You’re Not Helping v.25

Feminists have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Ray Rice NFL scandal. To be certain, the NFL’s attempted cover-up is embarrassing. Rice’s assault on his now wife was horrible. However, none of that justifies the baffling response several feminists had when other journalists mention Hope Solo.

For those unaware, Hope Solo is a United States soccer star who assaulted her 17-year-old nephew and her sister. Solo faces fourth-degree misdemeanor charges, yet continues to play while the case is pending. In contrast, Rice was fired by the Ravens and indefinitely suspended from the NFL. Several sports journalists noted the imbalance, which appears to annoy some feminist journalists.

Katie McDonough offered the most recent complaint:

[...] A conversation about whether or not Solo should be on the field right now does not require smug finger wagging about inconsistently applied standards of outrage, it requires a grappling with how sports leagues handle violent offenses. (That’s a far more complicated conversation to have than many of us are willing to concede.) Condemning what Solo is alleged to have done does not require erasing a history in which men have systematically used manipulation and physical violence to dominate, humiliate and kill women. And scrutinizing the top brass within women’s national soccer for their calculus around Solo does not require us to insincerely argue that women’s soccer and men’s football are sports that receive equal attention in the media — that somehow it’s just this one time that the public has fallen silent in an otherwise robust conversation about the women’s national soccer team.

Let us look at the two journalists, Juliet Macur and Cindy Boren, to see what they wrote. Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v101

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Attention #GamerGaters: Gaming is not YOUR hobby

I tend to ignore feminist critiques about the gaming community because they are so nonsensical that rings popping out of robots seems more logical. However, I quite enjoyed David Futrelle’s “rebuttal” to #GamerGate. Instead of actually addressing any of the complaints gamers made in the past weeks, Futrelle seeks to prove that gamers have no claim on the community they built.

He begins with a wonderfully moronic statement:

Thing is, guys, it’s not your hobby. At least it’s not only yours.

I don’t call myself a “gamer” – largely because so many of those who do embrace the label are such immature assholes – but, guess what, I play games too.

Indeed, as you can see from the picture above, I own more than 100 console games, some of which I’ve devoted hundreds of hours to. Over the years I’ve owned five different consoles – seven, if you count replacement consoles bought because I wore out the originals.

Two points. One, it is usually a bad idea to begin a persuasive argument by insulting the intended audience. One typically ingratiates oneself with the intended audience, not make them hate you. It is also a bad idea to play semantics in way that makes it appear you do not understand basic English. The word to describe a person who plays video games is “gamer”.

Two, what in the world was Futrelle doing to his consoles that he “wore out the originals” to the point that he had to buy new ones? I know many people who played games for decades on their systems and never had to replace them. Most of my gamer friends still have their original NES, Genesis, Neo Geo, and Atari systems. Short of having a fan burn out or getting one of the lights of death, you should get plenty of mileage out of your consoles, especially the older ones. Continue reading

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

I continue to find it pathetic that every few weeks feminists feel compelled to write articles about how people misunderstand them. For a group that has been around in its present form for nearly six decades, feminists are completely incapable of convincing people they are not misandrous ideologues bent of ruining society.

As Zerlina Maxwell stated in her recent article:

The message is fairly simple: Feminism in this case is the sanctimonious, uptight older sister, always out to spoil everyone’s fun.

In 1990, Pat Robertson famously said, “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” Despite countless well-reasoned arguments to the contrary, it’s clear that some 25 years later, feminism still has an image problem.

And whose fault is that?

This isn’t to say it’s feminists’ fault.

Really? Please explain. Continue reading

You have to ask?

Finally: You have to ask????????????

That was how Richard Aubery ended his comment on a recent Good Men Project article titled Shame: Is GMP Part of the Problem?

The author, Scott Heydt, stated:

This is not a rhetorical question.

Neither is Richard’s question, so I will repeat it: you have to ask?

The Good Men Project runs dozens of articles a month. As the commenter who spawned Heydt’s response noted:

GMP publishes more articles that shame and blame men than most of the websites on the internet. Some are written by men, some by women. They purport to tell men, in one way or another, what they’re saying, doing and thinking that is wrong, and how they should think, talk and behave instead.

At this point, a lot of men, and a number of women, are hip to the game – and routinely take remedial action in the comments section.

But – really and truly – GMP is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

I advise young men, in particular, to read the material here with a great deal of skepticism, because a lot of it is toxic social engineering – attempting to shame and blame them into being something that someone else wants you to be, rather than being who you you want to be.

I noticed a trend among the published articles on GMP. Continue reading

When Ideologies Teach Hate

Originally posted on August 1, 2013

Several years ago I asked a question: can an ideology teach hate?

I asked the question as a result of a debate that happened on a popular anti-male feminist blog. I mentioned the abuse my feminist aunt subjected me to, and the feminists on the site proceeded to deny my aunt’s feminist status, deny that feminism played a role in her actions and attitude towards me and other males, and later deny that I was abused at all.

I the question because of a basic truth about feminism that I noted in my previous article:

This is the the same feminism that teaches that men collectively oppress women for the sole purpose of keeping all the power for themselves. The same feminism that claims that every male, regardless of his age or social status, benefits from this “patriarchy” at women’s expense. The same feminism that holds the fraction of men with power and the fraction men who commit violence as representative of the whole male population. The same feminism that views men as the ultimate enemy, one to be feared, distrusted, and suspected.

Would it surprise anyone that an ideology espousing that kind of hatred might cause a person to hurt someone?

The feminists on the anti-male blog dismissed that idea, yet a recent article on xoJane corroborates my position. Jennifer Levin wrote about her feminist mother taught her to hate men: Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v100

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Amanda Marcotte responds to women who are against feminism

This all began with a Buzzfeed article featuring selfies by women proclaiming that they do not need feminism. The article made the internet rounds, irritating many feminists in the process. Most of the counter criticism rested on the unsubstantiated claim that none of the women in the pictures knew anything about feminism. Marcotte, however, used a different approach. Rather than simply claim that the women against feminism were clueless, Marcotte created a host of strawmen and proceeded to not knock them down.

For example, one woman wrote:

against-feminism-1
That is rather specific. Yet Marcotte decides to bring up violence against men:

I’m guessing that this “just tell them to fuck off” approach doesn’t apply to situations where men could be victims. Mugging is a criminal offense that deserves social policies to address it, because men are understood to be equally victimized.

Nothing in the woman’s statement says anything about physical violence. The comment referred to a boy saying something “mean and sexist.” Where is the physical violence in that? Why would one need a social policy to fend off an insult? Continue reading