Why the left became ban happy

I suppose one could argue about generalizations. Yes, not all people on the left want to censor the opposing side. However, it does appear that most of the current voices attempting to censor are on the left. It also appears that while those speaking may represent a small group of people, a significant portion of the left as a group does not seem to have a problem with the attempted censorship.

We are seeing the attitude appear in every sphere, from the news to entertainment. Look at the situation with Cassie Jaye and her film The Red Pill. Feminists have successfully blocked its showing at several theaters, despite that most, if any, of those objecting to the film have never watched it. They are blocking not based on its content, but based on their feelings about what they assume the film discusses.

We can see this within the comic book industry, where several covers were pulled or replaced because of complaints from the left. This has happened in the video game industry, which led in part to Gamergate. The most recent instance occurred a few days ago at E3. This attitude has even made its way into the news, an outlet that is supposed to be unbiased, yet proves highly partisan.

So I think it is worth asking what is going on with modern liberalism that makes its adherents so inclined to this behavior. Continue reading

How not to conduct an interview

One of the first rules of journalism is to know about your subject before interviewing them. No journalist wants to appear ignorant of the basic facts about a person, particularly when that information is easily acquired.

Another important rule is to respect the subject. Obviously this will not apply to everyone. Sometimes a journalist may need to be confrontational. In most cases, however, there is no need to badger the subject. Respect garners better interviews than disrespect.

Those two basic rules escaped the hosts of an Australian morning talk show: Continue reading

Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings

Youtuber TL;DR released a video recently concerning an intriguing paper called Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings. A one Jonathan A. Allan wrote the paper. Allan is the Canada research chair in Queer Theory and Associate Professor in Gender and Women’s Studies and English and Creative Writing at Brandon University. He is the author of works such as Virgin Envy: The Cultural (In)Significance of the Hymen and Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus. He is also the vice-president of the American Men’s Studies Association.

Given such stellar credentials, it is not surprising that a substantial portion of Allan’s work focuses on criticizing masculinity as bad or toxic. In his paper Phallic Affect, Allan argues that men’s rights activists have co-oped the language of feminists in regards to the personal is political. Feminists contend that a woman’s feelings on a matter are important and validate her concerns, even if the evidence suggests her concerns are unwarranted. This usually manifests as “the personal is political” or “listen and believe” or “feels equal reals”.

Allan, however, does not think the men’s rights movement has any legitimate grievances. Continue reading

Vili Fualaau files for separation from woman who raped him as boy

Vili Fualaau filed for separation from Mary Kay Letourneau, the woman who began raping Fualaau when he was 12-years-old. Police caught Letourneau after she became pregnant with Fualaau’s first child when he was 14-years-old. Letourneau faced a seven-year sentence. She received a six-month sentence with three months suspended and was required to attend sex offender treatment. However, shortly after being released, she was found again with Fualaau. The judge imposed the original seven-and-a-half year sentence. Letourneau gave birth to Fualaau’s second child while in prison. After Letourneau completed the sentence in 2004, Fualaau petitioned the court for the removal of the no-contact order imposed on Letourneau. The court granted the order, and in 2005 the pair were married.

This case has been an odd one because of Fualaau’s age at the time Letourneau began raping him, Letourneau’s supposed ignorance about the criminality and predatory nature of her actions, and the media’s desire to exploit the situation as just a hot teacher banging her totally willing student. One need only flip the sexes to see how preposterous such an idea is, and how unlikely anyone would applaud the marriage of a female child rape victim to her rapist.

Yet after almost 12 years of marriage, Faulaau filed for separation from Letourneau: Continue reading

Feminist proves MRAs have a point by trying to disprove that point: Part 2

This is a continuation of my previous post about Suzzanah Weiss’s article in which she explains where men’s rights activists go wrong in their arguments by ironically proving their arguments. Here we go:

2. Fathers Are as Important as Mothers

Another common men’s rights issue is child custody and, more generally, men’s ability to play as active a role in the family as women do.

Feminists totally agree with this as well. Everyone should have a choice regarding what role they play in the family, and their a/gender shouldn’t factor into that.

That is an interesting position given that feminists either ignore or oppose efforts to increase father’s roles in their children’s lives. For example, the National Organization for Women opposes shared parenting laws, claiming that they give abusive men access to their victims.

Feminist organizations pushed for government-funded family programs that often exclude fathers as potential beneficiaries. Family courts routinely grant custody to mothers, even in cases in which the fathers are the primary caregivers. Child support laws appear gender neutral, yet they are applied primarily to fathers. Noncustodial fathers often receive limited contact with their children, which is subject to change at the mother’s request. Yet rather than supporting fathers in their attempt to address this bias, feminists claim that the bias is a myth concocted by bitter men and sexist men’s rights activists.

In fact, having more equal households benefits people of all a/genders. In relationships between men and women, for example, women whose male partners are helping out around the house are more able to prioritize their careers.

That has nothing to do with recognizing the roles fathers play in their children’s lives. Rather, it prioritizes women’s desires over fathers’ importance. It also assumes that men do nothing in their homes or that want they do matters less than what women do.

But men’s smaller role in the household is also not evidence that they’re oppressed.

The argument about oppression does not come from men’s role in the household, but how they are treated when it comes to custody issues. Men are held financially responsible, yet treated as physically negligible regardless of the clear importance to their children’s lives. When both parents agree to a particular arrangement, say that the father will work and the mother will stay home with the children, this equal decision is flipped on men during separations or divorces and used against them. Now they can be shut out of their children’s lives, lose a significant among of their pay check, and face mounting legal bills because of the “sacrifices” the woman made to stay at home. Continue reading

Feminist proves MRAs have a point by trying to disprove that point

Everyday Feminism is precisely what is wrong with modern feminism. The writers for the site are typically so misinformed and uninformed that it is shocking they are able to construct complete sentences containing any information. The site is a view into a Fortress of Solitude-size echo chamber, complete with backpatting, groupthink,  and flat-out lies. Yet it is the condescending tone found in many article that often results in the site’s best idiotic material.

Enter Suzannah Weiss. She wrote an article titled “4 MRA Arguments That Actually Have a Point – And Where They Go Wrong“. One already knows it will be a trainwreck of ideological nonsense just from the title. The most impressive part about the article is how blind Weiss is to the nature of her own statements. As one reads through the article, she contradicts herself within one or two sentences. A simple proofread would have caught this. One would expect an editor to catch it as well. Yet Weiss readily disproves her own arguments against men’s rights activists so frequently I can only assume she typed it and posted it immediately.

The article is fairly long, so I will break it into parts in order to address them fully. Let us begin: Continue reading

Welcome to the world of double standards

Let us say a person records themselves sexually abusing their son and shares the images with another person. Who should receive the harsher sentence: the person who abused the child or the one who received the images of the abuse?

Logic and ethics would suggest that the person who had physical contact with the child should face the stiffer sentence. However, this does not apply when one adds in the sex of those involved. Such is the situation in a recent case:

A Red Deer mother and licensed daycare worker has been sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for using her four-year-old son to make child pornography.

The woman, 43 years old at the time she was charged, pleaded guilty to sexual assault, making child pornography and distributing child pornography.

Authorities discovered the woman while investigating Peter Allen Cash. The Idaho man had numerous videos and images of child pornography on his phone. Canadian and Idaho authorities worked together to track down one of the boys from the images, which led to the woman’s arrest. Here is where it gets odd: Continue reading