“In this climate, I can well imagine that people are scared to death to show the slightest romantic interest in anybody in the workplace, for fear that they’ll be accused of “sexual assault.” How are people supposed to meet each other for normal human courtship, then? I ask this as the father of two sons and a daughter. I don’t want these kids to grow into adults who sexually harass or who are sexually harassed. But I also worry about false accusations that could ruin them professionally and personally. If you aren’t worried about this too, you aren’t paying attention.”
(Yes, I do actually enjoy reading Rod and I think the Benedict Option is a worthy alternative.)
While the left has been annihilating any of the Christian moral foundations to American law and culture, they haven’t come up with any coherent worldview to indoctrinate the populace and the “identity” based alternatives they offer have caused a backlash from people who don’t want to turn the other cheek.
In fact, they don’t even care about being Christian. It’s a nominal thing for them just like it is for those Muslims who were born into it, but prefer life in the West with booze, drugs, and fast sex. They have no “faith” to hold them back to the moral high ground.
Indeed, a wake-up call for those who were convinced that the less “religious” people became, the more “progressive” and educated they would become. I suppose Trump’s election are making a few on the left quite woke.
Now remember, when prudish backward bigoted Christians pointed out the Pandora’s box that would be unleashed with unbridled and encouraged sexual degeneracy, they were dismissed, ridiculed, and of course labeled.
Now that the box is open and the Titans are wreaking havoc without restraint. Women, like men, were encouraged by feminists to engage in sexual deviancy and meaningless hook-ups in a culture and system that still retained the foundations and some men influenced by the Christian moral framework.
That’s gone. Tinder is here, and everyone is meat.
Those of us who don’t lie to ourselves know that men and women respond to sex differently and that women regret one night-stand far more than men. Obviously sex being more emotional for women and physical for men is misogyny.
Well, now the cultural identity left is forced to scramble to rectify the new imbalances created when they opened Pandora’s box. That includes the “Dear Colleague” letter on Title IX, an ungodly obsession with “sexual assault”, the constant attacks on “toxic masculinity”, demonizing of any male spaces, and an overall attempt to make men pay – in anyway possible – for pumping and dumping.
It has already turned the dating scene for many men – and women – into a nightmare. High insane unreasonable standards are thrust into normalcy. Blue collar men are thrown out of pool right away and single mothers and divorced women in their late 30s to early 40s are treated as potential booty calls at most.
The Depressing World Our Children Will Inherit
I try to avoid a pessimistic mindset when it comes to the future, but in this situation and circumstance the current reality seems to be growing worse. Me and my wife have two young infant sons.
What will the dating world look like for them when they go out and try to find a woman worthy of marriage? (Which means definitely not in the workplace anymore.)
As their Father, I will impart into them all of the “Red Pill” knowledge and wisdom I’ve accrued – admittedly not that much compared to better men out there. However, I fear they will be punished for their realistic attitudes, noble intentions, and their eventual ascent into manhood.
Rod makes a good point as to the kind of world our kids are going to enter when it comes to trying to find a spouse. I too am wondering just how far this insanity is going to go – on top of the increased hatred of men that my sons are certain to experience in a bleak future.
If they go through a similar “prodigal son” phase as I did, will it cost them everything? Will I have to tell them to video record their encounters just in case they have bad judgement?
If “affirmative” consent is being seriously considered – which it has via implementation as law in places like California, what will that mean when my sons engage in actual flirting, mannerisms, and “game” that makes women actually want to talk to them, date them, etc? Will asking a girl out immediately equate to “sexual harassment”?
Before I met my wife, I would go to bars with friends. I recall one time where a semi-drunk girl came up to me and started grinding on my body a bit as I was standing with my back turned to her. She also kissed my neck. She gave me that “Ewww” vibe.
I didn’t see her as attractive and I wasn’t looking for an easy bang/getting laid that night – more of a guys night out – so I nicely and gently pushed her away and went to the other side of the bar. I wasn’t harsh about it, but it took a bit of effort to claw her off me so to speak.
I didn’t give her permission. I certainly wasn’t “inviting” it with my demeanor and behavior at the time. Was it sexual harassment or even sexual assault? If you accept the feminist concept of it, then you bet your ass it is. Should I post #MeToo and try to find out who this girl is shame her, get her fired from her job, etc? Apparently so.
Rod links to a series of tweets by Cathy Young who makes some astute points on what we are unleashing:
On the other end, I’ve done similar things. I’m a firm believer in physical touch and slow escalation when mingling out in public – granted touching ones arm, shoulder, etc. If a girl didn’t like it, they usually moved away from me or in the very rare case would tell me not to touch them. That was the end of it.
So it comes down to that “permission” concept. The sexual revolution and it’s current sense of how any kind of sexual anything goes doesn’t seem to reconcile with how sex and human interaction works. Yet the irrational idea of “affirmative consent” is making its way out of colleges and into law.
It used to be a given that if you were with someone, even married to them, usually you didn’t need “permission” to initiate affection with them. Now this is under scrutiny, if not direct assault.
My wife doesn’t get “affirmative consent” from me when she wakes me up in the middle of the night when she’s feeling a sudden burst of passion. Sometimes I go with it, sometimes I end up pushing her off – both often in a semi sleep state which she tells me about in the morning. (In my defense, I have a high sex drive, but wifes is even higher.)
By the logic coming from these people on “sexual harassment/assault” every couple must be doing it to each other every day. Sometimes I’m tired and I don’t feel like having sex, but I oblige my wife who desires the release. Again feminists will find it border line rapey – diminishing the true horror the concept should incur within us.
We let this sexual “freedom” out of the bottle, but we never did examine those implicit parameters which guided it prior. We assumed the nature of the beast would be enjoyed in the same way it was before. Now people are finding out everything has to be “set in stone” to the point of killing how humans sexuality and romance actually occurs.
Now we are in for a turbulent unpredictable future – something that doesn’t bode well for allowing a society to remain stable.
“They said you were touching girl’s asses,” the school’s principle, Diane, who had called me in for my transgressions. Luckily for me, she was a nice lady who was interested in at least hearing what this criminal had to say.
This was nonsense. I was just playing hard. What the hell was she talking about? We are playing sports together!
Reflecting On My Sins
In the end, I was blindsided and ended up fessing up to something I really hadn’t done, because I didn’t want to get in any more trouble. It was as if I had come out on top, but my victory had been tossed away due to steroid use.
My persecutors were two girls in particular who were actually both 8th graders, who also had a hard on for me that wasn’t sexual in the slightest, but rather one in which they vindictively felt better by helping to bully a kid like me who was already somewhat of an “outcast”. I knew it was them, but what could I do? It would be one of the first times I realized girls fought behind your back with words, unlike boys who would fight with fists before your eyes.
I hadn’t touched their asses as much as I had bumped into them or their boobs trying to catch the football before they did when we jumped in to the air. They wanted to play with us, afterall. I figured that if the girls wanted to play with the rest of us boys, we of course shouldn’t treat them any differently. I was very competitive and to quote A Day To Remember, “2nd Sucks,” and letting the girls who were also playing with us get the ball instead of me felt like a violation of what every boy usually wants when it comes to a competition; to win. In order to do that, I had to play hard.
Boy, was I wrong.
It didn’t even matter that I wasn’t really attracted to fine bootys, and still am not till this day. I remember explaining my situation to another classmate who related how he got in trouble for the same thing – though I don’t know if it was intentional, but now I suspect it wasn’t. Apparently I got off easier as I was becoming a charmer even at 12.
I was a spunky somewhat nerdy 6th grader, who liked to play hard. Yes, I was still a geeky booky nerd who enjoyed board & table top games along with PC games, but I liked to tumble, so to speak, and I was desperate to prove my capabilities to the rest of my classmates who still viewed my poorly groomed self as someone to be made fun of. Recess was my favorite part of school usually, and I looked forward to it as a way to finally get out of my seat and prove myself on the playground.
Soccer was very popular at my school, and we all played it. I knew that proving myself on the field during recess and lunch time would at least give me some measure of respect in the eyes of my “bully” who the soccer god at school and whose words shaped opinions on just about everything. It was one of my first exercises in masculinity – proving my worth.
This included the girls, some of them who were pretty damn good. At first, I would slide tackle them as I would anyone else, however when I did, I always received some kind of scorn if one of them got “hurt” during the tackle. Even if I was treating girls equally in how I played and competed with them, I was still “bad”, if they got hurt in the process. The “protector” instinct manifested itself with the rest of my male classmates and those who violated it – even in an unknown demonstration of “equality” on the playground – would know about it.
I can recall another time when another female teacher – she was a good lady – pulled me aside off the field after several of the girls playing along with us complained I was playing too hard and was acting “crazy” in my desire to win the ball back. She told me something along the lines of how she understand how I played hard, but the girls didn’t. Imagine me in a similar situation in the present day.
Now that I think about it, if I was now in sixth grade in a public school, I could have been accused of sexual harassment for my rough play. It didn’t even cross my mind at the time, but considering how hostile public schools now are to young males, I could have been railroaded because the teachers would have already assumed I was inappropriately touching female classmates during physical play at recess. Even more unfortunate is that with teachers and staff being 90% female, they might not understand the rough play isn’t sexual in nature, even if they have sons, because it is the age in which boys often have just hit puberty.
Even if they do realize the above and choose not to play with the girls, they can still get in trouble for excluding the girls, specifically if some demand to play with them. Of course the boys shouldn’t have to worry about the risks of accidentally touching or brushing up against them the wrong way, and should be happy to use the time as a reason to connect with those girls later and get to know them better. (At least that’s what I tried to do at the age because most girls didn’t like drawing pictures of Sonic , playing Tony’ Hawks Pro Skater 2, or nerding out to tabletop games.)
Occasionally, I’ll play floor hockey that’s technically “co-ed” on Sunday nights and I’ve noticed I’m afraid to play hard against any girls – the ones who actually show up – for fear that if they get hurt, I’ll be looked at like some form of Hitler.
Some co-ed sport activities aren’t a bad time, but if you want to unleash your inner competitive animal, it won’t happen when your afraid of accidentally hurting someone else’s wife or girl in front of the entire gym. The guys only floor hockey I played in a few times on Thursday’s demonstrated the satisfying feeling of not having to worry about holding back, so much so in fact, that there’s almost been a few fights with the smell of sweat rank in the air.
I feel bad for young boys today who want to play hard with their female classmates, but when they do, realize that there are unexpected consequences for embracing the “equality message” preached in schools, which wont be an acceptable defense when they end up brushing up against the ass of the wrong high-school queen who might exact vengeance through both white knights and school staff on the lookout for sexual harassment.
Note I went to a private Christian school for 6th grade, with well-meaning staff and teachers.
Inspiration from 2nd sucks comes from this song, which I will admit, moshing to anytime it’s played live.
Disclosure: I’ve recently talked a bit with Ben via digital means. He also points out that he does not identify as a feminist.
Ben was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
The vengeance for all of the cat-calls, all of the “creepy” men with their ingrained misogynistic awkwardness, and the sum of all “harassment” that they had ever experienced was visited upon Ben. His apology was scorned. These militant feminists; they know not what they do.
Or do they?
You terrible male cis shitlords, check your privilege.
It wasn’t until this week that I found out who Ben Schoen was. He is actually the the owner of Feminspire and what one would call an equality feminist – similar to that of Christina Hoff Summers. Arguably, he’s put a lot of time, effort, and resources into fighting the good feminist fight.
But, based on a series of interactions that certain feminists didn’t approve of, none of that mattered at all. Anything he had done to help women was all thrown out the window. Today in popular feminist online blogging and academic culture, the burden of the sinful male feminist is a tough, exhausting, un-rewarding, soul-sucking, and constant mandate to prove the support they have for their female feminist masters.
Ben’s mistake was one he was born with, one that all of us terrible male shitlords who breathe oppression suffer from on a daily basis – he is male.
This is the original sin of not just 3rd wave feminism, but of much of today’s social justice tripe that focuses on only your biology, while entirely ignoring your character.
The Entitled Interaction
Our story begins with a message to a Buzzfeed writer, Grace Spelman who decided to air all of their personal dirty laundry which started this twitter lynch mob – something that should surprise none of you. (Note that when I tweeted at Ben, she suddenly followed me then blocked me. I reciprocated the favor.)
Ben used to be involved in a Harry Potter fan podcast and she friended him on Facebook because of that podcast about eight years ago. Forward to present day and a certain site had an article on Grace’s twitter – or instagram – profile as one with 10k followers that people should check out.
Well, he did just that and realized he knew her. He then sent her several tweets, to which she didn’t respond. So he sent her a message though Facebook, one that I must admit while somewhat humorous was awkward. (Another reason why men should learn about Game.)
Then he moved to Facebook. I politely told him I was seeing someone and then blocked him on FB & Twitter pic.twitter.com/k84dCJ3OrT
Consider some of the gems Grace has written for Buzzfeed.
“30 Shirts For The Weirdos In Your Life” with the sub header, “Embrace Your Inner Weirdo”. Besides all the shirts apparently being made off Zazzle’s shirt maker in 30 seconds, that inner weirdo embrace definitely didn’t seem to apply to Ben.
18 Pickup Lines You Should Try Immediately” I particularly enjoyed “6. I noticed your arm grazed against my sweater. Pretty soft, huh? Go ahead, feel it. Do you know what it’s made of? Cashm-—CRAP, I mean, “boyfriend material.” I’m sorry. I’m really nervous.“
18 Sexts You’d Actually Love To Get. My personal favorite, “About to go through your Facebook and like all your profile pictures.” That’s not at all creepy and stalkerish that every male feminist should embrace…
Ben would then send her an apology though email, which would be the last contact he would have with her.
It was here that Ben made a crucial mistake; he apologized to this nasty harpy innocent glorious snowflake princess worthy of all admiration. His mistake is highlighted in Mike Cernovich’s excellent post, “How To Survive A Public Shaming” which I suggest you all read and thoroughly take to heart, because any of you male feminists – no matter how devoted to the cause – could become next.
What remains to be seen is why Grace felt compelled to publish the messages and emails, despite the apology. No, I’m joking. Never, ever, apologize to people like her. They don’t want an apology, they want blood.
They would get that blood when Spelman shared these conversations between them available to the ever controversy and outrage hungry feminist audience. (In all fairness, Ben did express his fustration on twitter before Spelman made these public.)
The Bleeding Frenzy
The timing of this was of course fantastic. It all happened right during the hashtag prominence of #ThingsFeminstMenHaveSaidToMe. A male villain to go with the tag had just presented himself and confirmation bias would strike a vicious blow with Ben as its target.
Eight hit pieces came within a matter of 72 hours from sites that all publish articles concerning Feminism and how it also care’s about men. I thought I was a terrible piece of sexist misogynistic male anti-feminist racist homophobic transphobic ableist trash, but I would have nothing on one of their own, namely Ben Schoen.
I didn’t even bother linking the hordes of other ones off blogs. I’d estimate there are over 100 different sites which covered his terrible misogynistic actions. These actions of his were of course so atrocious, that they make women cower in fear for their very lives every time they sneak a look at Twitter, read an email, or browse through Facebook in search of the powerful patriarchal oppressors who control every aspect of society.
These articles would direct thousands of tweets to Ben’s twitter, all telling him what a terrible misogynistic piece of shit he was. His tweets specifically were pointed out as tweet rape harassment as tweeting at someone must be a consensual activity governed by enthusiastic, clear, and concise verbal consent.
Feminist hurricane Spelman would continue to rage, but she would make one very interesting admission concerning why she didn’t accept the apology. This might not be as ideological driven on her part as I initially thought.
That angry mob spewing threats, harassment at Ben, and every other vicious form of Twitter rape at him was funny. I think we know who the real victim is here Scoob.
Yea, she found it funny, but the lynch mob angered over his vicious retaliatory responses to her “rejection” didn’t and they would continue to go after Ben.
This was all deliberately blown out of proportion for the sake of the cause – the unwilling martyrs of #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe – don’t matter.
The supposed sin that Ben committed was that he didn’t respond the “right” way – according to SJW feminist dogma- about how to handle his “rejection”. He was accused of the usual “male entitlement” when it comes to conversations with women. Observe the tactic from the NewYorkMag:
“The whole exchange is pretty emblematic of the inherent difficulties of rejecting men, both online and off. Women are frequently made to toe a line between being polite enough to not set off the suitor, but not so polite that their manners are interpreted as flirting.
“You can’t win in these types of situations,” Spelman told the Cut. “Even if you are polite in your rejection, they’ll demand that you tell them WHY you did it. It’s just a mixture of entitlement and the fragility of the ego … Because you don’t know how they’re going to handle it, you don’t know if you should be afraid or not.”
“I still am not quite sure if I should be scared of this guy or not,” she added.”
Considering who the mob’s pitchforks have been stabbing, I’d say Ben should be scared.
Now reverse the genders for a moment, and you will notice that this same concept of “entitlement” in regards to conversations between the genders is not applied. You will also notice a specific expectation – or dare we say entitlement – by feminist women as to how men should respond to “rejection” in conversations.
Who are the real entitled one’s here?
Rhetorical question, shitlord. Of course it’s us terrible male cis straight oppressors.
You will respond how they think you should, or you will be castigated with every “ist” and “ism” under the sun. They don’t care about the women and angry girlfriends in the thousands of YouTube videos who are destroying their ex’s car, home, possessions, and property. In fact, it’s considered funny. Humorous.
Now could Ben have initially handled it better?
Is it “harassment”?
No, not even close. But that’s the key tactic at play. If you can label this as harassment, Ben is a complete and utter shitlord, despite how ACTUAL interactions between men and women occur.
This is as much “harassment” as is Dish sending you two more additional letters asking if you would renew your Cable subscription with them.
Observe some of this BS
@GraceSpelman It reads like your typical sexual harassment case. Guy offers the promise of employment in exchange for fringe benefits.
You know what’s worse then being called a slut? Being called a creep. People at least want something from sluts. They prefer to completely avoid creeps. It’s not enough to shoot someone down, you have to label him in to practically an untouchable for his awkward approaches. That’s the kind of forgiving 3rd wave feminism encourages.
Think of what this entire situation implies to all male feminists out there.
Have an interest in a girl who is an ardent feminist and you are a male feminist?
Don’t bother. You are a manipulative oppressive betraying shitlord who is taking advantage of her trust placed in you as a worthless slave ally. In fact, expressing interest is harassment and a manifestation of Patriarchy, so back the hell away and check your privilege for the 1000th time today.
Obviously, you should wait for her to express interest in you, and if that never happens, too bad. Sit down, and shut up. Listen in silence like the slaves you are and make sure to kiss her shoes while you are bowing down, face to the ground.
The Disposable Cannon Fodder Ally
I ask myself, “How can one allow themselves to be treated with such disrespect and dehumanization?” Female feminists take their male allies for granted, that is why. They demand respect, but refuse to offer any in return.
Respect is earned, not given. Until male feminists realize this, they will be treated like dirt and disposable tampons for purely emotional use and support. Ben was then further accused of harassing her by threatening her job. Well, let’s look at what he said.
The so-called threat was Ben hinting that he was going to check Buzzfeed’s policies on the matter. Ben’s response:
Your article is printing a flat out lie. I never threatened her career. She started posting private emails and I said I would let her bosses know as that is against the policy of many media companies.
Of course, this was made out to be vicious harassment, despite the fact that companies like Buzzfeed have policies about not publishing people’s private emails and correspondence. As the infamous shitlord Vox Day has said, “SJWs always lie.”
Regarding his own employment, the mob would wish him well:
They literally blew up his private life, bringing up conflict between him and his ex-girlfriend who had been the co-partner of the site before he bought her out. His side of what happened in their relationship was irrelevant to their narrative.
Ben would go on a livestream with infamous and now Twitter banned Chuck Johnson to explain his side of the story.
During the interview Ben points out that he still identifies as a feminist – don’t ask me why he tortures himself. He did however make a key distiniction about it, “I am sincere about being a feminist when feminism truly means equality.”
Considering modern day feminism has nothing to with “equality” when men are the subject of conversation, that will happen when pigs fly across the English Channel.
Notice something else about these harpies; Both Ben and Chuck were attacked during their interview for their weight.
So much for Fat Acceptance.
While it’s amusing that they think grade-school like insults based on someone’s physical appearance will hurt them or their arguments, it highlights an internal inconsistency in the “fat is beautiful” crowd; the body positive image part of intersectionality -another faux cause feminism claims to advocate for – is subject specifically to the person in question.
If you don’t personally like them, that oppressive male shitlord should feel not only creepy, but ashamed of his overweight exterior which apparently is not very beautiful at all.
I have a question for you male feminists: Why do you let these small groups of malcontent harpies dictate no only how you should act, but how the rest of us of how should behave and respond in interactions between “insert marginalized/oppressed group here” and whoever else seems to rank lower in the progressive stack?
This whole fiasco and public shaming debacle is what happens to male feminists who are “Allies” and mess up – even slightly – regardless of their apologies. Yet woman like, Bahar Mustafa who writes #KillAllWhiteMen and bans certain people from diversity meetings because of their biology isn’t condemned or called out, but rather affirmed as an SJW of courage? She messed up that bad, and no lesser white feminists of note/faux journalists even called her out.
Speaking of her, shes actually Turkish. Turkey is a nation that has been oppressing everyone around it for over 500 years. Fun Fact: Talking about the Armenian genocide there is illegal, let alone acknowledging it, I consider her an oppressor whose privileged ancestors brutally murdered, oppressed, enslaved, subjugated, and genocided my ancestors for hundreds of years deeply and profoundly triggers me. Her ancestors are one of the primary reasons my ancestors have a hell of alot less today than they should have.
Back to you male feminists: You are considered scum of the earth by radical female feminists. Everyone else matter and needs a voice – except you. Your role is to listen and shutup. R.S. Mccain sums it up well, “Feminists who say their movement is about “equality” are lying. Feminism is a movement about power — absolute and unlimited power — and therefore the first rule for men in feminist movements is, SHUT UP. “
These man-haters aren’t even trying to hide it, in fact they are deliberately trying to make your life hell. Ever heard of Kafkatrapping? It’s a rather devious, sinister, and merciless tactic used to intimidate and bully “allies”.
“No matter how “nice” you are to a feminist, she will never respect you. The feminist always mistakes male kindness for weakness, and is incapable of gratitude toward males, so that being “nice” to her will only serve to convince her of how infinitely contemptible you are — a servile lackey, a fawning slave who appeals to her sadistic impulses.”
Here’s a confession: I’ve slept with two self-identifying feminists who were well aware of what I think about feminism and social justice. It didn’t matter. Ever wonder why they choose to sleep with “misogynistic sexist deuchebags” like myself instead of their male servants who think all the right things but aren’t ever seen as even the slightest romantic and/or sexual possibilities? (Of course being attractive, good at sex, in good shape, and having some game greatly helps, as it did in my case.)
The call-out culture these feminists in their Twitter lynch mob happily engage in as they target Ben is toxic. However, when fighting a war involving scorched earth – I mean men who have their lives and reputations deliberately destroyed to try to make them permanently unemployable (Yes, some women as well) – I encourage all of you to engage in like reciprocity of call-outs and shaming with feminists who throw the first punch.
Fight back. Stop calling yourself a feminist, because the movement isn’t just not about men, it despises them. There are men and women out there who actually care about you and want you to succeed and prosper as a man, despite the tripe and lies feminists spew about them.
“As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are sceptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests.Solidarity should motivate the privileged in their struggle for change, not self interest; to make an analogy, it would be offensive and misguided to ask the black leaders of the Ferguson movement against police violence to tout the benefits of anti-racism to white people. Likewise, feminists should not be obliged to sell feminism to angry men.”
“But I would offer another analogy: when we combat fascism, it behooves us to offer an alternative to those that fascists would recruit. We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.”
Avoid vicious women and men like this. Avoid people who label themselves as such feminists and constantly use social media to go after people’s jobs. They don’t care about you. They only care about your original sin- that you were born with the wrong set of genitals.
—— Grace Spelman has had her spotlight, online fame, and reputation boosted from this encounter from the internet trampling of Ben. Evidence of this and her hypocrisy will be exposed and documented in a later article.
The Daily Dot and the rest of the feminist sympathetic internet sphere – emphasis on Salon – came out with fists clenched with yet another cultural scalp; “mantouching”. This accursed and wretched action has most recently been noticed at the pinnacle of the political liberal and hollywood elite – Joe Biden and John Travolta.
At the Oscars – a presentation of rich people giving awards to each other – Travolta mustered up all of Saturday Night Fever self and touched the face of Idina Menzel. Nico Lang, the author of the piece described this travesty in a very visual way,”felt up”. Human faces are getting closer and closer to becoming interchangeable with our private areas. No, I don’t think hes trolling.
Before I go any further – remember that Nico Lang is a cis-white homosexual male which immediately means that he is guilty of “gay misogyny” and white cis privledge. Everything he says that involves women should be assumed to be an act of atrocious mansplainingwith deliberate Patriarchal menace.
Let’s call a spade a spade. This majestic article is meant to make men mad and to coddle the heartstrings of the usual rad-feminist choir.
At this point, I don’t know how many more sharks this “4th wave” feminism can jump. Perhaps a few more. Nico – that cis white male full of privilege -begins to enlighten us with a context involving “manspreading” and it being a means of male dominance and a “performance of masculinity”
“Mantouching operates in a similar way. It’s an assertion of one’s masculinity, at the expense of the personal comfort of those around you. When a man touches a woman without asking, he’s doing so because he feels entitled to access to her body. For him, it might feel like a meaningless or friendly gesture. After all, what’s the matter with touching the small of a woman’s back? It’s not like you’re sexually assaulting her.”
Think about that for a moment. If you are male and you touch ANYONE, its an assertion of masculinity that comes at the expense of the comfort of the victims you violate with your touch. We can only assume that these kinds of vicious assaults are being conducted at an all time high in Eastern Europe, The Middle East, ect. I can only begin to guess how feminist dogma such as “multiculturalism” fits into this detestable mantouching.
“While a recent Cosmo survey showed that an alarmingly high 1 in 3 women reported beingsexually harassed in the workplace at some point in their lives, the prevalence of mantouching is likely much higher, simply because no one ever talks about it.”
If we throw mantouching into the category of “sexual assault” which rad-feminists secretly desire, that 1 in 3 should escalate to a 3 in 3 women being harassed at a rate equal to atrocities like the Rape Of Nanking. Maybe that’s the goal of these internet rad-feminists. Our mansplaining friend concludes his lecture with this piece of wisdom:
“You might not think a pinched cheek or a shoulder caress is something to lose sleep over. But the next time you see a man put his hand on the small of a woman’s back, look at her eyes. Look at her smile. If you’re looking closely enough, I bet you can see her faking it. I bet you can see how painful it really is.”
Let’s open up Pandora’s Box of nasty unintended and un-anticipated consequences when we apply this standard to all genders – however many there supposedly are anymore. Waitress incidentally touches me. Sexual assault. Co-Worker puts hand on my shoulder. Sexual assault.
How far is this shit going to go?
That was somewhat rhetorical, because it’s going to go very far before people are finally rudely awakened. Soon physical consent/non-verbal consent won’t be enough. It will be too vague. I predict there will eventually be an attempt to mandate consent through only “verbal” means.
Even that won’t be enough. A verbal yes might not even mean “yes” when you’ve requested that now awkward feeling hug.
I had the fortune of finding an article posted about 4 weeks ago on “We Hunted The Mammoth” in which the sites owner and noted male feminist – David Futrelle – promoted an article on The New Statesmen about how liberating men sexually would bring about an end to the problems women face concerning sexism.
Liberation usually sounds like a phenomenal idea. Well, what kind of liberation is the the author – a dominatrix by trade named Margaret Corvid – talking about?
Let’s get started. There are plenty of anticipated attacks on MRA’s, the manosphere, and the ever present Patriarchy. Before we go any further, she makes a very important point about feminism and how it relates to men.
“As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are skeptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests.”
Straight from the horses mouth. It’s statements like this that should convince anyone with a pair of testicles that any men’s issues the feminist movement claims to advocate for are at most lip service. When it comes to the lip service, she barely even does that with her suggested feminist skepticism of anything that appeals to “men’s interests.”
The sexual liberation she talks about later will specifically not appeal to the interest of most men in the general population. Throughout this piece she implies, but never explicit states this idea that men should be vulnerable during sex. However, the kind of vulnerability she refers to is that of men being dominated or “penetrated”.
“He is allowed to penetrate, but not to be penetrated; to control, but not to surrender; to enjoy the grace, sensuality, and sex appeal of a woman, but never to wish to express these traits himself.”
Okay, fine. What disturbs me is that she continually suggests that men who don’t enjoy or being dominated are somehow suppressing their full sexuality. Perhaps its not fear preventing an embrace of this kind of sexuality, but rather a majority of men who really don’t want anything put up their ass.
Even now, what feminism asks of men – that they be conscious of their privilege and respect the agency of women – can lead them to truly satisfying intimate relationships.
Notice how she mentions that being aware of privilege and “respecting the agency of women” whatever that actually means and/or exactly how one goes about that somehow equates to satisfying intimate relationships.
Think about that. Since when has checking, being aware, and acknowledging, one’s privilege automatically translated to successful intimacy in relationships? Acknowledging your male privilege isn’t going to get your wife or girl-friend to put out more. It’s not going to land you any dates.
In fact, I would suggest that “privileged” checking in front of women for well intentioned reasons of modern SJWs communicate a lack of confidence and assertiveness. It is the equivalent of undermining yourself – which essentially destroys your chances of landing that date.
Later she makes a similar claim in the ending to this piece:
“For men, a true feminism offers liberation and sexual fulfillment, through the very process of coming to a fuller understanding of their privileges, and burdens, under patriarchy. “
Quite an assumption. Again, how? Having a full and thorough understanding of your burdens doesn’t translate to liberation and/or sexual fulfillment.
“We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.“
Yet again, I don’t think the answer to sexual frustration for many men is being dominated and/or having things shoved up their ass. Being dominated by a dominatrix might appeal to a small segment of the male population, but what about the rest of us?
“It is feminism that offers men the chance at a sexually fulfilling life. When rape culture is extinguished, when patriarchy subsides, all genders can realize their full sexual expression in safety.”
Checking our privilege and patriarchal burdens doesn’t seem to give us a clear picture and game-plan for improving our sex lives if it doesn’t involve anal penetration by a foreign object. Being forced to rain in our “toxic masculinity” in concern to our sexuality as feminism demands also doesn’t seem to sound like a fulfilling proposition.
I’ll make a brave and shocking assertion; a fulfilling sex life for men can’t be achieved by concentrating specifically on the issues of women and ignoring those of men which today’s radical feminists seem to do quite often.
The more and more I see posts by feminists – particularly the radfems- there appears to be this vitriolic disdain for the penultimate height of evil that infests our world; the ever dangerous white male.
Many of the things said about these “white males” are deemed acceptable statements of “uncomfortable truth” though one would not dare utter similar things about anyone else who either wasn’t white and/or male. Society is full of double-standards which we usually make excuses for with concepts like Standpoint Theory (Privilege) and the notion that if you are supposedly a member of the opposing group in society, you can’t be oppressed, marginalized, disadvantaged, ect. no matter if you are a homeless “white male” on the streets in Chicago’s terrifying winters or not.
A clip from The Amazing Athiest on “Tumblr Feminists” sums up the self-loathing that white males are supposed to feel at all times:
In a feminist’s world, I suppose it’s a good thing I’m only half-white so I experience just a little bit less hate and vitriol.
The internet used to be a rough and tumble place filled with danger, memes, and shocking images. AIM chatrooms and IRC chats were uncharted digital waters; it might be a fellow teenager or someone your grandpa’s ages trying to get in touch with the youth culture. 4Chan and Reddit could still be used as a pleasant shock to confirm to your parents snooping on your browser history that you were indeed being corrupted by contemptible basement dwelling peers.
Since then some have sought to brought order to that Wild West of devious trolling minds. In the last decade we have embraced this odd new idea of “safe spots” in not just where our home page lies, but where we surf, the social media feeds we receive.
Just recently I was appropriately – or inappropriately – given a firm tongue lashing on Facebook for a status remarking my enjoyment of the humor behind a recent Bill Burr standup in which he mentioned a joke he had seen at a restaurant, “We like our beer like our violence; domestic.” Considering the kind of humor I enjoy, I thought this was rather tame. (On that subject, be careful. Even being a Muslim and poking fun at “Trigger Warnings” might not save you from the wrath of SJWs.)
I had just committed one those terrible internet sins of offending someone. Well fuck me, I don’t know how I’ll cope. Now apparently, anything offensive – that could literally beanything these days – needs a trigger warning less the innocent childlike minds of passive observers suffer a PTSD like reaction to the content. But I wouldn’t have given this subject as much thought had a big deal not been made. All good conversations and provoking thought processes start through humor – apparently at someone’s expense.
Invading The Campus
This wouldn’t be as big a deal if were just simply limited to social media. However, it’s started to make its way into our universities – the places where we are supposed to branch out from our sheltered existences on the rural farm and realize how the real world works at a place at an institution of higher learning. Examine Oberlin University, which in a shocking turn of event’s and mass criticism threw the below wisdom out the window.
So what advice did Oberlin have for professors whose course material might contain potential “triggers”? In a section entitled “Understand triggers, avoid unnecessary triggers, and provide trigger warnings” (authors’ emphasis), the guide asked professors to “remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals” and to “[i]ssue a trigger warning” when such material could not be eliminated altogether.
Notice that the professors were asked to remove trigger material. Think of the implications. Are we not going to talk about murder, rape, and genocide in history classes because they could be triggering? How far will/can we go? I guess we should ignore the Armenian genocide and not talk about it because the topic could make students feel uncomfortable or adhering to certain Holocaust deniers in which the subject might make them feel uncomfortable. Got to be tolerant to everyone right?
Oberlin would go farther to indicate what else could could be considered “triggering.
Amazingly, Oberlin also noted that “[a]nything could be a trigger—a smell, song, scene, phrase, place, person, and so on.”
That essentially means that almost every possible space on campus could be considered triggering. The smell of fresh vegetables at the cafeteria could be triggering. What happens when it’s applied to serious topics?
Harvard for example has many students actually request that professors avoid teaching about the law regarding topics like rape. Yea, that’s right – Harvard.
Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
We could have an entire generation of lawyers who aren’t versed in certain fields of law because of just how triggering the topics are. Apply that to other uncomfortable topics and the implications are troubling. Since when did college – or any place of “higher” learning become a center for universities to treat students like children instead of adults? Disgusting. Colleges need to ignore students who call for things like this, Trigger warnings should always be implemented, and force students to investigate all uncomfortable subjects thoroughly. It’s called learning in the real world.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Let’s get some actual perspective on the concept of trigger warnings. The whole idea of “trigger warnings” was at first was to warn people who ACTUALLY had PTSD of content that could make them relapse. An entire new generation of sniveling writers and media however has decided to use trigger warnings for virtually every last damn thing that could possibly be considered, “offensive.” Suprisingly …shudder … Buzzfeed did a thorough and thoughtful expose on the history and current use of the Trigger Warning.
It’s spread to academia into classrooms and Syllabi. Suggestions have been made to give the Bible a trigger warning. What’s next? Huckleberry Finn? Halo? Shakespeare? Will everything at some point have a trigger warning? Finally, some journalists have realized that the abuse of the concept is destroying its validity.
A recent article in The Guardian of all places detailed the overuse of phrase. That right there – the overuse – is the real tragedy here. This “Crying Wolf” via Trigger Warnings is turning the idea into a technique so common that it LOSES its meaning. It is destroying the the actual impact that needed – rarely employed -Trigger Warnings should have.
Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, but fingers can be pointed at the SJW crowd and whatever-the-hell-kind-of-feminist-faction on places like Tumblr, Reddit, ect. Feminist publications such as Ms. Magazine, the appropriately named Bitch Magazine, and Feministe, were among the first to utilize the Trigger Warning (TW). Fun fact: Abusing and marginalizing the idea through the overuse of TWs makes you a bitch.
What this entails is a damning embarrassment to people with actual PTSD, not people who have uncomfortable experiences being cat-called in public. Besides the hypocritical ignorance of “multiculturalism” think of the horror! This nonsense trivializes people who have actual PTSD. What does real PTSD look like? Let’s take a look through the annals of history which most of our population have forgotten existed – and we keep wondering why history keeps repeating itself. We shall start with shell-shock the ancestor and real first example of PTSD after combat.
Let’s look at another video on the subject and pay close attention to 2:11-2:25. That reaction to just an officer’s red hat is real and actual PTSD.
Imagine knowing someone who reacts to nothing, except the word “bomb.” Or a friend who develops a facial muscle tick after having stabbed/bayoneted someone in the face. A French soldier in World War 1 wrote about the brutal environment of the battle of Verdun and what he describes is what gives cause to real PTSD
“At Verdun the ones who have suffered the most are the wounded and, along with them, the stretcher-bearers who transport them. Some of the bearers carry them from the front lines all the way to our post (1.5 kilometers); other ones take them in order to carry them off to Fleury and, having arrived there, the wounded have almost another 2 kilometers to go by stretcher before they can be transported by car. Imagine such a trip under the shells which hardly ever stop, through a landscape full of shell holes, tree trunks, and wrecked wire, through deep mud and, in certain areas, through clay where the stretcher-bearers sink down all the way to their waists, being forced to call for help to get themselves out of difficulty…”
“Anyone who has not seen these fields of carnage will never be able to imagine it. When one arrives here the shells are raining down everywhere with each step one takes but in spite of this it is necessary for everyone to go forward. One has to go out of one’s way not to pass over a corpse lying at the bottom of the communication trench. Farther on, there are many wounded to tend, others who are carried back on stretchers to the rear. Some are screaming, others are pleading. One sees some who don’t have legs, others without any heads, who have been left for several weeks on the ground…”
Real PTSD isn’t something we should trivialize. Note I’ve just scraped the bottom of the barrel by bringing up examples from World War. I didn’t even bring up soldiers coming back from Overseas back to the States from Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.
These souls with real PTSD actually go out of their way to overcome it. They work with professionals and their fellow soldiers to cope and deal with the PTSD instead of hiding from it and demanding a trigger warning at every street corner and website they encounter. Ignore the Description of the video, but observe again what actual PTSD is.
Even if you have PTSD from something such as rape, demanding a trigger warning and avoiding conversation about the subject won’t heal you. It will simply let the experience continue to dramatically effect your life. All the excuses in the world – no matter how damn valid – won’t change the situation you are in. Get up from your slumber, seek to overcome your problem, and enjoy the life you have! Life is short. You never know how much time you have. Don’t waste it.
P:S: Also gentlemen, we’ve switched our top-secret patriarchy meeting to the underground volcano lair this week which is off the coast of Saudi Arabia.
Bring cigars, fine scotch, and your male privilege cards.