Jody Allard is back. For those who do not recall, Allard wrote an article in 2016 titled My teen boys are blind to rape culture. Allard argued in the article that despite all her efforts as a good feminist single mother, her two teenage sons are riddled with misogyny. Instead of taking heed of Allard’s demands that they check their privilege, stop their internalized misogyny, and challenge their friends who deal in “rape culture”, the boys laughed her off.
Any reasonable parent would look at that response and reflect on their own behavior. They would ask themselves why this approach did not work. They would ask why their children reject the very foundation of their parent’s identity and political beliefs.
Allard, however, is not a reasonable parent. She is a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, sociopathic ideologue, and so she does what anyone so mentally deranged would do: blame and publicly humiliate her sons. Again. For the fourth time. Here is the title of her most recent article:
Think of what type of person you must be to write something so vicious about your own sons. Think about how warped your mind must be to in one breath say that your sons are good and in the next accuse them of being rapists. Because that is what Allard did. You need not take my word for it. Take Allard’s: Continue reading →
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 filmThe 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 →
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.
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 →
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 →
An unnamed high school invited feminist commentator Clementine Ford to speak to the students. Ford is notable for her negative comments about men. She also tends to get into arguments across social media involving a number of issues.
Keep in mind that these are teenagers. While some of them were probably trying to get a rise out of Ford, given the intensity of her response and her reputation, none of this is shocking. And of course, Ford felt the need to that there is “a group more arrogant and yet conversely less intelligent than 15 year old boys”.
One of my biggest issues with transgender activism is the way activists attempt to control other people’s sexual preferences. There is a obvious problem that will occur for most transpeople when it comes to sexual relationships. To put it bluntly, they likely will not have the sex organs their potential partners find arousing. Some transpeople take offense to this rejection, arguing that some women have penises and some men have vaginas.
This is biologically inaccurate. The scientific method we use to determine sex is based on our chromosome patterns and how humans as a species reproduce. Our genitals are what indicate externally that we are a dimorphic, i.e. two-sex, species. Males, precluding some genetic abnormality, have testes and penises. Females have ovaries, uteruses, and vaginas. This may not fit with the political arguments made by the transcommunity, however, it is biologically accurate.
As a result of this biology, most people will prefer one of the sexes and expect that sex to possess the corresponding sex organs. It is not biased to assume this anymore than it is biased to assume humans would prefer another human as a sexual partner.