A Male Perspective Not In the NY Times

The Christine Blasey/Brett Kavanaugh imbroglio sparked much controversy and passion. First, I must make the point that the whole battle was about politics. Feminists tried to make it about women. Feminists try to make everything about gender, i.e., about the patriarchy and the victimization of women. Nonsense. This was about the Republicans trying to rush Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court before the Democrats could possibly take over the Senate, and the Democrats trying to prevent Kavanaugh from taking a seat on the Court, which would likely mean a total conservative domination of the court for decades. This had nothing to do with women and men. It was purely about political power. The battle would have been the same even if a "Christopher" Blasey had accused Kavanaugh of sexual abuse, or even if someone had accused Kavanaugh of keeping heads of his murder victims in his refrigerator. It was all and only about politics. (The impeachment of Bill Clinton was also about politics. Of course, in that situation Republicans, Democrats, and feminists were on opposite sides and perspectives. This is more proof that it is all political.)

But the feminists tried to make it about gender. Not only this, but feminists tried to make it about "white" men---especially those horrible old white men on the Judicial Committee. (As I have noted many times before, feminists often focus their hatred onto some subset of white, heterosexual, cis men---men who feminists disparage at every opportunity.) I saw many articles and debates concerning this situation where the "white men" of the patriarchy were supposedly propagating this injustice upon Blasey and women. Why would anyone mention "white" men? As little as this had to do with gender, it had absolutely nothing to do with race. But, of course, this mention of "white men" was simply a pejorative---a more acceptable way for women and feminists to attack, insult, scorn, and disrespect men. Men of color, non-heterosexual men, and non-cis men get a bit of a pass concerning the current hatred against men. White men, however, are one of the few groups that we are allowed to openly hate. White men are even encouraged to hate themselves. Never mind that a vast number of white men supported Blasey against Kavanaugh (and probably hated themselves.) This criticism of all white men was pure sexism AND racism. And it had nothing to do with this case of politics.

I don't know what the truth is in this situation. I don't know whether Blasey or Kavanaugh was lying. Or mistaken. Maybe we will find out later. But, as of this writing, I leaned toward believing Blasey. She struck me as honest. Kavanaugh didn't. His tantrum (as well as Lindsey Graham's) seemed manufactured by President Trump as an appeal to his supporters. Kavanaugh's refusal to accept that alcohol may have affected his memory is unreasonable. And Kavanaugh's refusal to ask for an FBI investigation did not seem like the behavior of an innocent man. (On the other hand, it is possible that I am wrong, and psychology professor Blasey is a very skillful liar. After all, she is well versed in psychology. It appears her memories and testimony have experienced some inconsistencies. And why haven't journalists tried to verify some of her statements? For example, did Mark Judge work at the Potomac Village Safeway at the time of the incident? Why would Blasey say hello to him at the Safeway? Did any of the people at the party live in a house with a layout that she described? It has been several months. Why has there been no follow-up?)

Having said this, I did not believe the other accusers in this case. Deborah Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of pulling out his penis in front of several people during a dorm party. And she said she took six days carefully evaluating her memories and consulting her attorney before she was sure it was Kavanaugh. Really?!? And no one else who was there has confirmed her accusation. Even if they had, this seems like pretty petty stuff. (Why is it that women can expose everything, but a man showing his penis amounts to a capital crime?) Julie Swetnick's accusations were vague, extreme, and not credible. She has a history of lies and false accusations. [1]

Judy Munro-Leighton later admitted that she lied when she said she wrote an anonymous letter accusing Kavanaugh of raping her in the back seat of a car. She said she lied in order to get attention.

Again, I don't know the truth here. All accusations could be true, all could be false, or there could be some other combination. But let's assume my take is correct---Blasey is truthful, and Ramirez, Swetnick, and Munro-Leighton aren't. This means 75% of the sexual accusations against Kavanaugh are false. But feminists insist that false accusations of sexual abuse are very rare---the usual statistic quoted is 2 to 8 percent of sexual accusations are false. I've pointed out before that too many high-profile cases have turned out to be false for false accusations to be very rare. Ramirez's, Swetnick's, and Munro-Leighton's non-credible accusations add more evidence to this conclusion.

(On this subject, as of this writing, it appears some of the accusations against Harvey Weinstein are falling apart. One accuser said he forced her to perform oral sex on him. But, it appears the accuser told a friend that the oral sex was performed willingly in an attempt to get an acting part. It also appears another accuser had a long relationship with Weinstein after supposedly being raped. [2] These may be other examples of women abusing their sexual power with no consequences. Why aren't these women prosecuted for quid pro quo sexual harassment or filing false accusations?)

Let's examine Blasey's accusation more closely. Let's take the sex out of it for a moment. In that case Kavanaugh got on top of her on a bed and put his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming. And the two boys laughed at her. As far as I can tell, she was not physically hurt. From this, she suffered psychological distress and PTSD.

Am I out of line by suggesting that every boy on the planet has experienced abuse just as bad as and probably much worse than this from his friends, siblings, and/or the neighborhood bully, and, except in extreme cases, without any psychological problems or PTSD? I would also speculate that Kavanaugh probably did worse to his male friends, and underlings on the football and basketball teams, and fraternity brothers. (Apparently, no one cares about abuse of boys.) We seem to have this huge double standard: girls and women can't handle much abuse, while boys and men are required to. Are women too weak, while men are too tough? Could we possibly get one standard for both? I would think that we do not want women to be too fragile and men to be too hard and insensitive.

Assuming that we could find that perfect middle point for an abuse standard for both men and women, did Kavanaugh go past it? Again, while leaving out the sex, did he abuse Blasey enough to be rejected from the Supreme Court? Or can we say that Blasey was too weak and fragile to hold Kavanaugh responsible to that degree? I would vote for the latter. What Kavanaugh did was not nice, but I do not see it as severe enough for anything more than a good lecture or minor punishment, which is what Kavanaugh would have received if he had done this to a boy. (I know that I am not allowed to say a woman is weak and therefore responsible for her own overreaction to a minor incident, but we have to allow for this possibility.)

Now, let's add the sex back into the accusation.

Women gain a great deal of power over men by using their sexual power. Women have successfully fought against any reduction of this sexual power even while demanding that men give up their economic and political power. Women's sexual power is sacrosanct. Women can use it at will. Without consequence. And men are not allowed to belittle this power, or diminish it in any way. Men, and only (heterosexual) men, are not allowed to tell sexual jokes, catcall, look at porn, or visit prostitutes, because these all lessen women's sexual power. (Of course, women can do these things. Women can tell sexual jokes that belittle men. Women frequently catcall hunky men who appear on daytime and late night TV talk shows. Female nudity that men enjoy is disgusting and misogynist, but it is called "art" or "exotica" or "empowering" if women like it. And women often become prostitutes to obtain dinners, jewelry, and/or movie parts.) All of this results in women's sexual power being highly overvalued.

Of course, this is totally sexist and unfair. But it is worse than this. Much worse. Testosterone is the main hormone that affects sexual desire. Men have up to 70 times more testosterone than women. Men are driven by sex. This allows women to sit back and men will handle all sexual initiation, which women can then criticize or criminalize if it is not performed to women's liking. Women constantly complain about men always coming on to them. But women refuse to do any of the initiating---initiating reduces women's sexual power. So, even though women hate it when the wrong men initiate with them, women would be very upset if men stopped initiating---this would reduce their sexual power.

And worse yet, women tease men sexually with very tight and revealing clothing, cosmetics, perfumes, breast implants, etc. (It’s odd that if you tease a dog, the ASPCA will be all over you. If a child teases another child, then it is bullying and must stop. But women are allowed to sexually tease men with complete freedom.) Women spend billion$ on overpriced cosmetics and clothing because of the power it brings them. I repeat, men are driven by sex. Women abuse this fact by forcing men to give them drinks and meals and diamonds, etc., in exchange for the possibility of sex. Women's sexual power is a very potent power, and one that women are not relinquishing.

On top of this, men and women have evolved so that men strive for power and resources, and women use sex to obtain those resources from men. Speaking in evolutionary terms, the more resources a man has, the more sex he feels "entitled" to, often from many women. The sexier a woman is, the more she feels "entitled" to men's resources, often from many men. This rather balanced "entitlement" has become very one-sided during the #MeToo Movement. Only men are being condemned for their entitlement. Just think of all of the powerful men who have lost most everything due to sexual affairs and sexual mistakes. But there is no punishment for women who abuse their sexual power.

This brings up a phrase that women often use on men but I think is just as appropriate on women who abuse their sexual power: "a gross abuse of power." Other words that also fit on these women are "entitled" and "privileged." But, women, in their usual selfishness and self-indulgence, have put all of the blame on men and have claimed victimhood.

So, keeping all of these things in mind, until women stop abusing sex, and start reducing the sexuality of their appearance, and start performing half of all sexual initiation, I think that we should give men some slack.

As a result of sex being highly overvalued, sexual violations are also highly overvalued. All sexual infractions are considered serious, even minor ones. Of course, there are very serious sexual assaults. Some of these assaults even result in death, but these are rare. But, it seems we must label all female victims of sexual infractions, even minor ones, as "survivors." Again, it is rare for a sexual assault victim to be killed. One approximate calculation of the percentage of sexual assault victims who are also murdered is .002%. [3]

(The death rate for men in the logging industry is 68 times higher at .136%. It's funny that loggers are not called "survivors." Oddly, the term "survivor" is commonly only used for female victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and breast cancer. I also recently saw it applied to a victim of female genital mutilation. It seems feminists have appropriated the term "survivor" only for women in a mawkish, teary-eyed, and sexist attempt to grab undeserved sympathy for women. Can we please stop this nonsense? Even feminist Germaine Greer thinks it is nonsense. She has stated that, "Most rapes don't involve any injury whatsoever." It's more like "bad sex...where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love." [4])

But feminists and women demand that we think of any and all sexual infractions as violations so severe that they are near death in severity. For example, even if a woman has her butt grabbed, we must now call her a "survivor" of sexual assault, as if she is lucky to be alive. Survivorship now even reaches into the realm of emotional abuse and compliments in appearance and sexual jokes. There seems to be no limit as to what can be considered a "fatal" sexual assault. Of course, we should have a reasonable amount of sympathy for each gradation of sexual abuse, but we don't need to go ridiculously overboard concerning minor infractions. With the hyperbolic rhetoric and propaganda that feminists give us, is it any wonder that women develop emotional distress and PTSD for any and all sexual infractions, even very minor ones? And is it any wonder that nearly every man can be accused of a "serious" sexual assault?

Recent reporting showed an attempt to get false sexual abuse charges against Robert Mueller. This is another indication of just how overvalued sexual violations are in our society. If one wants to destroy a man, just accuse him of sexual abuse. [5]

Sexually, Kavanaugh was accused of groping, grinding, and trying to disrobe Blasey. Of course, feminists believe that every one of these is a very serious assault. I do not. Blasey was not physically hurt and any psychological pain would have likely been caused by unrealistic feminist and chivalrous exaggeration of these acts. Even Blasey stated that the covering of her mouth was what caused her psychological pain, not the sexual acts.

Even so, we cannot allow groping, grinding and disrobing to occur without some punishment. I would say that some alcohol education and prohibition, community service, and an apology to Blasey would have been an appropriate punishment for Kavanaugh in this situation. This seems to me to be an apt punishment for an immature, drunk teenager.

(However, I believe Kavanaugh's lying to Congress---if it could be proven---should result in prosecution and jail time. And his injudicious and partisan tantrum should disqualify him from a seat on the Supreme Court as well as his seat on the DC court.)

Let me back up to the drinking for a moment: Blasey said that Kavanaugh's drunkenness probably saved her from being raped since he was too drunk to get her clothing off. Many have focused on this. It may be true, but what is missing here is that his drunkenness also was probably responsible for his attempting to have sex with her in the first place. We must keep in mind that he would probably never had done any of this if he had been sober. One can't assume that he would have raped her without the alcohol, while forgetting that the alcohol probably instigated the whole situation.

Some have postulated that Kavanaugh has been so enraged by this whole mess that he will be a strongly partisan Justice, biased against Democrats and women. I conversely, suspect that he may become a women's advocate and be biased against men. So many male politicians, because of their sexual peccadillos, have been guilted and blackmailed into supporting women's issues. Examples include Bill Clinton, Bob Packwood, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Lyndon Johnson, [6] and Anthony Weiner. And perhaps Joe Biden's sponsoring of the Violence Against Women Act was a result of his highly criticized questioning of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. Time will tell about Kavanaugh.

While we are on the subject of partisanship, feminists take the cake. And we can also add extreme hypocrisy to this. Before the Blasey-Kavanaugh hearing, feminists were enraged that 11 old white (Republican) men would control the hearing and ask insensitive questions of Blasey. So the 11 old white men, in order to head off a political firestorm, hired a female prosecutor to ask questions for them. Of course, then the feminists were enraged again and called the Senators cowards. Some people are always angry and hateful, and refuse to ever be satisfied.

There also appeared to be a double standard concerning "hysteria." The temper tirades of Kavanaugh and Lindsey Graham were called "hysterical" by many. (I would too.) But oddly, no one said that about the tirades of female protestors and the two women who cornered Jeff Flake in the elevator. Instead of "hysterical," these women were "anguished" or "traumatized."

More partisanship: the media. Before (and after) the Blasey-Kavanaugh hearing it seemed that the media were fully biased in favor of Blasey. I monitored today's premiere newspaper, the New York Times, during this time. There were constant reports and personal stories about sexual abuse, and interviews of women's advocates. All of the opinion writers seemed to be on Blasey's side---well, actually the women writers were on her side, while most of the male opinion writers seemed more neutral and dealt with more general issues. However, if the Times were fair, I would have thought there would have been just as many reports and personal stories about false accusations of men, interviews of men's advocates, and opinion writers on Kavanaugh's side. But the "lace curtain" would not allow something like that.

I counted the number of opinion pieces and editorials in the New York Times concerning the Kavanaugh/Blasey controversy. I found 37 that favored Blasey or took a very feminist view of the issues brought up by this debate. Most were written by women but a few were also authored by men. The number of pieces that adopted a friendlier view toward men: 1. This was an opinion piece concerning false accusations of rape written by Bari Weiss which did not appear until October 13th, when most of the focus on the case had died down. [7]

To give you some idea just how one-sided the coverage was in the Times, consider that the paper

"Asked Women What the Kavanaugh Vote Means for the Next Generation." [8] I guess men's opinions were not valid or wanted.

But don't fret, the paper did ask men to respond to a different survey when the paper "invited male readers to tell us about their high school experiences. Had you, we asked, ever behaved toward girls or women in ways you now regret?" [9] Gee, thanks, for assuming that all men are scumbags and asking us to admit to being scumbags. As outrageous as this is, it gets worse. Even though the Times was heavily biased against men in its coverage, apparently women were not happy about this one survey asked of men. "A number of women said they were frustrated to see that we were once again seeking to view the world from a male perspective." Gaaaaaah! How can women be so biased and clueless?

I constantly hear from women that men do not listen to women's perspectives and complaints, and that men show no empathy toward women. This is pure projection. It is women who are not listening to or empathetic toward men. Men are generally good about listening to women and trying to fix their problems. It is women who consistently laugh, deride, and scoff when men express their perspectives. Worse than this, women and feminists actively try to censor men's perspectives and complaints and prevent them from becoming widely known. There have been many examples of protests that have shut down speeches by men's rights activists. Also, showings of the documentary film, The Red Pill, were stopped by protesters.

A telling example of this occurred in the New York Times---surprise! [10] It is also an example of something that I mentioned earlier: that women would be very upset if men stopped initiating. A woman complained to an advice columnist that many men on first dates were telling her that, because of the #MeToo movement, she would have to make the first sexual move. Both she and the columnist indicated that this showed a misunderstanding of the #MeToo movement and a lack of empathy towards women, and the columnist advised her to politely tell the men to buzz off. But wait. What about showing some empathy towards the men? Obviously, these are sensitive guys who are not rapists, and who are frightened. But this woman is so "entitled" and protective of her sexual power, that she can't lower herself to make the first move, something that she should be doing half of the time anyway. What cowardice and BS!

But there is a good sign here. It looks like there is a trend for men to fight against women's sexual dominance. These men demanding that women make the first sexual move is one example. MGTOW men is another example. This is good. But I fear that it is just a drop in the bucket. Women will not give up their sexual power easily. The woman in the paragraph above absolutely refused and even came up with a rather lame excuse for not giving up her sexual power. Men will have to force the issue. I believe this involves going on strike. MGTOW men refuse to have most anything to do with women. The men above are going on strike as far as making the first sexual move is concerned. We will need a whole bunch of men doing things like this if women are ever going to give up their sexual power. And it won't be pleasant, especially for the early male strikers. But the sooner we can get most men involved in the strike, the sooner we can stop women's sexual abuse. So men, don't initiate. Flirt all you want, but wait for her to make the first moves. Wait for her to ask you out, buy your drinks, and buy your dinner. If she refuses, move on to someone else---you don't want anything to do with selfish, entitled women. And be sure to file sexual harassment suits against women who dress in a sexual manner at work.

(Here's another example of the sexism of the New York Times. An article appeared under "Science" that explained how scientists have discovered termite colonies with no males. [11] Of course, this led the female author of the article into saying such things as the termites were "overthrowing the patriarchy," and "that males can be discarded from advanced societies in which they once played an active role." She also quoted others as saying that we can learn much from "societies in nature run without any input from males," and "the future is female." As well as belittling men, this article also lends itself to feminists' not-so-secret wish for the genocide of all men. This comes, not from a radical feminist publication, but from the NY Times.)

Other stuff:

Not only can we say that "the future is female," but we can also say "the present is female." I've given many examples in the past of how society and the world are there primarily for women. Here are some more examples:

Start TV: "...showcases strong and resourceful female leading characters...." This network blatantly says it is for and about women.

In contrast, consider the H&I Network. It plays action and adventure TV shows and is generally considered to be for male audiences, although it would never advertise itself this way and limit itself to just males. Instead, it has commercials highlighting the "trailblazing women of All Star Trek." Even a so-called men's network must pander to women.

SiriusXM had a panel discussion on Veterans' Day concerning women in the military. The panel contained present and retired women in the military and discussed current issues facing military women. It is odd that SiriusXM would pick Veterans' Day to focus on only 14.5% of the military.

Senator Mazie Hirono told men to "just shut up." This is a blatant example of sexism and the "lace curtain" from one of our elected officials.

Every classroom at my college contains a poster decrying sexual harassment, telling students how awful it is, and telling women where to go to get help. The only other poster in each room deals with fire alarms and evacuation procedures. There are no posters about suicide (80% men) or violence (victims are mostly men) or drug or alcohol problems (mostly men.) We must pander to women.

Susan Good did not like it when she lost her looks and felt invisible. (Of course, most men feel invisible their whole lives.) So she has created the website Moxie! for women over 50, so that older women can "share their stories, concerns and triumphs not just with people in their same age group, but across generations." But not across genders.

Shasta Nelson has created Girlfriend Circles so that women (and only women) can form better friendships. "My calling in this world is to bring women together and teach them how to create the frientimacy--friendship intimacy-- in their lives that will improve their health, increase their longevity, and fill their lives with the happiness and peace that comes with being supported."

Nelson has extended this idea to Travel Circles, which "proudly sponsors travel trips for women, by women and about women to places all over the world."

Sheryl Sandburg has formed Lean In Circles, where "women can be unapologetically ambitious." I suspect "unapologetically sexist" would be more accurate. (As I have said before, all of these women's groups are hypocritically forming when women are demanding that all men's groups end.)

HuffPost has a Women's Reporter, Alanna Vagianos, but no Men's Reporter.

The New York Times, as well as being highly biased toward women on its news, editorial, and opinion pages, sponsors a "Voting While Female" discussion group on Facebook. It also has a weekly Gender Letter---"our newsletter that helps you keep up with the world, and the women shaping it." There is also a "Times Gender Initiative" which wants to "elevate and amplify its coverage of gender and engage women readers around the globe." Also, "Dr. Jen Gunter, Twitter's resident gynecologist, is teaming up with our editors to answer your questions about all things women's health." And let's not forget "In Her Words, a twice weekly column where women rule the headlines." The Times also has a category in its online Heading called "Gender and Society." Surprise, it is all about women. I have found nothing similar for men in the NY Times. (It's funny how "gender" here does not include men. The Trump administration has been fiercely criticized for limiting "gender" to only male and female and thus, excluding transsexuals, but apparently the NY Times restriction to just female is OK. Also, consider that a major theme of feminism is "diversity." It is odd that the feminist idea of "diversity" excludes half of humanity.)

The NY Times is also upset that most of its obituaries have been of white men. So now the paper offers us "Overlooked," in which it gives us the obituaries, i.e. biographies, of supposedly impactful people who are not white men---mostly women---who died decades and centuries ago. This cannot be called news. This is altered history and promotion of women just to pander to them. Also, as one might expect, the bar for the accomplishments of these women can be quite low. For example, highlighted women have included a woman who introduced tennis to the U.S. in 1874, a dressmaker for Mary Todd Lincoln, a woman whose cancer cells were used for research, and a woman who introduced soybeans to this country. It is pure pandering.

To give you an idea of the extent of the pandering to women, here are several articles by, for, and about women from the NY Times website on March 11, 2019. I found no comparable articles about men. The Times has become a feminist rag.

What Does Misogyny Look Like?

The Fight to Be a Middle-Aged Female News Anchor

Why Does Latin America Abuse Its Mothers?

Tips for Women To Party Safely

The Catharsis of "Pen15"

Women Finally Get Their Own Soccer Uniforms

40 Stories From Women About the Military

Gillibrand Aide Complains About Sexual Misconduct

Google Gives $45 Million to Exec Accused of Groping

Wife Smacks Down Husband in Comment Section

Woman's Scientific Board Game

Carolee Schneeman, Feminist Performance Artist Dies

The Washington Post has a Gender Columnist, Monica Hesse, who writes columns of interest to women. Again, "gender" is only female. The Post also has the “She the People” blog for women, where the famous "We the People" phrase suddenly excludes men. Also, "The Lily, a publication of The Washington Post, elevates stories about women." The Post has no similar columnists or blogs or publications for men, or blacks, or Catholics, or immigrants, or left-handed accountants of Norwegian descent. Just women.

National Public Radio has a new program called "Battle Tactics For Your Sexist Workplace." As you might expect, it is completely feminist, and it doesn't make men look very good. The few shows that I have heard were full of feminist misinformation. And frankly, the show is of very low quality and a journalistic embarrassment. And why is NPR, which receives government funding, allowed to be so sexist?

I have complained before of how it seems journalists purposely look for female victims to interview and highlight. Even in a situation where all of the victims are male, it seems journalists will interview the wives, sisters, and mothers of the male victims instead of the men. I suppose they do this for the extra drama and chivalry involved with crying females, i.e., higher ratings. But it seems this tendency is now being applied to all areas. I keep seeing or hearing news reports where only women are interviewed, or where all panelists are female. This always happens when discussing gender issues, but it also now seems to be happening for non-gender issues. It appears the lace curtain is becoming larger.

It also seems that all national nightly news programs have at least one segment each night for women---pretty female victims, or women fighting the patriarchy, or successful women, or charitable women, or women fighting illness, etc.

In 2014, CNN "set out on a hunt to find the women who excelled in their professions" for their "Leading Women" segments. In 2016, disappointed by Hillary Clinton's loss, correspondent Dana Bash profiled seven powerful women in her "Badass Women of Washington" series. In 2017, CNN commissioned Brooke Baldwin to examine female celebrities in its "American Woman" series. Baldwin again was picked in 2018, to produce a five-part "American Woman in Politics" series, which interviewed female candidates and looked at women's issues. I could find no similar series on men from CNN.

The bottom line for CNN (and everybody else) here is, we must positively focus on women, no matter what. And we must ignore or be negative toward men, no matter what. I suspect these biased series probably helped women win elections in 2018 against male opponents who did not receive such national attention.

The November 18, 2018, Face the Nation program gave a couple of examples of how we must pander to women. Keeping in mind the gender gaps in political parties, i.e., more women vote Democratic, while more men vote Republican, the host, Margaret Brennan, grilled Senator Joni Ernst on how the Republican Party could get more women to join the Republican Party and run for office. Oddly, Brennan did not ask Representative Elijah Cummings how the Democratic Party could appeal to more men. We must only focus on women. And Ernst explicitly stated that the government should focus on women. She said that "Women primarily, men secondarily, we need to step up and make sure that we are supporting the needs of our constituents." I guess I should be glad that men got as high as second place.

"Binders Full of Women Writers" is a woman-only Facebook group for writers which implies that its purpose is to "take down the patriarchy."

Most states (along with most nations and many cities) have some sort of a Women's Commission. Some call them Gender Commissions, but they still only work for the benefit of women. I did a quick, cursory search on the internet and found all states except eight seem to have some sort of Women's Commission. (Those eight are Arizona---which does have a Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women, Arkansas, Colorado---although Denver has a women's commission, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota.) These commissions focus on such women's issues as alimony, child support, domestic violence, sex offenses, sexual harassment, street harassment, digital harassment, sex trafficking, mentorship, reproduction, women's health, pay equity, and LGBT issues.

I could only find 2 similar commissions for men in the U.S., and they are mostly for black men---Commission on Fathers, Men and Boys in D.C. and the Indiana Commission on the Social Status of Black Males. It is odd that there are few commissions for men since men have many issues---I would argue, more serious issues---that are not being addressed: men have 5 years shorter lives, are the primary victims of violence, serve 63% longer sentences for the same crimes, are at least 80% of combat deaths, homeless, suicides, workplace deaths, school dropouts, and are discriminated against in military conscription, parental rights, reproductive rights, genital integrity, and public benefits.

Sports have long been dominated by men. Women cannot allow this, so:

On SiriusXM, Christine Brennan and former tennis player Rennae Stubbs will host a program “that will cover women’s sports and also examine the headline topics in the larger sports world that affect and interest women and girls everywhere."

"Aurora Games…a week long celebration of women in sports supported by a festival of entertainment, culture and education."

NBC Sports puts out a podcast called "On Her Turf," which "highlights amazing women...who are champions on and off the field and who motivate people to be the best versions of themselves.... pushing boundaries and empowering women along the way."

Ski resorts are now sponsoring women-only ski instruction. [12] Not men-only or blacks-only or Jews-only or disabled-only instruction. Just women-only ski camps. Is this sexist, or is it just women expressing their preference? As I have mentioned before, women prefer the company of other women, while men have no preference. (Some whites prefer the company of other whites, but this preference is condemned.) Sexist or not, women cannot accuse men of being chauvinist. Clearly, women are the chauvinists---female chauvinists.

"The Wing is a network of work and community spaces designed for women. The Wing’s mission is the professional, civic, social, and economic advancement of women through community. We believe that the act of coming together in furtherance of The Wing’s mission creates new opportunities, ideas and conversations that will lead to greater mobility and prosperity for womankind."

(Update: The Wing closed down in August, 2022. After raising $167 million from investors, a lack of diversity, the pandemic, and women preferring suburban physical spaces led to its demise.)

Scientists have long tried to judge other scientists on their science and not on their personal lives. No longer. Physicist Alessandro Strumia was recently suspended from his job at CERN for saying that male scientists were being discriminated against because of feminist ideology. France Cordova, female director of the National Science Foundation, which grants $5 billion to about 40,000 scientists, has decided that scientists, i.e. men, who sexually harass will now lose their funding. [13] Would a scientist lose her grant if guilty of drunk driving, embezzlement, or burglary? Or is it only male sexual harassers? Similarly, the first woman to lead the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Erin O'Shea, has instituted a program to support postdoctoral women. Are we allowed to complain about such female sexism, female cronyism, and female self-indulgence?

BinderCon is a two-day career-building event "dedicated to advancing the careers of women and gender variant writers."

Vela is an online magazine for women writers only.

It seems all investment companies have special programs just for women but none for men. If men and women have different investment needs and strategies, why wouldn't both need special programs just for them? Once again, women are so self-indulgent that they require these companies to treat them as the special high-end model, while men are treated like the lowly base model. Charles Schwab, Fidelity, TRowePrice, Edward Jones, Vanguard, Merrill Lynch, and RBC Wealth Management all have special programs just for women but none for men.

Shebooks and Emily Books are publishers of books for women.

The Movies TV Network claims that Saturday night is "Girls Night." Their programming for Saturday nights consists of romantic movies. The network has no comparable "Boys Night."

Micro loans is a big thing right now, and it seems most of these are only going to women.

I have complained before of Ladies' Nights, but they seem to be proliferating exponentially. Malls, downtown commercial areas, retail stores, hardware stores, gyms, bars, outdoors stores, etc. all seem to want to pander to women. They offer special events only for women that include refreshments, gifts, sale prices, door prizes, coupons, and gender specific attention. There are no Gentlemen's Nights.

Here's one for women's entitlement: a woman at a public playground told another mother that her son was not welcome, that the playground was currently for girls only. [14] This shows just how normal it is to discriminate against men and boys, and how entitled women feel.

Michelle Obama has launched the Global Girls Alliance to empower girls worldwide to get an education. Obama is quoted as saying, "Young women are tired of being undervalued, they’re tired of being disregarded, they’re tired of their voices not being invested in and heard.” The Alliance plans to support 1500 grassroots organizations helping girls with their challenges. 1500 organizations!!! How "undervalued" and "disregarded" can girls' voices be if there are 1500 organizations investing in them? RIDICULOUS! I doubt if there are 100 organizations investing in boys. Besides, the premise of this movement is all wrong. Obama seems to be assuming that most all boys are being educated while few girls are. But, as I showed in "Sexist Asteroids," 53% of those not receiving primary education worldwide are girls while 47% are boys. Not a huge difference. Certainly not enough to justify all of this attention and support for girls, while boys are ignored.

Amnesty International is currently sponsoring "Write for Rights," a letter writing campaign for female human rights defenders. AI commissioned 9 female artists to design T-shirts for this campaign. AI also has several other special projects just for women: Women's Rights. Violence Against Women. Online Violence Against Women. (Can someone explain how online violence is possible?) Women's Human Rights. Twitter---A Toxic Place for Women. Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security. AI has no comparable projects for men even though the vast majority of people being tortured, unlawfully imprisoned, and killed around the world are men. It seems AI is more concerned with the rights of women than even the rights of a man who was killed in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, and then cut into pieces and buried in the woods. (The Executive Director and two-thirds of the Board of Directors of AI-USA are women. And check out the website of AI USA---you'll find a majority of the pictures on the website are of women.)

The history of the ACLU has shown it to be a staunch supporter of due process and a protector of individual rights trampled on by abusive governments. Well, maybe not anymore. The ACLU has come out against the new sexual assault policy proposed by Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. The old policy was notorious for eliminating the due process of men accused of sexual assault in colleges. In fact, in at least 117 cases, accused men sued their schools over the total lack of due process. And won. But the ACLU in this situation is siding with eliminating due process and individual rights for men. Apparently, the ACLU is more concerned now with pandering to women than considering due process and the rights of individuals---this is quite strange given that the ACLU has been known for defending the rights of Nazis. It has a special department for Women's Rights and a women's blog, but nothing similar for men.

It just seems to be a rule: pander to women and ignore men. If men dominate in something, we must call it sexism and demand equality for women. If women dominate in something, women use it to brag about women's superiority, and there is no attempt to equalize. Men are second-class citizens, at best. We must constantly focus on women. Self-indulgent women demand it. America has become a sexist "cuntry."

Can you imagine the ruckus and protests if men tried to facilitate focus on men and men's activities similar to the current focus on women and women's activities? Women would have a fit. Women control media, government, sexuality, commerce, indoctrination of children, morality, charity, shame, hypocrisy, self-indulgence and most everything.

Other other stuff:

Hoaxers James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian made up fake research papers that sounded very anti-male and tried to get them into feminist journals. They succeeded many times. This shows the low standard of scholarship evident in feminist studies, and how feminist studies is very biased, sexist, and hateful.

Kursat Chjristoff Pekgoz, an English lecturer at the University of Southern Cal, has filed a Title IX complaint against the many sexist women's programs at Yale University. [15] We know that if a woman filed a complaint against a university for sexism against women, it would be all over the news. But Pekgoz's complaint has been ignored by the media.

As I have mentioned, men are not allowed to tell sexual jokes because it cheapens women's sexual power. But, of course, we are all allowed to tell jokes about economics and politics, men's traditional power bases. The hypocrisy just screams. And the hypocrisy is enforced by the government. Sexual jokes are considered sexual harassment, and if women are offended, the jokes can lead to severe punishments for men. This is absurd. Men are the ones who should be offended that women are unfairly protecting their sexual power, while demanding that men give up their economic and political power. Women have unbelievable gall. And the government has unbelievable paternalism. Two recent horrible examples come to mind. Michael Weatherly, TV's "Bull," told some crude jokes on the set. His co-star, Eliza Dushka, was offended. CBS paid her $9.5 million in a mediated settlement. Simona Sharoni, a professor of women's and gender studies at Merrimack College, was offended in a crowded hotel elevator when Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, replied, “ladies’ lingerie” when asked for his floor. Lebow has received great professional pressure to apologize, but he has refused. Way to go, Professor Lebow!

In an interview with CBS correspondent Tony Dokoupil, Hillary Clinton insisted that Monica Lewinsky was an adult and was not sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton. This caused a bit of a firestorm with feminists pointing out the power difference between Bill Clinton and Lewinsky. Even Lewinsky has given us the contradictory statement that “what transpired between Bill Clinton and myself was not sexual assault, although we now recognize that it constituted a gross abuse of power.” I have to point out that the abuse of power was by Lewinsky---she abused her sexual power. She wanted the incredible status that a relationship with THE PRESIDENT would give her, and she used her sexual power to get it. (This shows just how much sexual power women have, that someone as unattractive as Lewinsky could still use her limited sexual power to get a President. It also exposes the enormous double standard in that Lewinsky and women are allowed to abuse their sexual power to get what they want, whereas Clinton has been severely criticized for using his political and status power to get sex.) We have got to stop treating women like innocent little lambs. Yes, in the first place Bill was stupid for getting involved with Lewinsky. And in the second place, men will likely always be caught in these situations because women will always blab to their girlfriends (e.g., Linda Tripp.)

There is some hope in the fact that not all of the world has gone as batcrap crazy as American women in regard to sexuality. French women, for example. Some famous French women wrote a letter to Le Monde asking women to be more reasonable. And French actress Blanche Gardin recently showed "some" reasonableness in a NY Times article. [16] Here are a few quotes.

"It's clear for everyone that producers no longer have the right to rape actresses,....But...do we still have the right to have sex in exchange for roles? Because if we can’t do that anymore, we’ll have to learn lines and go to casting calls, and frankly we don’t have time.” (I guess men are forced to take the time to learn their lines. I mentioned earlier that a woman admitted giving Harvey Weinstein oral sex in order to get an acting part. Why aren't these instances considered quid pro quo sexual harassment and an abuse of women's sexual power?)

Gardin noted that you can pass laws against street harassment, but when a woman dresses up like a Christmas tree, “you have to risk that someone says you’re well-decorated. That’s the game.”

She also criticized women who complain about losing roles as they age. "(W)e have a peak of physical and sensual power. And then we get older, and become weaker, and uglier, and we die. We need to digest that.”

Gardin also recognizes how vulnerable men are. Men are driven to have sex, while women "just need to get to the point where we can sense, in the man’s eyes, that we can ruin his life.”

I watched some old TV comedies from the 60s and 70s recently. It was jarring to see that women were the butt of some of the jokes. It really stuck out. We are not allowed to do that now. We are only allowed to make fun of men now.

I also saw part of a women's college volleyball match. I noticed that the women were constantly pulling down there rather tight and short shorts. Why would female athletes wear clothing that frequently rides up on them during physical activity? Worse yet, players are often diving and rolling around in embarrassing positions in these skimpy shorts. Male volleyball players don't have to worry about this since they wear shorts that are loose and come down to near knee length. This is just one more example of how women must be sexual, even sexually harassing, in supposedly non-sexual situations. And the colleges go along with this. Maybe someone should file a complaint.

There are only two genders, male and female. Due to the considerable complexities of gestation and life, people may result anywhere along the spectrum between these two genders. One could be 100% female, or 80% female and 20% male, or 50/50, or anywhere else along the spectrum between male and female. But there are only two genders. There is no third gender, just different combinations of the two genders. Many people seem to think that every point along this spectrum deserves to be called a different gender, that, for example, a person who is 73.2% male and 26.8% female should have a special gender name other than "male" or "female" or someone who is 73.1% male and 26.9% female. But there are only two genders. I suspect that this desire for hundreds of new genders comes from feminism's hatred of the male gender and the resulting reluctance to be associated with maleness. But there are only two genders.

Women have long complained that men are big babies when they get sick. This has been referred to as "man flu" or "wimpy man syndrome." Of course, in this case the media have, as one might expect, joined with women in making fun of men whenever they can. But, without due cause. Recent research indicates that because of differences between men's and women's hormones, antibody response, and immune response, men have more severe symptoms, take twice as long to recover, are hospitalized more often, and die more often when they get the flu. It was also discovered that clinical observers were likely to under-rate men's symptoms. [17] But instead of sympathy and research, men get ridiculed and laughed at.

In the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation debacle, President Trump supposedly supported men who may have been falsely accused of sexual abuse, and who do not receive due process. One would think that I would welcome this support. Thanks, but no thanks. Trump does not care about falsely accused men. He is not concerned with anyone but himself. Kavanaugh was nominated and supported by Trump to save face, install a Justice who would protect him, and maybe to cast doubt on sexual accusations against himself. (But no one doubts Trump is guilty of the sexual accusations against him.) I don't want support from a psychotic narcissist. Columnist Timothy Egan said it well: "If your rallies are highlighted by 'lock her up' chants against a person who has never been charged with a crime, you cannot wrap yourself in due process or presumption of innocence." [18]

This has been one more installment of the self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, and sexism of women today. There are many other places where these issues are discussed, even though the lace curtain makes them hard to find. Here are a few places to look:

www.ncfm.org

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

www.avoiceformen.com

https://equalitycanada.com/ Canadian Association for Equality

Books by Warren Farrell

The documentary "The Red Pill" by Cassie Jaye

References:

[1] https://www.apnews.com/bccc4dd598df4e71bbf6c40ff4830373

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-case-prosecution-trial.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage&action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

[3] The CDC reported that 1.6% of women were raped in 2011, and 5.5% were sexually assaulted.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm Women were 50.8% of the U.S. population of 311 million in 2011 or 158 million. So 5.5 + 1.6 or 7.1% of 158 million is 11.2 million rapes and sexual assaults. The Encyclopedia of Rape by Merril D. Smith, page 130, says “Between 1976 and 1994, approximately 1.5 percent of all murder cases in the United States involved sexual assault or rape.” According to The World Almanac and Book of Facts, there were 14,661 murders in 2011. This would imply that about 220 sexual assault victims were also murdered in 2011 (some of whom may have been men.) 220 deaths per 11.2 million sexual assaults means about 1 murder for every 50,000 sexual assaults or .002%.

[4] http://www.opindia.com/2018/06/feminist-author-rape-not-a-violent-crime-should-be-viewed-as-lazy-and-bad-sex/

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/media/gateway-pundit-robert-mueller-false-allegations/index.html

[6] See "Truth Needs To Keep Its Pants On" on this website to see how a woman blackmailed Johnson into giving her research money

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/opinion/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan-media-men.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/reader-center/women-kavanaugh-confirmation.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage

[9] Eight Stories of Men's Regret https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/18/opinion/men-metoo-high-school.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/style/metoo-dating.html

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/science/termites-colonies-males.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Science

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/travel/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-womens-ski-camp.html?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage

[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/science/gender-harassment-science-universities.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Science

[14] https://www.dailywire.com/news/37319/no-boys-allowed-mom-wants-girls-only-time-public-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR36IeFemCrooWb-SNIUaPk9a95xlto41S1p4y-J-LEz1BlnxzfAds0fIy4

[15] https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/09/16/mens-rights-move-in-on-yale/

[16] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/louis-ck-blanche-gardin-metoo.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

[17] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/man-flu-really-thing-2018010413033?utm_content=buffer18d4a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321691886_The_science_behind_man_flu

[18] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-republicans.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront