Nungesser, of rape, three other people came forward who also accused Nungesser of sexual misbehavior. But after Columbia looked at the evidence, Nungesser was exonerated due to lack of credibility of his accusers. One reporter, who saw a copy of Columbia's internal report said the report hinted one accusation was the result of a "collective vendetta." [1]
Another example of this comes from Hamilton College. [2] In two weeks’ time, four women accused John Doe of sexual assault. All of the alleged assaults occurred two to three years earlier. Apparently, no one at Hamilton found this odd. Doe was expelled. But text messages and other evidence indicated a conspiracy. The accuser and her boyfriend looked for and found other women to file false allegations against Doe. One of the women was a prominent rape activist on campus who knew that multiple accusers would likely get Doe booted from campus.
So, multiple accusers can add credibility to sexual assault accusations. But we must be careful. Accusers may also encourage others to file false accusations. And this is probably not a difficult thing to do in this day and age where all male sexuality is potentially criminal. Also, many women are caught up in the current rape hysteria and seem to have no problem with falsely accusing a man for political as well as for vengeful reasons. We must be careful not to assume that multiple accusers means a man is guilty.
Why must women do everything in packs? Perhaps, as a man, I was raised to be a rugged individualist, while women are raised to be more social and community-oriented. So women must go to the powder room in packs, and then complain that it was crowded. And three dozen of them must get together before they can accuse Bill Cosby of sexual assault. And dozens of them must get together before they can accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault. And millions of them get together to complain on #MeToo. Why? I know it isn't easy to come forward with sexual misconduct charges, but think of all of the women who may have been spared sexual abuse if women had come forward immediately. I also wonder if this pack mentality may be responsible for women getting together to falsely accuse men. I just don't get it. But I guess that is my rugged individualism talking.
I have heard some women explain that they didn't come forward with sexual abuse charges because they felt some guilt, and that perhaps they contributed to the situation, somehow. These explanations are always very vague and nebulous. Let me be more specific. These women know, perhaps subconsciously, that when they use their sexual power, that they are playing with fire. Regardless of the many benefits their sexual activity can bring to women, they know it can be dangerous. So they feel perhaps that their sexuality did something to ignite the situation. They can't admit exactly what, either to themselves or others. But something is there. Perhaps it isn't even something that they did on the night in question, but perhaps it is years of exploiting their sexual appearance coming back to haunt them. And it haunts them even though feminists tell them that women can do whatever they want, and it is always all men's fault.
Or perhaps it wasn't at all the fault of the woman abused, but the fault belonged to the thousands of other women who abused their sexual appearance with the male abuser over years. This female sexual abuse of the man built up and built up until he finally cracked and abused the first available, vulnerable woman. Oh, sorry, I forgot for a moment there, that we aren't allowed to hold women responsible for anything.
The current sexual harassment hysteria is baffling to me. Why is it that women will complain about the slightest sexual activity of a man, of every man, while men are completely silent about women's blatantly sexual appearance and women's strong sexual power over men? Why don't men complain? Why is it that women can be sexual, but men can't? Why don't men complain about the sexual appearance of a woman, of every woman? Why don't men call it sexual harassment? The only explanation that I can come up with is to compare this phenomenon with women's earlier lack of complaint about men, up until recently. Often men in the workplace have been sexual with women, sometimes inappropriately. But women did not complain. These women were afraid of losing their jobs, of losing their source of money. So the powerful men got away with much sexual harassment. Of course, now the dam has broken, and women are complaining about even the slightest offense, past and present. Maybe even future. But men still are not complaining. Women like money, and men like sex. Women's sexual power over men is substantial. Men like to see women wearing next to nothing. Men do not want to risk losing that. So they do not complain about women's sexual appearance. So sexually powerful women get away with much sexual harassment.
I do not believe that anyone would say that sexual harassment of women does not occur if the women do not complain about it. Everyone thinks that sexual harassment occurs to women whether the women complain about it or not. But everyone seems to be saying that women's sexual appearance is not sexual harassment of men because men don't complain about it. Worse than this, I think most people would deny that women's sexual appearance is sexual harassment even if men did complain about it. How long can this go on where women complain about men's every sexual activity while men (and women) remain silent about women's dominating sexual power and sexual appearance? Why do all men believe that they will not be caught in this witchhunt? When will men start to realize that #MeToo is a "mob," a "mass hysteria," an "orgy of female victimhood and the demonisation of men" that criminalizes all men and infantilizes all women? [3] When will the dam break and men call out women's sexual harassment of men? When will men (and women) stop this blatant duplicity?
Another more specific hypocrisy that I have noticed with women deals with wetness. Many women who have recently accused famous men of sexual harassment and abuse have complained of receiving "wet kisses." This seems an odd complaint to me considering that most women wear glossy lipstick, i.e., lipstick that looks wet. Women are faking wet lips but then complain of wet kisses? Does women's hypocrisy know any bounds? (Of course, women could argue that the glossy lipstick is really faking wet VAGINAL lips, which they could then say shows that they aren't being hypocritical when they show distaste for wet mouth kisses. I would buy that argument. But, of course, in the process they would be admitting that they are blatantly sexually harassing everyone around them by admitting that they are walking around with wet, aroused vaginal lips painted on their faces. But yet a man can get into trouble for making a sexual comment? Don't you think women would call it sexual harassment if I walked around with a strap-on in my pants, imitating a sexually-aroused erection all day? Why are women allowed to imitate wet, aroused vaginal lips? It is hypocrisy, no matter how women argue it.)
Another odd thing that I find about this sexual harassment phenomenon is that it all emanates from women's attitudes. There are no explicit rules or definitions as to what exactly sexual harassment is. It appears to be whatever a woman says it is. The same sexual act by a man can be interpreted in massively different ways by different women. One woman may see it as a humorous, welcome tease. For another, it may be an innocuous flirt. Another may see a clumsy pass. Or another woman may interpret it as a humiliating, horrible crime. But men cannot know ahead of time which woman he is dealing with. This seems quite unfair. Sexual harassment should be clearly defined and explicitly written in legal code. It should not depend on a specific woman's attitude.
Sanford Braver and Virgil Sheets studied this conflict in attitudes. [4] They found that a man's higher political, status, or economic power could increase the perception in women that his behavior is harassing, i.e., that the powerful man is abusing his power. But they also found simultaneously that a man's higher political, status, or economic power could decrease the perception in women that his behavior is harassing, i.e., a woman could be attracted to the man and welcome his behavior and be flattered that a powerful man is attracted to her. (If you are confused, so are Freud and I. What the hell do women want?) I suppose women could have different amounts of each perception, ranging from the extreme of the man is completely harassing her, to she is completely in love with him, with varying amounts of each in between. She may even have equal amounts of each perception, resulting in them canceling each other out. (Perhaps, this can help explain why so many women voted for sexual-abuser, Donald Trump.) In any case, allowing confused and conflicted women to determine whether something is sexual harassment does not sound like a good idea.
This brings up a few questions. Harvey Weinstein abused dozens of women. Were dozens of other women also flattered by Weinstein's behavior? How many women welcomed his behavior? How many of these women used their sexual power over him to gain acting parts in Weinstein's movies, beating out more deserving actresses? I suppose we will never know. Perhaps, Weinstein could shed some light on this.
In the current sexual harassment hysteria, women are accusing men of sexual violations that run the gamut----from minor to severe. Some of the accusations are ridiculously petty. (The details of the following examples are from preliminary reports and may not contain the complete stories.) For example, Garrison Keillor doesn't know why he was fired. His guess is that when he tried to comfort a woman by putting his hand on her back, his hand accidentally slipped under her shirt, resulting in skin to skin contact. He apologized immediately. She accepted his apology. But now he is fired. One of Al Franken's accusers said that he put his arm around her waist for a photo. This seems like very normal and acceptable behavior to me, but I guess it is now sexual harassment. Several years ago Sam Seder sent a sarcastic tweet poking fun at rape apologists. He recently was fired by MSNBC for a sexual violation. (MSNBC soon realized how paranoid they had been about sex and re-hired him.) Several women have accused David Corn of touching their legs, arms, back, shoulders and waist. Corn admits to being a touchy person, but that the touching is not sexual. Leon Wieseltier lost funding for a future journal he was to edit due to a kiss and some sex talk. Rick Najera resigned from CBS after accusations that he engaged in sex talk, and that he said that he was in an open marriage. Kentucky House Speaker, Jeff Hoover, resigned the Speakership after it was revealed that he sexted with a staff member, who said that she participated to advance her career. Isn't she just as guilty of sexual harassment as he is in this situation? Didn't she use her sexual power over him to advance her career? British Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, was forced to resign for making advances towards two journalists. He attempted to kiss one after having drinks with her. He touched the other on the knee during a conference dinner. Tavis Smiley appears to have been fired for having romantic relationships with staff members. John Hockenberry was fired for sending a woman suggestive emails. On Point’s Tom Ashbrook has been suspended for sex talk and neck rubs. Detroit Free Press columnist Stephen Henderson was fired for sex talk with a colleague and a couple of rejected passes to a woman in a different department. Neither woman complained. A male political rival accused him of unspecified sexual harassment which sparked an investigation by the newspaper. Matt Damon was not accused of sexual harassment, but many women didn't like some of his comments on the subject and are trying to get him fired from a cameo on Oceans 8. (Men are not allowed to have their own opinions on gender issues.) Congressman Blake Farenthold is resigning because his office was full of sexual banter and sexual jokes. One of Roy Moore's accusers has complained that he asked her out when she was 22. How is this sexual harassment or abuse of a minor? But she is still counted as an accuser. Much of this seems awfully small. Are women really offended by this petty stuff or are they faking offense to protect their sexual power? Is women's sexual power really threatened by a man touching a woman's arm, sex jokes, sex talk, or any little thing men do sexually? I thought women were strong. Hear them roar.
Policies also reflect this pettiness. For example, men can be expelled or fired from Tennessee State University for suggestive whistling, suggestive gestures, suggestive sounds, or telling sexual jokes. But I'm betting women can sit in class with their breasts exposed, while wearing makeup and yoga pants. It appears that the bar for men being charged with sexual harassment is very low, while the bar for women is extremely high. This is quite sexist. Men can be punished for asking a woman out, for touching a woman, for talking about sex, for whistling, for joking about sex, for looking too long, for just being the wrong guy. Women are going to extreme lengths to enforce their sexual power. It appears that all traditional male sexual behavior is now potentially punishable, while women can be as sexual as they want, in their own way, without penalty.
I wonder how many women ended up marrying men who engaged with them in sexual banter, sexual jokes, suggestive emails, whistling, dating requests, etc., even in the workplace. The same sexual behavior by a man could result in him being fired, sued, imprisoned, or it could lead to him marrying the love of his life. It is all so contradictory, inscrutable, and unfair.
But the problem is not only the hypocrisy involved with women getting away with a strong sexual appearance. Even if you believe that a woman exposing her breasts, or painting vaginal lips on her face, or revealing camel toe in her tight, tight leggings is not sexual harassment, women are still guilty of the kind of sexual harassment we associate with men. A recent Personal Safety Survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 34% of the people who were victims of sexual harassment were men. And of these cases, 72% involved a female perpetrator. The survey also found that female sexual harassment of men increased 68% from 2012 to 2016. The increase for male sexual harassment of women was only 15%. But women and the media are not reporting these statistics. Also, men's opinions on sexual harassment (and all gender issues) are completely censored, blocked, and ignored by the media. Only women are allowed to talk about these things.
Of course, men who sexually abuse women should be held responsible and punished. Of course, men should control themselves. But, of course, some men don't. Some burglars cannot control themselves. They burglarize even though they know the consequences. We help burglars to not burglarize. We put locks on doors and windows. We install security systems. We put our valuables in banks. But women do not help men to not sexually abuse. Women walk around with very sexual appearances. Women like the benefits this brings them. They receive free drinks, free lobster, free evenings on the town, marriage licenses that give the women half of their husbands' possessions, etc. The sexual appearance of women also gets men to handle all of the sexual initiating that can be so risky and uncomfortable. Women have tremendous sexual power over men. If you doubt this, just consider all of the embarrassing and criminal things men are being accused of. They must be highly driven to perform such acts in the face of all of the shame and punishment likely coming their way. (This punishment may even include being murdered by the victim's male relatives.) Of course, as I have shown in the previous paragraph, many of these sexual acts are so minor that they may just be clumsy passes. (Or maybe they would be perfectly nice passes if performed by Chris Hemsworth, but then they are definitely sexual abuse when Joe Schlub performs them.) Testosterone is the hormone that drives sexual desire. Men produce up to 70 times more testosterone than women. Men are driven by sex. And women like and need this fact. It gives women their sexual power over men. If men weren't vulnerable enough from this, women's refusal to sexually initiate forces men to perform all sexual initiation, which can now be considered sexual abuse if the woman says it is. And all of the time women are ruthlessly and unashamedly teasing men with their sexual appearance---without any guilt or punishment. It is so unfair. Women are abusing their sexual power over men. They are reaping all of the benefits of their sexual appearance and if anything does not go their way, they blame and punish men. This is an indication that women are in control in sexual matters and are abusing their power. Yes, men should control themselves. So why shouldn't women?
Here is a statistic that helps make my point. Most rape and sexual assault---about 54%---occurs to women who are in the 18-24 year-old age group. [5] Less than 10% of women are in this age group. I think everyone will agree that this is the age group in which women are the most sexual in their appearance. In other words, the most sexual-appearing women are sexually assaulted the most. I do not think this is a coincidence. This is cause and effect. Feminists say that women can wear whatever they want, drink as much as they want, and do whatever they want, but this is often just power-tripping and teasing of men. Some men fight back against this sexual power women have over them by responding with sexual assault, abuse, and harassment of women. Women need to take responsibility for their behavior.
I don't mean to imply that a woman abusing her sexual power with her sexual appearance is as bad as a man raping. But women abusing their sexual appearance is so common---walk onto any college campus and you will probably see 80% of the women blatantly exploiting their sexual appearance. This is contributing to rape and sexual assault. Feminists say that rape is not about sex, but power. Couldn't this expression of rape being about power be true in the sense that men who rape are rebelling against women's sexual power over them? Feminists have no problem telling non-raping men how they must change their behavior in order to help reduce sexual assault. But feminists simultaneously tell women they can do whatever they want without guilt. And, as I have mentioned above, feminists demand severe punishments for even very minor sexual infractions by men. Certainly, women's exploitation of their sexual appearance and sexual power abuses of men are at least as bad as these minor infractions by men. Why do women get a total pass?
Women are currently demanding that all punishment of men for sexual infractions be severe, even for minor sexual violations. It is a lynch mob. Many women, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand have said that there should be zero tolerance. That is, all infractions should receive the severest punishment with no due process. Women are also using today's standards of sexual harassment, even for sexual activity that occurred decades ago that wasn't considered sexual harassment at the time. So, I think it is time for men to follow this new standard for sexual harassment. It is time to take the sexism out of sexual harassment. If men may be punished for the slightest sexual activity, then so should women. All women exposing any cleavage, no matter how slight, must be accused of sexual harassment. All women wearing yoga pants or tights must be accused of sexual harassment. All women wearing lipstick must be accused of sexual harassment. This also goes for short skirts, high heels, tight tops, spanx, wonderbras, etc. etc. etc. All infractions of the past must also be punished. It does not matter that these things were acceptable sexual behavior at the time. Women do these things to abuse their sexual power over men. These women must be fired from their jobs, expelled from colleges, criminally prosecuted, or sued into the poor house. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, uncompromising critic of sexual harassment in the Senate, wore lipstick in 1994. We must demand that she resign from the Senate immediately, with no due process. Ashley Judd, vocal critic of Harvey Weinstein, exposed her breast in the cover photo of a Time Magazine issue dealing with sexual harassment. We must demand that she receive no more acting jobs. She must not receive any due process protections. Rose McGowan, another critic of Weinstein, wore next to nothing at the 1999 MTV Music Video Awards. Everyone who saw her, both live and on video, must accuse her of sexual harassment and sue her for million$.
Of course, I am being sarcastic. Or am I? This sexist, sexual double standard is completely outrageous, exceeding all bounds of decency and reasonableness. Men today take a big chance with every sexual action, while women continue to be quite sexual with no fear of any consequence. This is appalling. It is a complete abuse of women's sexual power and women's new-found political power.
The fact that Judd exposed her breast on the cover of a magazine about sexual harassment shows the absolute cluelessness and hypocrisy of the media and of women's current attitudes on sexual harassment. It appears only men can be harassers. It appears women are allowed to be as sexual as they want to be, and men risk severe punishment for the slightest sexuality. Another example of this cluelessness occurred during the Golden Globes this year, when women wore all-black dresses to protest against men's sexual harassment of women, while their tight, sexual outfits yet again exposed their breasts, shoulders, backs, legs, and midriffs. Absolutely clueless and hypocritical.
I fear that men will be reluctant to accuse women of sexual harassment. After all, men like women's sexual appearance. But women force men to perform all sexual initiation and then on any woman's whim, men are punished for these same sexual actions. Any man can be the next victim, while women are not punished for their sexual appearance. Both men and women are sexual. Men aren't easily offended by sex. But women are easily offended by men's sexuality, which is all part of women protecting their sexual power over men. Should we impose punishment on a man based on a woman's sensitivity instead of on the man's actual behavior?
I fear that women will not stop this abuse of men until the women suffer some consequence for it. Women will not stop throwing their ridiculous net of sexual McCarthyism over men until they are also caught in it.
I also fear that in a workplace where everything that men do is considered sexual harassment by sensitive women, that the workplace will become more and more segregated. It is becoming evident that it can be dangerous for men and women to work together. Employers will want to avoid lawsuits and employee friction and may segregate the sexes. Of course, women will be sensitive about this too and complain that this is also sexism against them.
I suspect that the goal of feminists in this hysteria is a power grab. I suspect feminists are promoting and using the current sexual harassment hysteria to incite extreme guilt in men and anger in women, so that male CEOs, male newsmen, and duly-elected male Senators, etc., are replaced by radical feminists. (Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, has already told us in a campaign ad to "Don't vote for men!" Do the citizens of Michigan really want an attorney general that is so shamelessly sexist?) Women are already being extremely unfair about sexual harassment and other gender issues. I suspect this will only get worse when feminists hold more positions of power. They are quite selfish, self-indulgent, and absolutely corrupted by power.
I could go on forever about the current sexual harassment witchhunt, but I'll move on to other issues.
A critical goal of feminism is to infuse feminism into everything: sports, school, science, business, employment, technology, relations, media, everything. I gave an example in "Feminism is Authoritarian" in which feminists have taken over Scientific American. The September 2017 issue is another shining example of this take-over. The cover is pink. The editor-in-chief is female. Of the 15 main article writers, all are women except for two men who are co-authors with women. None of the writers can be considered hard scientists except maybe one of the men, who is a professor of evolutionary biology. The women authors include a lawyer, a philosophy professor, an OB/GYN, a psychology professor, a VP of public policy, a med student, a sociology professor, and an editor. These people are writing for a science journal?
Most of the references to other studies in the articles were authored by women. This implies to me that all concerned are feminists, and I've discussed before how biased much of feminist scholarship is.
And most frightening, all of the articles could just as easily have appeared in Ms Magazine. One discussed how sex differences are due mostly to environmental rather than biological influences. Another contended that brains are not male or female but mosaics of both. One author complained of scientists not using women as research subjects. (Apparently, the author does not know that this problem was corrected in the early 1990s.) Another article gave a short history of abortion rights in the United States. Why was this is Scientific American? An author complained about the fact that 70% of philosophy doctoral degrees go to men. (But the author had no problem with 72% of psychology doctoral degrees going to women.) There was a biography of a woman who fought against internet trolls. Again, is this science? An article on women joining the work force in developing countries posted a graph with an obviously incorrect "regression line." Several of the authors participated in a pet peeve of mine: women announcing that this problem, and that problem, and every problem in the world can be solved by "female empowerment." What shameless self-indulgence! Again, power corrupts. And finally, a woman complained in one article about the sexism of being the only woman in a conference room with 28 men by asking "What's wrong with this room?" Well, I can only add, "What's wrong with this magazine?"
But the strangest thing about the issue was, on the pink cover, in bold letters, were the words "It's Not a Woman's Issue." Yeah, right!
Another example of feminists taking over everything is in movies. Men create big hits and women have to worm their way in and take over and reap the spoils of men's creativity. Examples include Star Wars, Mad Max, Ghostbusters, and Ocean's 8. Apparently, women can't create their own big hits.
An incident with Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was enlightening. Senator Bob Corker implied in an interview that President Trump had castrated Tillerson. The comment was a bit shocking but there were no great outcries of sexism against Corker's questioning of Tillerson's manhood. Can you imagine what would have happened if a Senator had questioned the womanhood of Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao? All Hell would have broken loose. The attacks on the Senator's sexism would have been deafening. But apparently, attacking a man is not sexist. Only women. Tillerson's response was also instructive. He made a joke of the situation, saying "I checked, I'm fully intact." Humor is not something you often find coming from women in situations like this.
You can't please some people. Apparently, absolutely everything and its opposite are sexism against women. Many women and women's organizations, e.g., the National Organization of Women, demanded that the Boy Scouts allow girls to be full members. (The Boy Scouts have allowed girls to participate in some programs.) The Boy Scouts complied in October, announcing that girls would be allowed full membership. But now, many of these women's groups are complaining about this move, including the National Organization of Women. They are saying that the move is an insidious attempt to weaken the Girl Scouts. (Oddly, these women's groups have no problem with the Girl Scouts, which has never allowed boys to join.)
Apparently, the big sexist injustices against women in the workplace have been corrected, because we are now focusing on the little things. An article from CNNMoney [6] complains of the "invisible work" women have to perform at work. Examples include mentoring, orienting new employees, keeping meetings civil, soothing irritated clients, and professors' office hours becoming confessionals for students. Women apparently expend much more emotional energy at work than men do. They are so downtrodden. Can women be any more self-indulgent? How about we concentrate on eliminating all of the deaths and injuries of men who are killed and injured at work before worrying so much about women's emotional workload?
During the 90s, there were studies and much attention focused on how girls lose their self-confidence in their early teen years. (There was also evidence that this was all hooey, but that did not stop the firestorm of attention brought to the subject.) But now, Dr. Joanna Williams has come out with the book, Women vs Feminism, detailing how feminism's constant "victim narrative" is what is really destroying young women's self-confidence. [7] Young women are encouraged to see themselves as victims and believe they suffer barriers that are insurmountable, and they give up. They have no confidence that they can succeed, so they are encouraged to stop trying. Williams also argues that the better women do, "the harder it seems that a new generation of feminists must try to justify their purpose through uncovering ever more obscure problems." For example, like the invisible emotional work women must perform on the job?
The Germans like long words. Here is a new one: Opferverliebtheit or "the state of being enamored with victim-hood." Considering the previous paragraph, this is a perfect word for today's woman. It is---surprise---a feminine noun! And the women of today sure do like to be victims.
Title IX enforcement forces each college to have gender participation in sports that is proportional to the gender makeup of the school. Of course, each school is different, but taken as a whole, women make up about 57% of all college undergraduates. This means, on average, that about 57% of sports participants at schools must be female. This is quite odd because women generally show less interest in sports than men do. (Also consider that other extracurricular activities, in which women generally show more interest than men, there are no forced quotas.) To see this difference in interest, consider high school sports where there are far fewer restrictions on participation. The National Federation of State High School Associations reports that during the 2015-16 school year 58% of high school athletes were boys. [8] Using these figures, this implies that men have a 38% higher interest in sports than women, while women have a 33% higher participation rate in college sports. How can Title IX, which is supposed to be about fairness, be so unfair?
I think I can safely say that Sweden is one of the most feminist countries in the world. But the feminists in Sweden have a dilemma. Sexual assaults in Sweden have risen 61 percent since 2007. But feminists can't complain about this, because the rise in sexual crimes is due mostly to immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Since a major part of feminist ideology deals with diversity and racism, feminists are restrained from talking about the increase in sexual crimes because it would make them look like racists. They are trapped by their own ideology. [9]
Norway, next to Sweden, is also a very feminist place. A Norwegian comedian, Harald Eia, decided to explore the reason for behavioral differences between women and men. The resulting 39 minute documentary is called "The Gender Equality Paradox." [10] Apparently there are two combating theories: one says that the behavioral differences between men and women result from both biological and cultural influences, while the other theory says that all behavioral differences are due to only cultural influences. The second theory is favored by feminists. It says that, other than the obvious biological differences, like genitals, breasts, and hair, all differences are cultural. Eia interviewed proponents of both theories and explored some of the science involved. There is much science behind the "Both" Theory, but the science behind the "Only Cultural" Theory is weak. So, Eia asked the "Only Cultural" theorists (feminists) to justify their theory. Here's how Cathrine Egeland of the Work Research Institute explained the science: "I have what you would call a theoretical basis. There's no room for biology in there for me.... And I feel that social sciences should challenge thinking that is based on the differences between humans being biological." But Egeland's argument is not a scientific argument. It's ideology. Feminist ideology says that men and women are absolutely equal, so feminists cannot admit any biological behavioral differences. Feminist ideology says that all behavioral differences are the result of cultural influences imposed by the patriarchy and can be changed. So feminist "scientists" ignore or disparage all data that leads to a biological explanation. This is not science. Another feminist "scientist" interviewed was Joergen Lorenzten of the Center of Interdisciplinary Gender Research at Oslo University. He had a similar explanation when asked to justify the "Only Cultural" theory. He said that he had the hypothesis that all behavioral differences are cultural and that he would go with that until biological influences were proven. I suspect that there will never be enough proof to satisfy him. Feminist "science" is not science. It is ideology. Eia showed this in his documentary.
This prompted this question for me: If all differences between men and women are cultural, why does Norway have separate national men's and women's soccer teams? Even if "Only Cultural" theorists claim that men have, biologically, more upper body strength, this is not a factor in soccer. So abilities in soccer for men and women should be the same. So why doesn't Norway just have one national soccer team with the country's best players, male and female? Could it be because few or no women would be good enough to make such a team? Doesn't having separate men's and women's teams imply that women are not as good as men? Isn't this more feminist hypocrisy? (This question also is pertinent to colleges having separate men's and women's teams.)
Just like in everything else, men are the bad guys when it comes to condom use. Men are stereotyped as always trying to avoid using condoms, coming up with every excuse possible for not using them. But a recent study shows that women may be just as bad. About half of the women in the study said that they had taken some action to avoid condom use with their partners. Almost 40 percent said that they downplayed the use of condoms, 33 percent said that they got their partners so sexually excited that the men gave in to the women's requests for no condom use, and 3 percent admitted withholding sex or damaging the condoms in order to get their way. If men did these things, women would consider it sexual abuse. But since men are always the bad guys, women get away with this crap. [11]
I have noted before that women receive most all charity. Here's another example. God's Garage in Conroe, Texas provides car services for "single ladies, widows, and wives of deployed military" who are struggling to make ends meet. When I checked their website, [12] they had provided car repairs for 117 cars and had donated 132 cars to women only. I guess men never struggle to make ends meet. I guess men are all expert car mechanics.
Feminists complain that women are often treated more like children than fully responsible adults. Now, this news from Australia. A woman signed a pre-nup even though she was advised not to. The pre-nup said that if the couple remained married for three or more years, she would receive $50,000 worth of property upon divorce. They divorced after---surprise---three years of marriage. She then went all the way to the Supreme Court to get the pre-nup nullified. She wanted $1.24 million. She won. The Court said that there is unfair pressure in situations like this, that contract law is misplaced in matters of personal relationships, and that there is inequality in bargaining powers between men and women. (In other words, women are not fully responsible adults.) Now, it appears all pre-nups in Australia are possibly invalid. [13]
There is so much wrong with this pre-nup situation. It appears unequal charity for women even extends into the legal system. First of all, I suspect that there is inequality in the bargaining powers between signers of all contracts. Yet, this only becomes an issue when one signer is female. Only female signers must be protected from themselves. Second, what makes the Court assume that all of the unfair pressure is on women? As I have said before, marriage is often a meretricious deal---women provide sex, while men provide money. Is it possible that men feel just as much undue sexual pressure in getting married as women feel undue financial pressure? Again, only women must be protected. Third, the law is stacked against men. After divorce, the law may force a man to continue his marriage duties, i.e., child support, alimony, house payments, attorney fees, etc. But a woman's wifely duties stop immediately. She does not have to pay any money, cook dinner for him, clean his bathroom, or provide sex after their divorce. A pre-nup is a way for a man to equal the playing field to some degree. But the Australian Supreme Court has taken that away and treated women like children once again. But women aren't complaining about this infantilization.
I have noted before that feminist ideology strongly focuses on diversity (race) so that it can claim that women's victimization is equal to the victimization of blacks. (Which, of course, is nonsense.) Feminist ideology also focuses on LBGT issues, since feminist leadership is largely lesbian. Feminists often claim that they are fighting for women when they are really fighting for LBGT issues. As a result of these side foci, feminists often narrow their hatred of men onto straight (or cisgender) and/or white men. Here's another example. Sarah Semrad was the vice-chair of The College Democrats of Wisconsin. Her bio on her twitter account stated that “I believe everyone, regardless of race, age, religion, or gender deserves the equal opportunity to [achieve] anything they put their mind to....” She sounds quite fair and egalitarian. However, one of her tweets later revealed that "I f**cking hate white men." Not so egalitarian. She has since resigned from her vice-chair post on the executive board of the College Democrats of Wisconsin. She has deleted her twitter account. [14]
Here's another example. An email was distributed to inform people of job openings at the IT department at the Democratic National Committee. [15] It was sent by Data Services Manager, Madeleine Leader, who prefers the pronouns they/them/theirs. The email contained these two lines: "What's more important is that we are focused on hiring and maintaining a staff of diverse voices and life experiences, something that we desperately need if we hope to secure the future of our country.... I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they're already in the majority." (Can you imagine what would happen if a school district asked that women not apply for teacher jobs because they were already in the majority?) Obviously, Leader's misandry shows that diversity is more important to her than competence in job applicants. This may explain why the Russians so easily hacked into their system. It may also explain why the Russians and others will continue to hack into the DNC systems again and again. Slow learners. This is so brazenly hateful, sexist, and stupid!
Of course, sometimes the hatred isn't focused on subgroups but applies to all men. Emily McCombs, Editorial Director for Parents at HuffPost, has said some very hateful things about men. Here's her recent New Year's Resolutions: "1. Cultivate female friendships 2. Band together to kill all men." She has also recently tweeted, "Can we have a day without men tomorrow?" and "Filed my nails into sharp little points last night so that I may spear and devour the hearts of men." Why does this woman still have her job? I am certain a man would have been fired long ago for saying similar hateful things about women.
Another example of misandry is society's attitude toward suicide. As I have mentioned before, the media have recently focused on girls who have killed themselves after being bullied. Examples include Rebecca Sedwick, Rehtaeh Parsons, Hailee Lamberth, Cora Delille, Audrie Pott, and Amanda Todd. The NBC Nightly News did it again on December 2, 2017. Their report highlighted the suicides of Rosalie Avila and Ashawnty Davis. All of this attention on teenage girls is most extraordinary when you consider that over 80% of teenage suicides are boys. [16] We just do not care enough about men and boys to highlight them in victimization stories.
National Public Radio gave us another example on suicide. [17] A Morning Edition report only focused on and complained of the increase in the suicide rate of teenage girls from 0.5 to 1.7 per 100,000. The report did NOT mention that the rate for boys, aged 15 to 24, is 29.0 per 100,000 [16] and that the rate of increase was even sharper for boys than it was for girls. [18] There was little concern for boys. Only girls and women receive compassion and attention. Can you imagine what would happen if these statistics were reversed? The media would go crazy with special reports on how we were failing girls, and legislators would quickly hold hearings and pass suicide prevention programs aimed at girls. But because boys are the primary victims----crickets. We still focus only on girls.
Adding injury to insult, here is a report stating that suicide prevention programs help women and girls more than they help men and boys. [19] Outrageous.
This pattern that we are only allowed to have compassion for females is widespread. I suppose that it is partly a result of good old-fashioned chivalry. I suppose a general feminist hatred of men, masculinity, and the patriarchy also contribute to the pattern. But in a modern egalitarian society, old-fashioned chivalry and general hatred of half of the world's people must be condemned.
Here is another example of compassion bias: Women Against Paternity Fraud. I suppose members of this group have good intentions, but once again, we are not allowed to have compassion or empathy for men, who are the main victims of paternity fraud. (Paternity fraud usually occurs when wives have affairs and get pregnant by their boyfriends. Their husbands then raise these children unknowingly fathered by other men.) We must highlight women and girls if we expect to receive any donations, attention, or support. This group focuses on the problems paternity fraud imposes on women and children. In an interview, founder Dianna Thompson said the organization is concerned with "the devastation this issue creates within families and especially for children." She also said "Many women are paternity fraud victims, when the truth about who their biological father is was never disclosed to them until years later, or when a medical emergency occurs, or their inheritance rights are being denied." [20] We are just not allowed to have any compassion for men. Reverse this situation. Can you imagine a group for men that is concerned about how men are deprived when their wives have mastectomies? Of course not. Men could not get away with something so selfish. But women can, and do, constantly.
On the December 28, 2017, MSNBC program, The Beat, host Ari Melber complained about White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, who restricted who could ask him questions during a press conference. Kelly only took questions from people who knew Gold Star families. Melber was incensed that Kelly would restrict the questioners like this and said that something this vile had never happened before. Oddly, there was no such controversy when President Obama only took questions from female reporters in a news conference on December 19, 2014. Obama even implied that it was because the men had been naughty. I guess that restriction must have been okay. So much hypocrisy.
The Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island in Michigan, brags that it has the longest wooden front porch on a summer hotel in the world. I think it is safe to assume, that at one time, the hotel bragged that it had "the longest porch." But other porches were built, and the brag had to be continually modified. Maybe a longer porch was built, but it was made out of aluminum, or it was built at a year-round hotel, or it was a back porch, or maybe the Martians built a very long porch for vacationers to view the Olympus Mons Volcano while catching some sun. The Grand Hotel had to keep modifying its brag until the brag became kinda silly.
As I have noted before, the first woman to do something is always big news, probably even bigger news than the first person, i.e., man, to do the same thing. We have to pander to women and brag about their accomplishments. Time Magazine for September 18, 2017, presented us with a special issue bragging about women's firsts. Some of the firsts were genuine accomplishments. But like the Grand Hotel's porch, many of the firsts were modified to the point of being kinda silly. But we have to stroke women's egos, even if we have to stretch "first" to unrecognizable lengths. So, the women highlighted went from the "first person" to do something, to the "first woman," to the "first woman of color," to the "first American woman," to the "first Indian-American woman," to the "first openly gay" woman, to the "first American gymnast" woman, to the "first Somali-American Muslim person." If this weren't bad enough, some of the firsts were so forced and modified, and were in such very narrow categories, that they were just lame. "First woman to solo-direct a major Hollywood animated feature." "First woman to design a memorial on the National Mall." "First woman to lead in the Indy 500 and the Daytona 500." (From this I can guess that no woman has ever won these races.) Forget curing cancer, let's strive to be the "First person to reach 100 million followers on Instagram." And the ultimate lameness: Melinda Gates was the "first woman to give away more than $40 billion." Is giving away money an accomplishment? Who couldn't do that? Making money is a little more difficult. We really have to dig to pander to women. Do you think Time will ever have a special issue of men's firsts, African-American firsts, Native-American firsts, Asian-American firsts, Somali-American Muslim firsts, or do anything other than pander to women? Me neither. This is positive proof that Time's reporting and content are heavily biased toward women.
Time missed a few firsts by women. For example, the first school shooter was female and gay. Sixteen-year-old Brenda Spencer shot up the San Diego elementary school across the street from her house in 1979. She killed the principal and a custodian who died protecting their students. Eight children and a police officer were wounded. She explained her actions by saying that it was Monday and she was bored. And what about the first female self-made billionaire, Elizabeth Holmes, CEO of Theranos? She was described as the next Steve Jobs. But the Securities and Exchange Commission accused her of massive fraud and fined her $500,000. Her lies about her company encouraged many to invest millions in her and her company. These millions are now lost. And let us not forget Hillary Clinton, the first female candidate of a major party for U.S. President. She accomplished the near impossible by losing to Donald Trump. It's odd that Time only found positive firsts of women.
It seems like society is there only for the benefit of women. Men seem to be an afterthought, second class citizens also only there for the benefit of women. I have shown this in the past with yearly counts of activities in my local community that appear to be focused on benefiting women. I have the count now for 2017. I counted 408 events, for and about women. The count for events for and about men was 8. That's over 50 times more events benefiting women than men. Could that indicate a little bias? Oh, women are such victims!
Here are some of the events for women: There were 59 movies or plays for or about women as women including a women's film festival, a viewing of She Started It about five female tech entrepreneurs, the movie Women Are the Answer about women of India, a monthly Feminist Film showing, two showings of The Sisterhood of Shred about women skiers and snowboarders, an all-female production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the play The Women of Lockerbie. There were eleven Mother's Day events including several brunches, bingo at a senior center, sailing on a schooner, a walk for peace, and $4 pints at a local brewery. Musical events included four female musicians performing to benefit Planned Parenthood, two women explored the blues in a "wise, womanly, witty and well-played" concert, a Femme Fest, several benefits for Girls' Rock Camp, Femmes Notables chamber music concert by female musicians and composers, and a fundraiser for Female Artists For Music Education. Author events and book discussions included Twenty-First Century Essays by Women, Founding Mothers by Cokie Roberts, The Misadventures of a Muslim Woman, The Girls of Atomic City, Women's Voices Poetry Reading, I Am Malala book discussion, and This is the Place: Women Writing About Home. Gallery events included an exhibition of tattoo art by female and non-binary artists, an exhibit by 18 female printmakers painters poets and photographers, an exhibit that celebrated local women artists, female artist's print was donated to the YWCA for their "work to empower women," a WOMXN exhibit, and Women's Works which highlighted local women's paintings. Athletic events included Moving Your Bones in Magical Tutus, a bra fitting for runners, a Women's Run and Walk, several Girls On the Run events, a bike maintenance workshop for women, several Run Like a Girl events, a mountain climb to fight breast cancer, a women's rock climbing workshop, the article "A Plea For More Female Mountain Guides," and Jump Start Into Running event for women. Benefits for women and girls included a benefit for a charity for girls who are victims of child sexual abuse, a fundraiser for widows and orphans of Malawi, several benefits for domestic violence organizations, a pad party for feminine products for a women's homeless shelter, women's shoes donated to YWCA's Back To Work Boutique, Annual Champagne Luncheon and Silent Auction benefiting local women and children, Handbags for Housing for a women's homeless shelter, and a Real Men Wear Pink benefit to fight breast cancer. Education, classes, and courses for women and girls included three Girls in Engineering Math and Science events, a textile summer camp for girls, Tech Trek Camp for 7th grade girls, Teen Upcycle Fashion Camp, and a quarterly Women in Leadership class. Stores and communities offered nine Ladies' Night Outs. Other events included the Womxn's March after Inauguration Day, two women's groups that met weekly, five local TED Talks about women, a Ladies of Laughter show (3 women comics,) a women-in-business group awarded four $5000 scholarships for college women, an AAUW benefit for scholarships for women, Magic Men Live---a strip show for women, a lecture for lone women travelers, a woman-of-the-day exhibit during March of local badass women, a fitness club offered a Hot Mommy Makeover, a History of the YWCA lecture, and a monthly ladies' moon walk.
Events for men and boys were an author lecture for the book The Boys of Lesvos, a benefit for two brothers with Batten Disease, two Fathers' Day events---a car show and a swing concert, a mustache bash, a concert by The Midtown Men, a concert by The Piano Guys, and a play about D-Day.
I think you can see that I was quite generous in counting events for men. At least half of these were questionable. But if the event title included "men" or something similar, I counted it as a men's event. I believe this probably resulted in an over count. The fact that "Guys" is in the title of the group, the Piano Guys, is probably coincidental. It is probably not really a men's group or event. It is a group of two musicians that happen to be men and have a group name with "Guys" in it. They are probably not trying to make a political statement or denote any restrictions about gender by having "Guys" in the name of the group. I would bet that the group isn't necessarily restricted to men and their concerts are certainly not restricted to male audiences. That's a difference between men's and women's events. You can bet anything with "women" in the title is making a political statement about the gender of the event. It is not coincidental. Just look at the women's events that I have listed. These events were somehow restricted to women---principally about or for the benefit of women. Women are so chauvinistic.
I decided not to count a No Shave November event. No Shave November events originally brought attention to men's health issues, but this one was a benefit for colorectal cancer. Even a formerly men's event had to change to also benefit women.
The world spins for women.
[1] http://heatst.com/culture-wars/accused-man-in-mattress-girl-scandal-files-new-allegations-against-columbia/
[2] https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/38741/
[3] http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/meet-the-women-worried-about-metoo/20639#.WjfJElWgd1i
[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247745094_Organizational_Status_and_Perceived_Sexual_Harassment_Detecting_the_Mediators_of_a_Null_Effect
[5] http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/08/the-university-sexual-assault-overcorrection-how-efforts-to-protect-women-have-infringed-on-mens-civil-rights/
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
[6] http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/18/pf/women-emotional-labor/index.html
[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/21/victimhood-narrative-taught-schools-fuels-anxiety-young-women/
[8] https://www.nfhs.org/media/1017761/2015-16-nfhs-annual-report.pdf
[9] http://quillette.com/2017/10/10/swedens-sexual-assault-crisis-presents-feminist-paradox/
[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
[11] http://www.newsweek.com/women-resist-condom-use-well-stis-696752
[12] https://godsgaragecar.com/
[13] http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/landmark-high-court-ruling-spells-death-knell-of-prenuptial-agreements-in-australia-experts-say/news-story/0a1ff008a26ddfe50a3421f90053db49
[14] https://www.turningpoint.news/semrad-college-democrat-twitter-resigns/
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/uw-la-crosse-student-no-longer-vice-chair-of-wisconsin/article_be29bca0-0fb8-5ce3-8e71-8300bc79279f.html
[15] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/democrats-to-white-males-youre-not-wanted-here.php
[16] http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#2005
[17] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/22/474888854/suicide-rates-climb-in-u-s-especially-among-adolescent-girls
[18] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bullying-drove-13-year-old-rosalie-avila-kill-herself-parents-n826281
[19] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4377906/pdf/ijerph-12-02359.pdf
[20] https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22621-q-and-a-with-dianna-thompson-of-women-against-paternity-fraud
