BITCHIN' DOG PARK
I must start out this edition by pleading, by begging, that all young men planning to attend or currently attending college please read the book, The Campus Rape Frenzy, by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. It is a frightening book, detailing what has happened to due process for men accused of sexual infractions at our colleges and universities. Every high school boy planning to attend college should read this book. Every man attending college should read this book. It gives example after example of the rights of men being absolutely annihilated by the current sexual harassment witchhunt in our colleges. So if your son, nephew, cousin, neighbor boy is in college or about to enter college, or if you coach a boys' sports team, or if you lead a youth group, please buy copies of this book for these young men, or encourage them to find it in the library. The book would make a great high school graduation gift. It is imperative that these men are warned what could happen to them. Please, please, encourage the reading of this book. (These harmful procedures were instituted in the Obama Administration, but Betsy DeVos, the new Education Secretary, is working to stop them. However, the government moves slowly, and many colleges are adamant about keeping these unfair procedures anyway. So, our sons can expect them to continue for a long time.)
Having said that, here is this edition's example of a truly Kafkaesque college sexual injustice which comes from Yale. [1] "John Doe" was accused of groping "Jane Roe" on a bus on a Paris field trip. Months later, Doe also supposedly groped Roe again along with her friend, "Sally Roe" on a chartered bus trip to the Harvard football game. Doe was suspended for 2 semesters. Doe was also kicked out of his academic program and lost a summer position at an investment bank, which likely would have resulted in a permanent position at the bank. He was ostracized, and he lost many friends. Who knows how many other loses Doe will suffer due to this black mark on his transcript? But, here are some other things to ponder: The policy under which Doe was prosecuted was put together by women's groups at Yale and never defined "groping." The Committee on Sexual Misconduct at Yale is 70 percent female. Three people walking behind Doe and Roe on the Paris bus did not see any groping. Twenty people on the bus to Harvard did not see any groping. Apparently, the women did not complain at the time. The two accusers seemed to be coordinating with each other, since they officially made their accusations to Yale administrators just minutes apart. Doe is conservative and believed the allegations were the result of "palpable animosity towards him because of his political views." He was not allowed to bring this up during his hearing. During the hearing the two accusers were caught texting each other with their identical testimony. The texts also hinted that the testimony was "untrue." Doe's appeal was denied.
Here is a bonus absurdity concerning sexual assault on our college campuses. It involves USC football kicker Matt Boermeester and his girlfriend, USC tennis player, Zoe Katz. [2] During some innocent horseplay, Boermeester shoved Katz. A neighbor saw this. He told his roommate, who reported the incident to a USC coach, who reported to the Title IX office. During an investigation, Katz insisted that she had never been abused by Boermeester, that the shove was innocent play, and the accusation of abuse was a big mistake. But the school did not "believe the victim." Instead, USC insisted that Katz was a battered woman unable to admit the truth. Boermeester was suspended from the school. Apparently, "believing the victim" is only functional in certain situations. In this case Boermeester was the real victim and no one believed him. He was a victim of Title IX abuse.
Larry Nassar is the doctor convicted of abusing many girls participating in the U.S. gymnastics team as well as others. Even though we can sympathize with her actions, the judge in the Nassar case, Rosemarie Aquilina, became a victim's advocate instead of a "neutral, independent arbiter(s) who impartially evaluate(s) the evidence and apply the law." [3] She allowed over 160 witnesses to give emotional testimony about their feelings of the case. She told Nassar that she signed his death warrant since she sentenced him to 175 years in prison. She even made a thinly veiled wish that he be raped in prison. The fact that this occurred in a case concerning the sexual abuse of girls lends credence to my contention that females in our society receive much more sympathy than males. (I would say this case received more attention than the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal that affected mostly boys.) It also gives support to my contention that our judicial system is biased against men---especially men who harm women. Men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes. The difference in sentencing between genders is even larger than the difference between whites and blacks. Men are twice as likely to receive jail time as women and men receive 63% longer sentences. [4]
I have complained before about "diversity" being used as an excuse and justification to discriminate against white/heterosexual/cis men. Here is another example. When the two female directors of First-Year Trips at Dartmouth chose the 19 directorates, they looked for diversity and “consciously considered various identity representations in their decision-making process.” [5] This resulted in them choosing 15 women and 4 men. The 2 directors immediately, defensively, and contradictorily claimed that the directorates were chosen by identity and merit. Unbelievable doublespeak. I wonder if the two directors were even conscious of the garbage they were spouting.
"Privilege" is another way to discriminate against white/heterosexual/cis men. Being male gives men certain advantages. But being female also leads to certain advantages. And certainly, both men and women can be white/heterosexual/cis. A current fad these days along these lines is to condemn people who have "privilege," especially white, straight men. There is the implication in this that women receive no "privilege," not even white/heterosexual/cis women. This, of course, is nonsense. [6] By saying that white/straight/cis men are "privileged," this implies that these men have been and are given special favorable treatment, while ignoring that women in many ways also receive special privileges for being white/straight/cis women. It's just a convoluted politically-correct justification to hate and discriminate against men. Again, I wonder if the spouters are conscious of the garbage they are spouting.
I recently saw the movie, Alien: Covenant. It expresses this constant, hypocritical hatred of men and special treatment of women. Although not as blatantly feminist as the previous Sigourney Weaver editions, the movie still exudes hatred of men and special treatment of women. For example, all of the jerks in the movie are male. One of the biggest jerks in the movie is a robot---a male robot. All of the smart, reasonable people in the movie are female. Another thing that I noticed was how people died in the movie. The men were all killed in high-definition, gory, graphic detail. We saw the monsters rip through the men's bodies and come out the other side, or rip out of their chests. But we never saw that with the women. The monsters did kill the women, but their deaths were more implied than actually shown. In the most graphic death of a woman, we see the monster behind her, but then the movie fades out and we later see the woman's head in a pool of water. The water hides the blood and the gory details of her severed head. Violence against men is acceptable and shown in full technicolor detail. Graphic violence against women is not allowed and is hidden.
In Britain girls receive free HPV vaccinations. [7] Boys must pay up to 300 pounds for theirs, if they get them at all. In a stupendous sexist calculation, the medical establishment in Britain has determined that it is more cost effective to treat men's throat, mouth, penile, and anal cancers, rather than to vaccinate boys against HPV. And this does not take into account the severe pain and suffering experienced by these cancer victims. But, apparently it is cost effective to vaccinate girls rather than treat their cervical cancers. Amazing! Does anyone really believe that the difference has to do with cost effectiveness instead of pure misandry? It may also involve women's constant demands for protection and attention, and women's demands for men's chivalry.
Robert Tracinski has pointed out that feminists have not been happy about sexual relationships between men and women. [8] These feminists were not happy with the rather straight-forward and fairly obvious consent involved in sexual relations. There was not enough responsibility and punishment for men in this. So feminists gave us "affirmative consent," where women must give a verbal "yes" for every sexual activity. Every time. Otherwise, it is rape. This awkward and impractical new rule opened up many possibilities for women to punish men through the judicial and college systems. But this was still not enough. Feminists wanted more ways to inflict pain and misery upon men. So they added another new standard for sex. Not only must women consent to every sexual activity, but they must "enthusiastically consent," or it is rape. If women do not consent enthusiastically, men are at risk.
It appears that the most well-known impetus for this new rule was the Aziz Ansari case, where a woman consented to all of Ansari's propositions, but still felt uncomfortable, like she had been sexually violated. Well, feminism to the rescue. She had not consented enthusiastically enough, so she was, therefore, a victim of sexual violence. I guess Ansari should have noticed her lack of enthusiasm. Apparently, we must make laws based on women's feelings, not facts, or common sense, or men's feelings. Of course, enthusiasm is a completely subjective concept. When is enough enthusiasm enough? There is no straight-forward answer for this. This gives women another way, at their discretion, to inflict pain and torture on men. This is one more step toward the feminist goal of ending all heterosexual sex.
John C. Riesbeck was convicted of rape by a Coast Guard military court. An appeals court threw out the conviction. Apparently, the Coast Guard was so intimidated by feminist accusations of sexual assaults not being taken seriously, that admirals and prosecutors, in order to ensure a guilty verdict, stacked the seven-member jury with 5 women, 4 of whom were advocates for sexual assault victims. The appeals court also noted that the evidence against Riesbeck was extremely weak. [9]
Here is an example of just how crazy feminism has become. A Swedish woman wants a dog park just for bitches. She doesn't like that male dogs get aggressive when her bitch is in heat. She blames this on the patriarchy. She complains that the male dogs have all of the power even though they are the trouble-makers. Of course, she conveniently forgets that female dogs can also get aggressive with each other when they are in heat. [10] (I just love it when I can use the word "bitch" without fear of reprisal.)
Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia of the California legislature was instrumental in raising awareness of sexual harassment by male legislators and lobbyists. She was featured in the Time Magazine "Person of the Year" issue which dealt with sexual harassment. She has stated that she will not work with abusers and that they should resign or be removed. She said that she was groped by a lobbyist in 2012. A fellow legislator asked her not to speak out publicly at the time because the lobbyist was quite powerful. She said that she was "disgusted by both of them," but was afraid to speak up because people would think that she was "crazy" or "hypersexualized." [11] Maybe "hypocritical" would be a better word. It turns out that she has been accused of groping by a male staffer and attempted groping by a male lobbyist. She denies the charges but has taken unpaid leave. [12] She has also been accused of running a highly sexualized office with lots of drinking. And she is accused of firing a male staff member who refused to play "spin the bottle." [13]
Another politician in trouble is Megan Barry, former mayor of Nashville. She resigned on March 6th after pleading guilty to felony theft (over $10,000) as well as admitting to an extramarital affair with a man on her security detail. Oddly, she smiled throughout her resignation speech. [14]
Harvard recently banned all single-sex organizations because these groups "propagated exclusionary values" and exhibited "forms of privilege." Women complained that only the men's organizations were the problem, and that women's organizations should be allowed. Harvard has now allowed the women's groups a five-year grace period, in which they will be allowed to be "gender-focused," before becoming fully integrated. [15] This is just a loophole to allow female single-sex groups. These groups will never become fully integrated. They will always pander to women and men will not be welcome. So much hypocrisy and so many double standards.
Women like to play the victim. And they like to ignore or suppress men's victimizations. This allows all attention and support to go to women. But, men are victims, too. Pakadua Vivah is a custom in India in which men and boys are kidnapped and forced to marry unknown women. Of course, women don't want us to hear about this. Women want us to know about all of the women who are kidnapped and forced to marry strangers. In the Bihar State of India 3400 boys and men were the victims of Pakadua Vivah in 2017. [16] But, let's not care about them. Let's only care about women.
I have noted before that men are prosecuted more severely for the same crimes, and have noted people going crazy on planes as an example. Women are let go with counseling at most, while men are fined and thrown in jail. Here's another example. Joseph Hudek had some legally-obtained edible marijuana before a flight from Seattle to Beijing. He went bonkers on the flight and punched a flight attendant, and hit a man over the head with a wine bottle as well as punching him several times. (I note that in the linked article that hitting the female flight attendant got top billing even though the male passenger was battered more severely.) Hudek has pled guilty to 4 felonies and faces 20 years in prison. [17] From past instances of cases like this, if Joseph had been Josephine, she probably would have gotten a few sick days.
Another example. Even though mothers kill their children about twice as often as fathers, mothers are hospitalized 68 percent of the time and imprisoned only 27 percent of the time. It's roughly the opposite for fathers, who are imprisoned 72 percent and hospitalized 14 percent of the time. [22] We assume women who do bad things are sick, and men who do bad things are evil.
Here's another example. Malcolm Alexander spent 37 years of a life sentence in a Louisiana prison for rape. DNA evidence showed that he was not the perpetrator. He was recently released from prison. His lawyer at the time of the rape trial apparently did little to defend Alexander. The lawyer was disbarred for incompetence in 1999. Although race probably was involved (Alexander is black) this is still a screaming example of how little we think of men. His lawyer ignored him. And was he really sentenced to life imprisonment for rape? Don't feminists complain that rapists only get six months? Did they complain about this case or did they think "life" was a proper sentence? And why did it take so long to correct this injustice? I guess men just aren't human and are nothing to care about.
Here is another recent example of our justice system: here are two people guilty of roughly the same crime. Person A lied to investors and cheated them out of $11 million in a Ponzi scheme, but returned all of the stolen money. This person was fined $75,000, was forced to forfeit $7.36 million more, and was sentenced to 7 years in prison. On the other hand, Person B's lies to investors resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. Person B was fined $500,000 with no jail time. Person A is male. Person B is female. Person A is the hated Martin Shkreli and Person B is the young and pretty Elizabeth Holmes. [18] Anyone notice any problems with our justice system?
A less horrifying, yet still frightening example of how little we care about men occurred in the March 5, 2018, edition of People Magazine. The cover showed a picture of Jennifer Anniston accompanied by this headline: "Jen's Heartbreak." The article inside described the divorce of Anniston and actor/writer Justin Theroux. By the account in the article it appears the divorce was amicable with no one at fault---just two people going different ways. So why does People Magazine only care about Anniston's pain. Certainly, Theroux had "heartbreak" as well. Why do we care so little about men? This seems to be the same story whenever any famous couple breaks up---we only care about the woman. There is also the implication in these situations that the man caused the break-up due to his insensitivity, callousness, meanness, infidelity, and/or violence.
Rob Porter and David Sorenson recently resigned or were fired from their jobs in the White House due to domestic violence accusations. Both insist they are innocent and there is evidence that the DV between Sorenson and his wife was, at the very least, mutual. (Sorenson says his wife was the abuser.) Of course, that is not the way the media and women portrayed the incidents. According to them, these men were guilty---end of story. Even though virtually everyone said as much, Representative Jackie Speier criticized President Trump for not saying as much. She said, “The new mantra is ‘We believe the women,’ and he is frozen in ‘I believe the men.’ ” [19] It seems to me neither phrase is one anyone should be saying. We shouldn't "believe" anyone at the start. We should examine every case and investigate with an open mind, and judge each case on its own merits. Everyone is capable of lying. Everyone is capable of violence. But with the required "believe the women" mantra, men are automatically assumed to be guilty.
Now, for something completely controversial. Not only were Porter and Sorenson assumed to be guilty, but they were assumed to be guilty of horrible, horrible crimes. Just as sexual infractions against women, no matter how minor, are portrayed as being as bad as murder, any domestic violence of women, no matter how minor, is also considered to be as bad as murder. There are no gradations. Women and the media just go DefCon 1 about all such situations. As in cases of sexual assault, female victims of domestic violence are called "survivors."
(Update: As an example of just how unfair it is to compare all domestic violence to murder and to refer to all victims as "survivors," a study by G. R. Brown found that for every 700 women who fear being killed by their partners, only one is actually killed--or 0.14%. Sexuality and Culture, 2004.)
I first heard of the pictures of the black eye of Porter's first wife, Colbie Holderness, while listening to the radio. The discussion made it sound like the woman was mutilated beyond recovery. But then I saw the pictures of the eye. The eye wasn't that bad. Of course, it is completely unacceptable to punch someone and give them a black eye, especially someone you supposedly love. But it is also unacceptable to exaggerate beyond all reasonableness any violence against women. The black eye wasn't as horrific as presented on the radio program. Yes, the eye was very colorfully bruised, but it was hardly swollen at all. I got a much worse shiner in little league. The radio discussion made it sound like her eye injury was near fatal. Just hysterical.
Other examples of Porter's alleged domestic violence include refusing to leave the couple's apartment, punching the glass in a door, pulling his wife out of the shower by the shoulders and yelling at her, degrading tirades, and anger. Not nice, but hardly horrendous. Of course, Porter denies he did any of these things, but even if he did, it seems to me that anger therapy might have been a better solution than divorce and accusations of domestic violence. I wasn't there. Maybe, the violence was much worse than the wives could put into words, but I don't see it from the descriptions given. The media's hyperdramatic portrayal of the violence as horrific and the automatic guilty verdict by everyone without any due process were shameful.
"Confronting Campus Sexual Assault" [20] is an article from United Educators, a company that provides insurance and risk management to schools. It was written by four women. Here are some of the statistics from the article, and some observations.
Even though the article declares that "language is important," the authors still use the words "victim" and "perpetrator" throughout the article instead of "alleged victim" or "alleged perpetrator." The fine print of the article also states that this "is not intended as acceptance of the truth of the allegations against the individual." (Yeah, sure! And "gullibility," of course, refers to the flying expertise of seagulls.) Why not just use "accuser" and "accused?"
According to the article, most accusers of sexual assault did not realize it was sexual assault until "talking with friends or attending prevention training." Forty percent of accusers delayed reporting---on average, 11.3 months. Also, 60% of accusers in dating relationships did not come forward until after the relationship ended. Also, 20% of accusers did not want the school to investigate or take action. This all implies to me that much of purported sexual assault on campus may not be sexual assault at all. But even if it is sexual assault, it is not very serious.
Fifty-four percent of accusers were freshmen, 19% sophomores, 12% juniors, 11% seniors, and 3% were grad students. I suppose rape prevention advocates would conclude from this that rapists are targeting naive underclasswomen. But I believe these stats imply what I have noticed in many examples of sexual assault accusations in colleges: that the accusations arise from probable miscommunication and inexperience of young men and women just starting to explore sexuality and alcohol while being away from their parents for the first time. (Twenty-six percent of accusers who delayed reporting had no clear memory of the event and 78% of accusations involved alcohol.)
Twenty-five percent of the accused were declared not responsible. This implies a high rate of false accusations, unlike the 2% figure proposed by rape prevention advocates.
The statistics for athletes were contradictory as to whether they receive star treatment. Even though, in general, 45% of all accused were found to be responsible, 63% of athletes were found to be responsible. But, on the other hand, athletes held responsible seemed to receive lighter punishments, since 41% were expelled, 24% received probation, and 29% were suspended, while the figures for all those held responsible were 43% expelled, 39% suspended for a time, and 6% received probation.
In cases of litigation, 68% were brought by accusers and 32% by the accused. (Twenty-eight percent of these were OCR complaints, 44% were demand letters, 17% were lawsuits brought by the accused, and 11% were lawsuits brought by accusers.) As one would expect, accusers brought more litigation complaints. But those accused brought more lawsuits. This again implies a high rate of false accusations.
I also must comment on the picture that appeared with the article. Apropos to the subject matter of the article, it showed about two dozen college students giving very somber and serious looks to the camera. Except that one girl apparently did not get the memo. Like most girls in front of a camera, she snapped into a smile. I must also comment on the attire of the students in the picture. All of the guys are covered up. But the gals are showing much skin. Lots of bare shoulders and décolletage. One girl's top is so low that her bra is showing. Once again, we see the cluelessness and hypocrisy of women's attitudes toward all things sexual---women are allowed to be sexual and men aren't, even in an article about sexual assault.
The Iditarod is an annual race where mushers race their dog teams over the snowbound Alaskan backcountry. The winners of the race had always been men up until the late 1980s when Susan Butcher and Libby Riddles won a few races in a row. At that time I remember women's advocates bragging that women were much better mushers than men, that the women were better with the dogs, and that women would continue to win all of the Iditarod races. Perhaps, these women's advocates were a bit over-confident. Men have won the last 28 races, straight. And the best finish for a female musher in the 2018 race was 15th place. This is just one more example of the extreme chauvinism and cockiness of women.
I guess words like "cockiness" or "cocky" are inappropriate in this case. Not only are these words sexual slurs against men, but they imply that men are more chauvinistic and arrogant than women, which these articles have clearly disproven. (Actually, there is another word with the same problems: "testy.") We need corresponding words for women's arrogance. And turn-about-fair play, the words must also be sexual slurs. How about "cunty" and "cuntiness?" Or maybe "oophoritis," which is the medical term for swelling of the ovaries, which many women seem to be metaphorically guilty of with their constant bragging about how superior they are to men.
In "Only Men Have STDs" I noted how a man pulled a hoax on HuffPost. He pretended to be a woman and offered HuffPost an article on why white men should be denied the right to vote. HuffPost printed the article even though it violated many of HuffPost's guidelines. It did, however, fit the HuffPost ideology. Well, another similar hoax has surfaced. Two men wrote an article saying that the penis is a "social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity." They used a lot of big words and feminist ideas in the article in an attempt to get a scholarly publication to print the article. Of course, the article was pure garbage, full of intentional nonsense. The publication, Cogent Social Studies, printed the article, even though all of the references (except one) to other studies and other articles were totally made up. Apparently, the publication staff failed to check the references. They apparently printed the article just because it fit their anti-male ideological thinking. It makes one wonder how much of feminist scholarship is also pure garbage.
Alek Minassian rented a van and intentionally ran over pedestrians on a street in Toronto, killing 10 people and injuring many more. A New York Times article which carried descriptions of him from people who knew him in high school said that he displayed "extreme social awkwardness....He was an odd guy, and hardly mixed with other students,...He had several tics and would sometimes grab the top of his shirt and spit on it, meow in the hallways and say, `I am afraid of girls.' It was like a mantra....(He) had difficulty communicating and expressed fear that women could hurt him. He would cower and avoid eye contact when he saw a girl....He would shut down completely....I never saw him have a normal conversation." Obviously, he had severe mental and social problems. He left a post on Facebook shortly before his tragic action implying that he was part of the incel movement. ("Involuntary celibate" people are those who want to have sex but are unable for one reason or another.) This prompted several respected media outlets to crank out articles postulating that Minassian's violence was due to his hatred of women instead of his mental and social problems. [21] There were also implications in these articles (all written by women) that this was just another example of toxic masculinity, as well as entitled men becoming violent when they do not get what they wanted. The articles blamed all of masculinity.
I find this reaction by the media an indication of misandry. First of all, Minassian clearly indicated that he hated women AND MEN who were having sex when he said that "We will overthrow all the Chads and the Stacys." Why and how did the women in the media turn this into misogyny? Women seem to want to turn all men into misogynists and everything men do into misogyny. Second, Minassian was clearly mentally disturbed. Why was this fact ignored? Certainly his mental problems were far more responsible for his actions than any "toxic masculinity." Thirdly, he also hated himself because he begged the policeman to shoot him in the head. Could his self-hatred have been a result of the constant hatred of men expressed in the media? Certainly these articles on Minassian are examples of this misandry. Apparently, we must ignore all of the evidence in this case, and women must blame all men for all problems. This is misandry. This is hatred of men---by so many in the mainstream media.
We don't blame all women for the evil that one woman does. Men didn't blame all women when Valerie Solanis shot Andy Warhol, even though Solanis clearly hated men as the founder of The Society for Cutting Up Men. Men didn't blame "toxic femininity." Why is there such a double standard in this? Why are women always looking to blame everything on misogyny?
I can only abhor Minassian's actions. But he was obviously a very troubled person. Why was there no help for him? Aid could have prevented this tragedy. Why do we form Senate subcommittees and write scathing articles and form charities to solve all of women's problems, but ignore men? How many men in Minassian's situation turn their anger and frustration inward upon themselves and commit suicide? (Men commit over 80% of suicides.) Will we ever care? Will we ever treat men with the same humanity and sympathy that we treat women?
An acquaintance of mine, like Minassian, was very shy and awkward around women in his younger years. He rarely dated, was lonely, and never had a girlfriend. He was enormously tormented by this. He planned suicide several times. He got psychological help and finally figured out women and dating to some degree. But being somewhat successful with women gave him a revelation. He realized that his failure with women earlier was not because he was incompetent. He failed with women because he hated what he had to do to be successful. He realized that the human mating ritual sucks. It sucks for both men and women, but especially for men. He realized that dating, marriage, etc., are controlled by women, for the benefit of women. This led to changes in his attitude. He no longer dates, but he is content nonetheless. He realized that he would rather be alone and true to himself, than to sell out and conform to a stupid mating system run by women to his disadvantage.
We constantly hear in the media that we must fight against groups promoting white power. We hear that we should also fight against groups promoting patriarchy and male power. I agree that no group should have more power than any other group. So why do we ignore all of the demands for female power? Women are constantly demanding "empowerment" of women. But women already have a great deal of power, probably more than any other group. Women control the government and dominate political power. Most voters are female, so politicians (male and female) must pander to women to keep their jobs. As a result, we have countless laws and governmental agencies for the benefit of women. Women own the media---at least, all advertising media. Since women make most purchases, advertisers must aim their ads at women, and media must then also slant their programming toward women in order to attract advertisers. Television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and the internet are quite biased against men. Even non-advertising media like NPR, PBS, and movies seem to be heavily biased in favor of women. Women also have a great deal of sexual power. Even though women have demanded that men give up their economic power, women selfishly have not relinquished their sexual power, but instead have enhanced it. Women have greatly abused their sexual power and have made all male sexuality potentially illegal. Women have great control over children. Most primary caregivers of children and most teachers are women. They indoctrinate both boys and girls. Women have moral power. By constantly hyping women as good and men as bad, women have established themselves as angels and men as devils. Women control most all charity. Most charity is directed to women by women. Women hold much victim power. This allows them to demand much attention and sympathy and services. Women also derive much power from chivalry, shame, and guilt. (Maybe this is why women blame everything on misogyny---so that they can then use victim power, chivalry, shame, and guilt to get even more control and power.) And finally, women have a great deal of selfish power, which rules over all of their other powers. They demand that men, the government, and institutions protect and serve them. We do not need to empower women anymore. We need to take away some of their power instead.
[1] https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/41202/
[2] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html
[3] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/1/25/16932656/judge-aquilina-larry-nassar-line-between-judge-advocate-sentencing
[4] https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
[5] http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2018/02/spector-youre-not-tripping
[6] http://quillette.com/2018/01/23/privilege-checking-privilege-checkers/
[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5320893/The-NHS-immunises-girls-against-HPV-NOT-boys-Why.html
[8] http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/25/feminists-women-youre-consenting-sex-wrong/
[9] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/28/women-packed-court-gets-coast-guard-rape-convictio/
[10] https://nypost.com/2017/09/15/outraged-woman-crusades-against-dog-park-patriarchy/
[11] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-women-harassment-capitol-20171017-story.html
[12] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/09/man-accuses-california-metoo-leader-sexual-misconduct/322888002/
[13] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/18/california-metoo-allegations-legislator-416916
[14] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/06/nashville-mayor-megan-barry-expected-to-resign-weeks-after-admitting-affair-with-her-security-chief/?utm_term=.8c504eda53a5
[15] http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/05/harvard-reaffirms-ban-on-single-sex-orga
[16] https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/booming-industry-in-just-one-year-3-400-men-were-abducted-and-forcefully-married-in-bihar-339037.html
[17] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-who-ignited-wild-brawl-on-seattle-to-beijing-flight-pleads-guilty-to-4-felonies/
[18] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/03/15/what-makes-elizabeth-holmes-and-martin-shkreli-so-different/?utm_term=.70a80f5c3dac
[19] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decries-lack-of-due-process-for-men-accused-of-sexual-harassment-abuse/2018/02/10/fb6f7e08-0e89-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?utm_term=.f525fd4a1bdc
[20] http://www.ncdsv.org/ERS_Confronting-Campus-Sexual-Assault_2015.pdf
[21] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/24/incel-sexual-frustration-rebellion-at-center-toronto-attack.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/incel-toronto-van-attack-explained-facebook-post-elliot-rodger-celibate-reddit-a8321476.html
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/incel-meaning-explained
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/world/canada/eight-of-10-victims-in-toronto-van-rampage-were-women.html
