Do Feminists Believe In Women?

I’m going to make a point about feminists and in the process Hillary Clinton, and I’m going to use the NFL to do it. How do you like them apples! No laughing.

One of the surest ways to know that something is NOT true about another person is if they feel compelled to tell you that it is true. In other words, the more someone assures you that they really be smart, the more obvious it becomes that they are not. You see this with actresses a lot, most of whom are dumber than dirt. What you will see is that suddenly everyone who knows them goes out of their way to tell you how brilliant this idiot is, e.g. Zoey Deschanel. When you see that, you can rest assured that they are rock stupid.

Other great examples include Robot Al Gore trying to prove to us that he is indeed the world’s greatest lover as he bragged about sex acts he’s never done... and missed his wife’s lips when he tried to publicly kiss her. Brrr. Taylor Swift trying to assure us that she’s not some idiotic slut is cute as well. Then there are the vast number of people you will run into who assure you that they are selfless and that they live their entire lives for their kids and husbands/wives. This used to be a favorite of my white trash clients who live off the largess of their friends and relatives and the federal government as they spend their days gambling or watching Jerry Springer and they make their kids clean their homes. I see a lot of this among the martyr-moms at Starbucks too... all without the slightest sense of the irony they are emitting.

Then you have the people who feel the need to tell you how competent they really are. The more they say it, the less likely it is to be true.

So what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I can’t help but notice that feminists won’t shut the hell up when it comes to assuring us that women are in fact competent and can do anything men can do. History and hu(wo)man nature suggests that the reason they keep saying this is that they don’t actually believe it. Yep.

And let me be clear before I am well hung in effigy, I’m not saying that women can’t do the things men can do, what I’m saying is that feminists apparently don’t believe that to be true. Indeed, this seems particularly true given that feminists start worrying that someone might speak the truth and shatter the facade. Indeed, look at the worry driving feminists now that Hillary’s critics might use a magic word to destroy her reputation for competence. Doesn’t that tell us they think her reputation is a fraud?

In fact, interestingly, you never hear this concern expressed about competent men. Why? Because there isn’t a single word that can undo the public’s view of a competent man’s competence. It is only proof that he isn’t competent that can harm his reputation. Heck, the same is actually true of genuinely competent women. I never see women like my doctor or Maggie Thatcher or that ugly chick who runs Germany worry that someone may call them entitled or secretive or suggest they are riding their husband’s coattails. Why? Because people respect competence and they don’t let opinion undo a well-earned reputation. So why do feminists think this is such a big deal unless they truly are worried about the competence of Hillary... and women?

Anyway, that brings me to the NFL.

Last week, the NFL announced that they had hired the first female referee. The reason for this is obvious. After the Ray Rice elevator experience and the ensuing explosion of bad PR, the NFL wants to be seen as pro-chick, so they hired one to be a referee.

Now, it just so happens that this women is an excellent college referee and has passed all of the NFL’s tests and classes with flying colors. In other words, she really is competent and likely does deserve the job. So imagine my (total lack of) surprise when the liberal/feminist world went nuts. First, they acted like it was a miracle that a woman had been handed such a position, even though there are many women working their way up the ranks already, and they acted like she had gone on some strange adventure. What a way to reinforce the idea that women should avoid fields dominated by men. “Hey little girl, wanna be the only non-peniser in a room full of nerds? Be a scientist!” Yeah, that will make them see that as the field for them.

In any event, more interestingly, the feminists and liberals all went out of their way to assure us that, by Godiva, a non-peniser could do this job just as competently as a peniser. Seriously, was there ever any question?

The job does not require feats of strength or long-distance urination. All you need to do is be able to run around the field (which she can do if she takes off the heels), stand in places where you won’t get hit except on truly rare occasions (admittedly Ray Rice’s girlfriend can’t pass this test but other women can... what? too soon?), drop a handkerchief, and know the NFL rulebook. So as long as you can run, litter, and quote the rulebook then anybody can do this job... except Romanians for obvious reasons.

There simply is no reason to think that women will be any less capable than men at doing this in the slightest: lacking a penis does not make one any less capable of blowing calls, mis-spotting the ball or helping the Patriots win games. In fact, I can’t think of a single thing NFL referees do that males do better than females. So why keep bringing it up like it’s a real question that she can do the job unless you have some doubts?

What’s even worse, once the chicky newsreaders got involved, they started asking this non-peniser questions like, “Will you wear makeup?” Uh... get the Favre out. Why in the world would a chick who wants to prove that women can do anything men can do start by asking questions like that which drive home the point that because she's a woman, the job isn't her primary concern when she does the job? Talk about setting up her reputation for failure!

This is what makes me laugh about feminists. They talk a good game at times: women be the same as men! But then they won’t stop hysterically assuring us that women are capable and competent and smart and all that stuff men are... just don’t use words to wipe out the facade they’ve created... oh, and can you wear a pink tutu on the field?

Good grief, Charlene Brown.

I think I have discovered something. Of all the people who occupy this planet, only feminists seem to think that women are inferior (well, and fundamentalists, but that’s for a different reason). The rest of us seem to think women are, like, you know... people.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hey, It's Only Rape

Let us revisit an NFL issue that is really about liberals. When the video of Ray Rice knocking out his fiancée in a New Jersey elevator hit the news, liberals went crazy and sanctimoniously demanded that anyone accused of domestic violence be immediately terminated and shunned by society without trial and rights be damned (“NO TOLERANCE!!”). I noted at the time that as always with liberals, this extreme reaction was just a knee-jerk response meant to satisfy their self-righteousness, and that before things were over, they would completely flip their “principled” positions. Not only did they do that, but now uber-liberal sportswriter Peter King is actually arguing that we should ignore serial rapes. No... I'm not kidding.

When the Rice issue first arose, every single liberal sportswriter I can name immediately dashed out columns trying to outbid each other on smug political correctness... Rice needs to be suspended! Suspended?! Heck, he needs to be banned for life! For life? You mean forever!! Hell yes! And the NFL needs to get back the money they paid him! And it doesn’t matter that his stupid fiancée doesn’t want him punished... victims can’t be trusted when they defend the accuser..

Essentially, no punishment was harsh enough. Rice’s rights meant nothing to these writers because they claimed that domestic abuse is such a horrible thing that ideas like innocence until proven guilty should be pushed aside. The allegation itself should be enough to destroy this man’s career and ban him for life, and shame on the NFL for not acting on this immediately!... that was the take every single liberal took on the subject.

But these are liberals who were doing the talking, and as I’ve pointed out many times, that means they make extremist snap judgments, which they immediately use as a way to smugly claim moral superiority and then judge conservatives harshly for not being as “enlightened” as they are. But they won’t stick to these extremist positions. To the contrary, they will reverse their position as the “fairness” of the situation shifts until they are actually taking the exact opposite position they originally took... though they will still wallow in their claims of moral superiority for taking the extremist position. Thus, when the situation is the powerful Rice versus a helpless woman, it is ok to punish Rice harshly because she is the victim. But once it becomes the powerful NFL versus the helpless Rice, then Rice becomes the victim and they see it as unfair to let the NFL harm him.

In this instance, it took a few days for the first liberal to break ranks. This liberal realized that by suspending Rice without a hearing, the NFL was harming the career of a young black man in violation of the union contract the NFL has with its players... and that’s just wrong. With a handful of additional players soon finding themselves suspended as well (this time without videos to bring out visceral emotions), the cabal of liberal sportswriters soon began to fret about the players’ rights and how the evil NFL was trampling all over them. Bad NFL! Why would you do such a thing?

Not only did these sportswriters attack the NFL for acting before all the evidence was in, but they wanted the NFL to wait to do anything until after the criminal trials were done. Moreover, they decided that banning a player for life was just too harsh. Why would the NFL ever think this was ok? In fact, not only was banning too much, but suspending the player with pay was considered too harsh according to these liberals. Yep. And they smugly proclaimed that they were the defenders of civil rights.

So that’s where things shook out. These liberal sportswriters claimed moral superiority because they took the principled position that someone accused of domestic abuse must be immediately terminated and shunned from society. Then they flipped that around when the NFL punished Rice and they claimed moral superiority for protecting the rights of Rice... the same rights they demanded to have stripped. Talk about ironic! And the whole time, they accused anyone who didn't agree with them of being evil. Amazing.

And now it gets worse.

Among the smuggest of these liberals was Peter King of Sports Illustrated. This guy is an obnoxious, brainless, groupthink-bound liberal who thrives on liberal smugness, all the while imagining that he is a moderate and that everyone except those crazy right-wingers must naturally agree with him. King went through the exact process outlined above, from demanding immediate execution without trial all the way to blasting the NFL for being too harsh. Now he’s done this...

King is one of the few voters for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And Darren Sharper is up for consideration this year for entry into the Hall. Who is Darren Sharper? Sharper is a defense back for the New Orleans Saints who arguably belongs in the Hall for what he did on the field. But there is another side to Sharper too. See, Sharper has been charged with drugging and raping three women in Los Angeles, two women in New Orleans and one woman in Arizona. Yep. He stands accused of drugging and raping six women!

Naturally, King is outraged by this and wants to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, right? I mean, if just the allegation of domestic abuse is enough to ban someone for life from the NFL without even waiting to see if the allegations are true and despite the pleas of the victim not to punish the player, then surely six separate rape allegations in three different states is enough to avoid giving a player the discretionary honor of being elected to the Hall of Fame, right?

Wrong.

King thinks the Hall of Fame voters need to ignore the rape allegations. Here is his reasoning:

I mentioned in this column last week that former Green Bay and New Orleans safety Darren Sharper would be eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the first time in 2016. . .

Sharper stands accused of serial sexual assault in California, Arizona and Louisiana, in some cases by using drugs on the women he attacked.

So some media people, and quite a few fans, picked up on my note, and the reaction was intense: How can you consider a man sitting in jail, accused of drugging multiple women and raping them, for the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

I understand the emotion involved in a case like this. The crimes are deplorable and reprehensible, and if true, Sharper should be imprisoned for a very long time. [BUT]

To clarify the way the Pro Football Hall of Fame works, we have a bylaw that says we can consider only football-related factors in determining a candidate’s worthiness for election....

Maybe you would say: If a candidate is convicted of a felony, he cannot get into the Hall of Fame. Leaving the scene of an accident is a felony. Arson is a felony. Selling drugs is a felony. Animal cruelty is a felony. Should those crimes be enough to automatically eliminate a candidate?

Maybe you would say: Don’t complicate things! It’s obvious that a very serious crime, such as murder or rape, should bar a candidate from the Hall. Obvious to whom? There are 46 voters for the Hall of Fame. Do you want to leave it up to the conscience of each individual voter as to what constitutes a crime serious enough to ban a person from the Hall?

I don’t. The voters for the Hall of Fame should consider what a player did on the field, and the influences of a coach on the game and how many games he won, and the contributions that other figures have made to the sport.

Beyond that, the slope is far too slippery.

Did you see that? Some voters might think rape or murder is a serious enough crime to consider, but King sees that as too dangerous of a slippery slope. Hence, he argues that the voters need to do what the bylaws say and ignore these rapes. Isn’t it funny how he took such a harsh position (ban a player for life and end his economic career) because of a single punch, which the victim doesn’t even want punished, but when it comes to something far less live-affecting (being elected into an honor society), he argues that we should overlook serial rapes. Un... f*cking... believable.

The hypocrisy of this is stunning.

Moreover, keep in mind that the left loves to accuse the right of condoning rape. Outside of a couple of religious zealots, however, no one on the right has ever condoned a rape that I am aware of. Yet, here is smug liberal King doing just that: “Ignore the six rapes because he deserves this award!”

Welcome to the mind of liberals.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Pathetic "Men's Rights Movement"

by Kit

Within the past year there has been a great deal of controversy over a group of men who call themselves "Red-Pillers" and "Pick-up Artists", especially with the Elliot Rodgers shootings and again with the recent attention on Pick-up Artist Julien Blanc.

They have gained increasing fame against the back drop of, and possibly fueled by, a resurgent radical feminism that is sees every minor inconvenience a woman has in modern-day American society as symptomatic of a widespread and universal "War on Women". The manosphere portrays itself as a rebellion against this resurgence (though they claim it never died) and, as with all rebels, it gives them a certain aura. But, as I hope to show, they are not an answer to the problems of radical feminism. In fact, they are in many ways, a masculine alter ego of radical feminism —though with lower aims. They both promote a War of the Sexes where one must win through Total Victory or become a defeated Stepford Wife or Henpecked Husband.

Now, in discussing them I am not talking about the Men's Rights Movement as a whole nor am I excluding them since the lines between the MRAs and the Red-Pillers/PUAs are often quite blurry. As they have been a rather influential part of the MRAs. This also has absolutely nothing to do with the wonderful blog, Art of Manliness, a website with a philosophy contrary to that of the Red-Pillers. In fact, the major Red-Pill site Return of Kings criticized Art of Manliness for "poisoning the concept of masculinity with Disney Lifestyle Advice" by promoting a pro-family, pro-fatherhood, and pro-marriage view of the world.

Their Worldview

The philosophy of the Manosphere and the Red-pillers can be described by these 4 pillars that I am calling "Female Psychology", "Alpha-Beta Male Dichotomy", "Feminism's Effects", and "Game". The first two describe their "scientific" view of basic human psychology that applies to all men and women at all times and all places, the 3rd describes that state of gender relations in modern society, and the 4th is the rational solution for men in today's world.

(1) Female Psychology: Women, ruled by a “hindbrain”, are driven by a sense of hypergamy to find the most uber-sexy, domineering man, an Alpha, over wimpy Betas, most of the other men because, as Xpat puts it, “Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.” This is a major part of their ideology, Rollo Tomassi (pen-name for the blogger at the Rational Male), makes it his 6th Iron Rule (he has 9), “Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.”

A translation: “Women are only capable of loving men conditionally, that is, if it benefits them.” Now, as with nearly all the best lies this one has a grain of truth to it. Hypergamy is a real thing, it is the desire of a (heterosexual) woman to select as a mate/spouse the highest quality man available with the man's quality hinging on a variety of traits. This can be proven by scientific studies and common sense.

The Pick-up Artists twists this, producing blog posts headlined "Hypergamy Doesn't Care", providing examples of the things Hypergamy doesn't care about:

—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids."

—"Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men."

—"Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores."

And so on.

The interesting thing is that, according to every bit of available knowledge of science's understanding of hypergamy... THESE ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS IT DOES CARE ABOUT YOU THICK-HEADED NUMBSKULL!!! They want a man who will be a great father, a great husband, who is caring, who is supportive, but tough enough to not be driven to a mess of tears by the smallest problems. Basically, they want a man. But, this is their world view. So what does "Hypergamy care about"? Well...

(2) Alpha/Beta Male Dichotomy: According to them, most men fall into one of two categories: Alphas and Betas. Alphas are the domineering aggressive men who make history while the Betas are the rest of them, the weak, docile, and pussy-whipped men who make up the vast majority of society. In this view, the quintessential Alphas are men like Genghis Khan and James Bond while a typical Beta would be Al Bundy and Ray Romano. It further states that women are attracted to Alphas.

Now, in theory this may seem ok. A bit black-and-white but with some truth to it. Most men may not aspire to be Genghis Khan but they don't want to be Al Bundy either so they seek the middle road. Surely there is a middle road, neither dominated nor domineering? Well, according to this worldview there isn't. One is either a domineering übermensch who is conquering women or weak and henpecked husband dominated by his wife. There is no middle road.

And Hypergamy, they say, guides women towards the Alphas. While they will "settle" for a Beta if there is no other alternative, they all pine for an Alpha and will cheat on their Beta husband if they find a willing Alpha —even if said Alpha is already taken, for "Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled by a faithful loser." If you want to see proof of this bubbling up in other sites, the big Red-Pill site website Return of Kings even had an article giving men tips on how to have an affair.

Now, in older days this was ok because, in the pre-feminism era, Beta Males did not have to worry about their wives getting cheating on them with impunity. But then...

(3) Effects of Feminism: Feminism, they claim, by upsetting the natural order of man and wife, has resulted in women developing a sense of entitlement that leads them to abuse and mistreat men. If this sounds like a bit of a leap in logic look at the above pillar; “Women love opportunistically.” If women can only love opportunistically and thus cannot be trusted to be loyal then it is clear that feminism has given them powers and rights with which they cannot be trusted. Women now have the power to abuse and cheat on their boyfriends and husbands (and even fathers and sons) with impunity.

This is very reminiscent, interestingly, of the radical feminist ravings about patriarchy and how under it men are given free reign to abuse and mistreat women. How women are not able to trust men to be caring and loving. That is because both are rooted in a worldview of an identity culture bred by a sense of victimhood. Like the feminists who claim that all women are suffering brutal and daily abuse under an all-powerful patriarchy they claim that feminism has created a situation where all men suffer. Remember the "Hypergamy Doesn't Care" article I mentioned? Well, it is rife with this. I chose the nicer parts, but almost every thing he lists that "Hypergamy doesn't care about" is written in such a way to portray women as evil leeches who will abuse and mistreat men with about as much empathy as a sociopath. Even their view of a once-great and wonderful Eden of Male Superiority has a feminist parallel in the anthropological myth of long-lost "Matriarchal Societies" where life was free and happy.

And, like all victimhood-peddlers they have a solution...

(4) Game: The logical result, they claim, is that men can no longer expect a happy life through marriage and fatherhood and instead must seek a fulfilled life by having as much sex with as many women as they can. To accomplish this they peddle "Game". "Game" is the method of seduction they sell to young men. The strategies they teach vary from the deceptive to the abusive. The most infamous, Julien Blanc recommend that men put their right hand around the girl's neck and go "Shhhhh". He also recommends using tactics of domestic abuse to keep girlfriends, tweeting a photo of a domestic abuse wheel that shows the methods of domestic abuse with the words, "Might as well be a checklist. #HowToMakeHerStay".

He is the most extreme version but one can find hints of this in the statements of other advocates of Game such as the Rollo Tomassi, who pushes a view of relationships that is based entirely on the prism of who has the most power with sex as the sole reason for the relationship, said "Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait."

It's a cynical, grab-what-you can ideology and it is the reason for it all. The Pick-Up Artists are trying to sell "Game" to young men. The reason for the previous 3 pillars is an attempt to provide "evidence" for the need for Game. Its a con. This is not too far from a man who claims that ancient alien souls sent into the bodies of cavemen by an evil alien overlord are the real causes of mental illness and joining his creepy religious cult is the only way one can "cure" oneself of mental health problems.

Conclusion

Yes, there are women who have cheated on their husbands and yet still soaked them in the divorce, just as there are men who have beaten their wives. Some people are simply narcissistic sociopaths. People who will mistreat others for no apparent reason, even when it would've been in their interest to be kind. But the history of human experience shows that these are the exception, not the rule.

In the ideologies of both Radical Feminists and Red-Pillers/PUAs we see them try to depict the world in stark black-and-white terms; casting the other sex as violent and depraved demons while painting their own sex as innocent and unknowing babes in the woods. They are cynical views of the world and with the Pick-up Artist community we see a cynical and nefarious solution with their pushing of "Game".

Yes, unlike feminism, perusing their websites reveals no real desire to change the world into a totalitarian masculine state, though many might like it. Their goals, as "Game" illustrates, are a bit lower. Simply have as much sex as you can. But that only means it is less ambitious. The bile, however, is still very present. They promote themselves as a cure to radical feminism in its modern-day form but they are not a cure. In truth, they are another strain of the same disease.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Stuff Like This Makes My Head Hurt...

Like the title says, stuff like this makes my head hurt. You probably haven't been paying much attention to the plight of the transgendered community or all-women Ivy League schools, but this is the sign of our times. I realize that this subject may be uncomfortable for some of you, but issues like this are becoming more and more prevelant in our "gender fluid" new world order. This time it's at Wellesley College in Boston.

For a little background, Wellesley is one of the traditional all-women's ivy-league colleges and is part of the "Seven Sister Schools" - Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College - all founded in the 19th Century. So you can imagine that they take their feminism really seriously. For the five school that remain "all woman", they now admit transgendered students - males who identify as female, females who identify as males and everything inbetween except males who identify as...well...male.

So here's the story. A female student who identified as male metriculated into Wellesley College as a freshman and asked to be referred to as "he" and as this NYT article indicates "he" was mostly accepted as a "he". So far so good until as a sophomore, he decided to run for the student-government position of the multi-cultural diversity coordinator who would be "responsible for promoting 'a culture of diversity' among students and staff and faculty members." That's when he suddenly found out exactly what happens to a white male who wants to run for a student government position at an all-women's college. When three others who signed up to run for the same position dropped out, the women at the college started a campaign calling for all to "abstain" from voting. And, dear Lord, this is what the leader had to say:

“It wasn’t about Timothy,” the student behind the Abstain campaign told me. “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man [emphasis added] there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.”

Seriously, as if being transgendered isn't enough to prove one's street cred in diversity, he is now being discriminated against because he...is...a...white...man. It's feminist insanity at its best or worse. This poor "man" not only has to deal with negotiating a hostile, confused world as a transgendered person, but NOW he has to contend with man-hating femini-nazis too. Like I said, it just makes my head hurt...

As a side note: Hillary Rodham Clinton graduated from Wellesley in 1969. God help us.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Thoughts On The Attack On The NFL

I’m going back to the NFL’s domestic violence issue because this is a highly instructive incident that keeps getting more and more absurd. Indeed, it highlights exactly what is wrong with the feminist-left and it shows why you cannot ever play their game. Here are my thoughts on this.

● Free Ride Self-Righteousness: As I’ve mentioned before, all this outrage about the domestic abuse scandal is a crock. How do we know? For one thing, these a-holes calling this the greatest outrage since the Holocaust said nothing about these events when they first hit the news. Their "moral outrage" didn't develop until it became popular to be outraged. Further, their outrage is selective. Notice that they happily attack the NFL, but they remain completely silent on US Soccer and Hope Solo, who abused her nephew and half-sister. They also claim to speak for the victims while specifically dismissing every victim who doesn't go with the program. Also, their outrage is wrongly aimed. They aren't upset at the abusers, instead, they are using this to attack the NFL. In effect, they are tarring 1,600 players because of the actions of four.

What makes this whole thing worse is that these moral hypocrites are acting self-righteously even while taking no consequences for their stances. In fact, let me reprint something disgusting for you. This was written by Peter King, a true liberal cocksucker. King earns $2 million a year writing about the NFL for Sports Illustrated. His entire career has involved leeching off the NFL. He sits on the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee. He gets regular access to anyone and anything in the NFL, and he has carried the NFL’s water on issue after issue for decades. If the NFL is dirty, then he is the guy who sold the dirt to the public. He also said nothing at all about the domestic abuse until the blowback occurred. Now he writes this:

So, should we still like football? I’ve asked myself that a few times over the past week. I think we all have. (typical liberal... "everyone thinks like me!") And what I’ve come to think is this: It’s a personal decision. I can’t tell you to feel better about the gutter the NFL has fallen into. . . If you’re revolted by Ray Rice cold-cocking his fiancée (which King initially wasn’t) and you just can’t watch one more game, don’t. It’s your call. No one can make it for you. . . . If you think the NFL is so full of greed and Roger Goodell so consumed with the bottom line that human decency is way down the league’s list of priorities, walk away. (Wait, what? Greed? Are we OWS now?). . . If you think the NFL is just too dangerous, and you read in The New York Times (the only source for news a good liberal accepts) last week that the league, by its own admission, acknowledged that one in three former players will have some sort of cognitive problem long before an average person in the general population would, stop watching. It’s your call. No one can make it for you. . . No one will blame you for walking away.

This past week has been the most ceaselessly miserable one I’ve see in my 31 seasons covering the league. I am disturbed for some of those reasons, particularly the greed I see (what does greed have to do with this?). And this one as well: As I watched the games Sunday in my viewing-room perch at NBC (King is a pathological name-dropper), I noted the brutality of the game. (So after 30 years of covering the game, he finally realizes it’s a violent game?) In a 15-minute span in the first quarter of the early games, I saw [lists some injuries, as if they were intentionally caused]. . . I’ll be troubled by the violence of the game, which may eventually drive me from it (BUT NOT YET).

This kind of self-righteous hypocrisy makes me want to punch the crap out of pathetic bastards like King. Nothing he mentions is new, only his outrage is new. And his outrage only exists because he thinks that makes him morally superior. More importantly, notice that after appearing to take this strong moral stand in which he lays out a case for how evil the NFL is, he then concludes that he will keep watching... for now. That makes his entire moral stance bullshit: "Oh yeah, Hitler's evil and everyone should quit supporting him, but I'm going to keep my job as Jew processor for now." Wanna bet he writes a book about how he should have quit the NFL decades ago the day after he retires?

And King's hypocrisy is common. Notice that everyone has shifted the blame from the players to a nebulous NFL. The reason they have done this is that it lets them take strong moral stands without having to worry about the effects of their moral stances on the players, i.e. it's a lot harder to say "Ray Rice should be banned for life" than it is to say "the NFL needs to ban abusers for life." It also lets them escape the consequences of what they advocate when they change their minds later and decide that "zero tolerance" isn't a fair idea. You can rest assured that, at that point, they will attack the NFL for being too rigid and uncaring about the players and they will dismiss their own advocacy of "zero tolerance" as never really meaning zero tolerance... just like "life in prison" to a liberal means "in jail until they look old and harmless and it feels unfair to keep them there anymore."

● You Can’t Satisfy The Politically Motivated: The one lesson the NFL has so far failed to grasp in all of this is that they can't please the people who are using this as a political issue. Those people see this as an opportunity and there is no level to which the NFL can hike the penalties that these “critics” won’t claim “still isn’t enough.” There are no policies the NFL can put into place that these critics can’t dismiss as a PR move designed to deflect attention. Even if the NFL gives these critics every single thing they demand, these critics still will say that the NFL waited too long or that their needing to be told only shows they don’t care. This is gotcha, pure and simple. Who is doing this? People with grievances against the NFL and feminists.

● Grievances?: Yep. A lot of the people attacking the NFL, and Roger Goodell in particular, are union types who are dissatisfied with Goodell smacking the union around in their contract negotiations. Some are people who remain upset about his treatment of agents, his handling of drug suspensions, or people interested in the concussion litigation. These people see this as their chance to bring down a man who has protected the NFL against their predatory attacks.

● Why Feminists Care: So feminists huh? Yep. Why are feminists out to get Roger Goodell fired. Basically, it’s a Hail Mary pass.

Feminism is dead. Its influence on the culture has all but disappeared. No one follows its doctrines. No one gives in to its demands. It has become nothing more than a cult peopled by a handful of lesbian professors, journalist chickies who got famous in the 1990s, and public policy (read: lobbyist) groups. No one else subscribes. Even the young college women who claim to be feminists tend to see it as little more than a label, like wearing a Che Guevarra t-shirt.

Ordinarily, feminists disdain football and athletes and men. They have zero interest in the NFL. So why do they care now? Do they really care about these 3 to 4 women who have been the most recent victims of domestic violence by NFL players? Hardly. The reason feminists care is that they see this as an opportunity to regain their relevance. If they can bring down Goodell, supposedly for not acting strongly enough against domestic violence, then they can send a shockwave of fear throughout the corporate world and every weak CEO out there will impose their ideas as a precautionary matter. Naturally, those same CEOs will then lobby Congress to pass laws that impose the same rules on their competitors. In effect, in one big sweep, feminists will get things they have been wet-dreaming over for decades. But to do that, they need to defeat Goodell. Evidence that they understand this is that they keep rejecting his attempts to install their policies; they need his head, not his agreement. Goodell doesn't seem to understand this yet, that feminists need to bring him down to win and they will never accept his olive branches.

● You Can't Please Liberals: In addition to the raw politics I just discussed, there is another factor the NFL needs to consider. You can't please liberals with liberal solutions.

Liberals are short term thinkers. Right now they are outraged at these big meanies who beat these poor women... actually, they are outraged that the NFL didn't stop these big meanies. Hence, they want a zero tolerance policy to make sure this never happens again. But wait a few months until 60 Minutes does a story on how Ray Rice is broke and how his wife feels abused by "the system" for killing their family’s income to punish Rice for something she didn't think needed to be punished. Or wait until they report on all the young guys who got banned based on false evidence from angry ex's or from blackmailers or "racist cops." Just wait as our liberal friends all tear up and start to scream about the NFL and it's unfair, indiscriminate policy which is ruining the lives of so many young black men without total proof they actually did anything! Damn you, NFL! And it won't ever occur to them that this is the consequence of their demands for zero tolerance. Instead, they will shift the blame to the cold-hearted NFL for implementing their own ideas.

This is the problem with trying to please liberals. Some are politically motivated and aren't looking for solutions, they are looking for political victories. The proof of this is how disinterested they are in the NFL's efforts to implement changes to their policies, by their grievances suddenly all being tied together no matter how unrelated (e.g. "greed" and "domestic abuse") and by their focus on the wrong people as the bad actors. And even if you give them what they want, they will be back with a grievance based on the problems their own solutions caused without a shred of acknowledgement that they are at fault for what happened.

The NFL really has mishandled this. What they should have done is immediately appoint a committee to investigate this and to "effect changes." Then you tell the committee to wait a year or so before reporting. That is how you pull the energy out of an issue and kill it. The one thing you don't do is try to piecemeal a solution as liberals try to use your efforts to score points.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Cruel Summer for Feminists

by tryanmax
As Andrew noted in a recent article, the Democrats are continuing to push the idea of a Republican War on Women in the midterm elections. Unfortunately for them, feminism has proven to be its own worst enemy over the summer, overplaying its hand at almost every opportunity. In case you missed some of the happenings, here is a rundown:

First, they overplayed the victim card in the wake of the Elliot Rodger killings with the #YesAllWomen hashtag. It was meant as a response Rodger’s rambling manifesto, but the formulation was also a preemptive refutation of the “not all men” argument—as in “not all men are murderous psychopaths”—an argument only a feminist could find fault with. Suddenly, every woman on Twitter was a-feared that any man on the street could be her rapist/murderer. A leer or a catcall became enough to send delicate ladies into hyperventilating panic. But the Twitterverse called bullship on such exaggerated paranoia, forcing #YesAllWomen to grudgingly admit that #NotAllMen are lecherous predators, and outing those who refused for the stubborn man-haters they are.

Shortly after that, the Hobby Lobby decision failed to generate backlash despite the best efforts of HuffPo ,Mother Jones, Ms., Jezebel, Salon, etc. etc. etc. I don't know if it's because the ruling just doesn’t affect that many people, or if folks actually figured out that the decision doesn't actually do what its critics claimed. Far from letting Hobby Lobby off the hook for birth control entirely, the decision only exempts Plan-B type emergency contraceptives and some types of IUDs. Either way, feminists were left making judicial activism claims normally associated with conservatives. They were also boo-hooing that gays have more rights than women now, which seems strangely adversarial toward a group that's never been against them.

The same month, a rather small men’s rights conference was held in Detroit that also failed to catalyze a gender war. In the weeks leading up to the event, feminists predicted a writhing nest of white, straight, Christian and, of course, male bigotry. What actually materialized was a racially, orientationally, religiously, and even gender diverse group that discussed subjects like male joblessness, the education gap, and inequities in family law. Mainstream outlets including TIME that sent reporters to confirm their own expectations were instead forced to report that, even though they don’t like it, the MRAs raise some valid points. Darn it!

Next, Women Against Feminism seized the national spotlight. One could not imagine a more grassroots meme. It began on Tumblr and quickly spread to Facebook and Twitter before being highlighted in the press and on TV. The meme features women who post selfies while holding up notebook pages stating why they don't need feminism. Of course, with any grassroots movement, some of the arguments are trite and provide easy fodder for feminist attacks. However, most of the contributors are quite cogent. A common theme among these women is that they don’t need feminism because of its hostility toward any who disagree with it, an argument which immediately spays feminist attacks by confirming them. Women Against Feminism also puts feminism on its heels by forcing it to run to the dictionary to defend its definition, and standing on semantics is never good footing.

Throughout the summer, the left continued to ignore the DNR order on the debunked wage gap myth by rehashing tired arguments. Reports that millennial women earn at near parity to millennial men suggest that this might not be an issue for younger voters. Meanwhile, recent studies showing that the wage gap widens with age serve to underscore what conservatives have been arguing about lifestyle choices all along.

The end of summer means the start of the new school year. Normally, the walls of academia provide a safe haven for feminist ideology to flourish. But this year is a little different. For years, colleges and universities have been on crackdown mode against men accused of sexual misconduct, thanks in no small part to a media-generated crisis of campus rape. But now outlets such as NPR, LA Times and The Boston Globe are reporting a backlash.

Several men accused of and, in some cases, found responsible for sexual misconduct are suing and winning under Title IX, the same law used against them by their schools, claiming their due process rights were violated by low preponderance-of-the-evidence standards and presumptions of guilt. Numbers are hard to come by, but the sudden frequency of these cases has compelled the media to take notice. The coverage wasn’t able to help but expose flaws in feminist reasoning. One prominent activist in the area, Annie Clark, has been cited describing due process as an obstacle to justice in sexual assault cases. This is not a sentiment that most Americans share.

Meanwhile, some enterprising young women decided to confront college sexual assaults head-on by inventing a date rape drug detecting nail polish. Feminists everywhere rushed to praise the empowering innovation. Just kidding. They were livid, attacking the invention as promoting "rape culture" by putting the onus for rape on women. In other words, they'd rather see more women raped than take steps to protect themselves. But this is nothing new. Feminists always attack suggestions that women display any agency over their own well being.

Correction: The date rape drug detecting nail polish, called Undercover Colors, was actually invented by a group of men at NCSU. Still, this may help explain why the criticism was an order of magnitude above some of the other inventions linked to. After all, how dare a man do anything to help a woman. How patronizing!

The interesting thing about feminism’s bad summer is that it looks a lot like in-fighting. On social media, women have taken on women. On Hobby Lobby, the feminists positioned themselves against gays. In academia, Title IX is pitted against itself. Even the MRA’s keynote speaker was former NOW-NYC board member Warren Farrell whose liberal, if not feminist, credentials remain solidly intact. Conservatives and Republicans have been remarkably absent from gender politics this season. On this day, the War on Women looks like a war from within.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

And That's "Ms. Bossy"!

Bossy - adj 1. to be boss-like; 2. willing to take charge and given to ordering people about; 3. the little girl on the playground who makes all her friends play her game her way; 4. name usually associated with the cutest and most productive cow in the milk shed...

Continuing on with the theme from yesterday, let's discuss another word we are not supposed to use anymore. Henceforth you shall never use the word "bossy" when referring to girls who assert themselves. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg along with First Lady Michelle Obama, Beyonce, and other high profile celebrity women have launched a new public service campaign called Ban Bossy because using that word is the root of all of women's problems like pay disparity, glass ceilings, and [fill-in-the-blank]. If only...

Okay, the definition above is mine and I will add that it can also mean one who is assertive and willing to take charge. I do not see what is wrong with that. Frankly, I can think of so many other words that are used on a regular basis to describe women that I would like banned, [I won't list them here, but you know the ones I mean.], but "bossy" is not one of them. I kind of like the word "bossy". My mother is "bossy" and my grandmothers were "bossy". My aunt who owned her own business was certainly "bossy". I guess I can say I come from a long line of "bossy" women, so I am proud of my "bossy" lineage. But now, I am supposed to feel ashamed of that I embrace my lineage.

What are we teaching our young women these days? The messages are so mixed that it's hard to tell what we are supposed to be. But banning words we don't like because it might hurt our feelings, especially a word like "bossy" is just weak and whiny. Michelle Malkin wrote a wonderful response to this campaign Ban Bossy? No - Be Bossy! and I must say it is spot on. Like Ms. Malkin, I was a very shy and compliant child afraid of my own opinion and not fitting in. And like her, I grew frustrated with, as Malkin puts it, "...liberal white women...pretending to speak for me". [Yeh, Gloria Steinem, I talking to you!] And, like Malkin, I began to realize that "...I wasn’t held back by how others perceived me. I was held back by how I perceived myself." And in that moment of clarity, I embraced my "inner bossy" and took responsibility with who I am and what I think. I took ownership of me.

In the famous Helen Reddy feminist anthem of 1975, the lyric is "I am Woman, Hear me Roar", not "I am woman, hear me whine about how I can't achieve anything because someone may call me "bossy"...

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...