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

The NISVS 2010-2012 Report – Continued

In the previous part, I discussed the CDC’s general findings from the recent 2012 survey. My analysis continues below.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the CDC’s numbers have remained consistent throughout the survey’s history. While I do think the researchers are manipulating the data in regards to sexual violence, they appear to do it same way each time. For example, the researchers again found that women commit the majority of sexual violence against male victims: Continue reading

The NISVS 2010-2012 Report

The CDC released a new National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). The survey combines data from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 numbers. Readers may notice that the most current data is from 2012, putting a five-year gap between the survey data and the current year. The researchers do not explain the delay, however, it does appear that both the 2011 and 2012 took increasingly longer periods of time to complete.

There are several things worth noting about the survey. It appears the CDC listened to the complaints about how they reported their findings. Readers may recall that in the 2010 survey the CDC repeatedly cited the rape statistics for male victims despite the “made to penetrate” victims showing a much higher prevalence rate. This resulted in skewed reporting, making it appear as if males are never victims of forcible or violent sexual assault. The researchers changed this in the current survey. They instead cite the higher “made to penetrate” rate, although this creates same problem as before (I will explain that later).

The term “made to penetrate” remains. The researchers continue to separate it from “rape” despite no one else studying, researching, or prosecuting sexual violence against males doing so. It remains as inexplicable as it was in 2011, although to the CDC’s credit they did not add in any nonsense about it not counting as rape since it is done primarily males as they did before.

The CDC again found that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. As with the previous survey, there is a higher rate of “made to penetrate” than rape among male victims. From the survey: 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