Female Privilege

“You can’t win.”
A poignant observation by Janet Bloomfield @JudgyBitch in her post today that inspired me to rant some more about the hypocrisy of the feminist  perspective. Or, ‘female privilege’.

Most of us know at least one woman (but, let’s be honest, we know of many more or have been this woman, ourselves) that lose control when angry with a man and either physically attack him or scream within inches of his face, the type of woman that incites or all but begs for reciprocating violence. And any man that can resist defending himself from this kind of abuse would possess an extraordinary superhuman power of resolve. Yet, he can’t win. If a woman chooses, she can decide to be both the aggressor of violence AND the victim of the violence she deliberately provokes.

Women generally are less physically powerful than men (excepting individual physical limitations due to age, injury, or disability). The weapon we bring to a fight is our mouth.

Women develop a mastery of verbal assault and manipulation that is destructive to any relationship they use this weapon to fight a man-whether he is her mate or her son.

A woman will provoke or attenpt to provoke violence and then, to ensure that she ultimately wins  her battle,, she knows she will be able to convince law enforcement that she is the victim and have that man removed from his home or arrested.

She can’t lose. Unless, of course, she is dead. Some women play their game too close to the edge and do find themselves on the receiving side of a lethal response.
In my opinion, most men are valiant, not violent, except when provoked. If you provoke a man, you should be equally expect to bear the natural consequences.

But this brings us back to being an adult. Adults both understand and assume responsibility for the natural or logical consequences of their decisions and actions.

Unfortunately, our society is encouraging women to expect that they are not responsible for consequences of their decisions.

They are told that they have the “right” to say what they want however they want to say it, to be as sexually active and provocative as they want wherever they want and to do anything a man does but not anything they don’t want to do (a choice men aren’t given).
And to all that I say..more power to us.

The problem is that we aren’t being held responsible for the consequences of what we do when the results aren’t what we wanted.

It is this absence of balancing “equality” with personal accountability that is creating an insane belief of entitlement that argues from insanely contradictory positions of women being both equal adults and vulnerable children.
It must be one or the other.

Sure, go to a frat party and present yourself as a sexual goddess that is DTF. Get wasted on alcohol or ecstasy and when you begin to regain sobriety during the course of being trained by a half dozen drunk football players, you have a choice to either be an adult and take responsibility for the consequences of the choices you made that led to your miserable condition or you can choose to respond to the humilation you feel by pretending you are a child and blaming everything and everyone but yourself for what any person with common sense would have been capable of recognizing as an unacceptable risk.

And society will eagerly embrace your victimhood and will vilify anyone that suggests you had it coming.
Well, guess what? Fuck you. You had it coming.

To be equal requires bearing equal measure– both good and bad. We don’t get to cherry pick and demand that men need to change everything about themselves in order to accommodate women not having bad consequences they don’t want to be accountable for creating.

If a woman has the right to be sexually active GREAT. And when consequences of sexual activity include an unwanted pregnancy then she needs to be accountable for her part in allowing that to happen.

And if she was impregnated while engaging in sex with a man she had no reason to expect an 18+ year commitment from, she can be an adult and assume full responsibility for what she does with her body or she can act like a victim and make everyone else pay the consequence of her decisions.

We, and by “we” I mean we women who are not altogether, completely bat shit crazy (and any woman who still has estrogen and progesterone cycling up and down every month  probably has to accept this makes her a candidate for being at least a little bat shit  kooky, if not crazy.), really need to open our mouths and call bullshit on the women in our lives when they make these contradictory argunents or give irrational expkanations to justify the stupid choices they make or why consequences don’t apply to them.

Because the truth of the matter is it takes one to know one.
Men can suspect, but women *know* manipulation when they see it.

Just bitching about all those other women that I’m not like is not only useless, it proves the point that it is exactly what I’m like.

I have two adult daughters and they trust me to tell them the truth even when the truth isn’t unicorns and glitter fairies.

My eldest went to a party and drank until she was too intoxicated to manage herself or her surroundings and was molested by a guy who took the opportunity to feel up a hot girl that was too drunk to get away.

Was he a scumbag that I would happily crack across the kneecaps with a baseball bat given the chance? Probably.

Did I respond upon hearing about this by telling my daughter that she was a blameless victim of circumstance in a patriarchal oppressive society infested with rapists and thugs (men)?
No. I did not.

She was reminded of mommy’s definition of empowerment: Own your experience. No matter what it is, if you are an adult with self agency you are only as powerful as your willingness to be 100% accountable for owning your life.

This means never identifying as a victim that is controlled by what others do.

Others do what they do and I get to choose what I feel and do in response. No one makes us feel anything.

If my daughter doesn’t like the way it felt being physically  violated while she was too wasted to protect herself, she can choose not to contribute to the risk it will happen again by making better decisions that ensure she is able to manage herself and her environment and avoid asshats and humiliation. Lesson learned.

And, no, I’m not a cold hearted ignorant bitch. I’m experienced and I’m not afraid of being corrected when I’m wrong. Therefore, I learn and adjust.

But I am all but through being patient with the feminist agenda because it is threatening the future for my own children’s happiness and is encroaching dangerously close to my rights of free expression.

I hate (a word I use sparingly) bullies and as far as I am concerned, feminism is bully with a ‘B’.

And I am not afraid of them because they are completely, absolutely 100% full of their own shit.

Copyright Non-Compliance & VMware


The Software Freedom Conservancy organization is financing the legal costs for a lawsuit filed in a German court against virtualization tech giant, VMware, by Linux kernel contributor Christopher Hellwig.

The suit alleges that VMware has failed to comply properly with the terms of the GPLv2. GPLv2 is the licence of Linux and many other Open Source and Free Software included in VMware’s ESXi products.

And, because of this non-compliance with the GPL licensing terms, certain VMware ESXi products infringed Hellwig’s own copyrights.

Of course, if this is true, Hellwig is not unique in his claims. A simplified explanation of the argument is that VMware has combined Linux source code that is released for use under terms of GPL copyright with proprietary code as ‘vmkernel’

Because vmkernel is distributed as part of a shared binary combined inextricably with components that form ESXi, GPLv2 terms of use would require VMware to provide complete corresponding source code.

By not doing so, the allegation is that vmWare misappropriated Hellwig’s copy written work by using it to create an original product without his permission.

VMware’s defense in part claims that vmklinux
is an “interoperability module” which communicates through a stable interface called VMK API.”

For purposes of the suit in Germany, ‘interoperability’ and ‘interface’ is defined by the European Parliament and of the Council Direction April 23, 2009 “on the legal protection of computer programs”


The function of a computer program is to communicate and work together with other components of a computer system and with users and, for this purpose, a logical and, where appropriate, physical interconnection and interaction is required to permit all elements of software and hardware to work with other software and hardware and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function. The parts of the program which provide for such interconnection and interaction between elements of software and hardware are generally known as ‘interfaces’. This functional interconnection and interaction is generally known as ‘interoperability’; such interoperability can be defined as the ability to exchange information and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

By claiming that their use of Linux source code is used to facilitate interoperability between different manufacturer’s products VMware may be attempting to argue that this falls under fair use as indicated in the same EU Directive, section (15)

The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs.

It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightsholder.

An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together.

[emphasis added]

Hellwig and the SFC dispute this claim. There is an excellent explanation at the FAQ page published by the SFC. There, you’ll find this diagram. A picture worth more than a thousand words.


When I worked at VMware I asked one of the kernel developers in Core Engineering about the claims that ESXi was built atop the linux kernel.
He provided a diagram to me that was surprisingly similar to this one.

But went on to say that they have since moved away from this dependency and it is only the case with certain versions of the server product.

Hmmm. That kind of sounds like the argument Hellwig is making.

If it’s true of Hellwig’s SCSI driver code, it will be true for the network driver, usb driver and storage driver code, as well.

Having seen the vmkernel and vmklinux source when I was with the company, there is little argument that linux source is used. In fact, original open source linux development comments can be seen alongside vmware developer changes in file diffs and that always seemed strange to me, something between the company being either blatantly unconcerned or just sloppily indifferent.

To be fair, I didn’t compile the source or inspect the shared libraries or executable directly by running objdump or studying the makefiles. There were reasons compelling enough in packaging of the builds that were brought up to make sure the interests of our major tech partners that depended on VMware during their own product releases were represented. (Being the person who is solely responsible for speaking up for the interests of other company products in a tech company is a role that begs political suicide. As that person, I might as well have had a big red X painted on my back since the day I started. That was a two year every day fight to fend of career EOL.)

By the way, I am a cheerful contributor of cash donations to the Free Software Foundation and consider Richard Stallman a leader of men and such, in addition to being singularly brilliant. And, if you are a proponent of same, the Software Freedom Conservancy is an excellent organization to donate. I suspect this case will not be resolved before it costs a king’s ransom in legal fees.

Another Feminist Rant


The title may be misleading. This is not another rant by a feminist. I’m ranting, again, about feminists. Because the old feminist behind the curtain is just chugging along, racking up as much damage as her old leathery ass can manage before she dies or gets stabbed by a crazy lesbian lover.

The feminist ideology that was born out of the university educated lesbian radicalism of the 60s and 70s is and always has been a utopian vision based on Marxist principles. Patriarchy is the feminist-speak for Marx’s Capitalism.

Radical feminsit ideology has no tolerance nor use for men that have dominant masculine tendencies towards being competitive, territorial, aggressive and sexually assertive. That would be any guy that likes playing sports to win, gets homicidally protective when his home, his family or his natior is threatened,or doesn’t put up with disrespect from anyone for too long. The guy that wants to be the best at something is the same guy this whack job ideology considers disposable. Given the opportunity, this type of radical would make certain that the only men that inhabited the planet were those proving themselves today to be perfect future workers of the collective: the feminist men, white knights and emasculated men of irrelevant sexual orientation.

Make no mistake about this: the feminist theory that is subtley shifting the social tides of opinion are worse than misandrists. Men are not in this context important enough to invest emotions like hate into. At best, they will tolerate boys that can be androgenized enough to not be problematic, but the rest are useless. If you don’t believe that, go read the books the radical feminists have written. It’s enlightening.
And even though young feminists today have been duped to believe those feminists don’t matter any more because their modern feminism is so much more reasonable and evolved, the truth is that those very same lesbian radical feminists are today in positions of influence and while young women who want to march for their right to be as sexually promiscuous as they are ‘entitled’ to be without having to be afraid they might be ‘raped’, those same old skool womyn are influencing social policy decisions. The media is a whore that will pander to whatever gets attention.

They do this by manipulating the younger generation (have you ever seen a university women’s studies class course syllabus?) to believe they should make lots of noise that gets the attention of the policy makers, the corporate sponsors, the institutions governed by politics sensitive to current social climate like universities, boards of education and local governments.

Once there is sufficient outrage, the agenda movers introduce solutions in the form of new policies and they file legal briefs with the courts to enact laws based on their legal theories.

Radicalism is free from the constraints of ethics and morality. It is the religion of ends justifying the means, even if they are violent means. Whatever it takes to meet the objective is acceptable and expected. To assume a feminist is not lying would be, logically speaking, a potential insult since lying is certainly a means of get what one wants.

First, they will suppress the freedom of self expression by controlling speech, print and film. The incubator is currently the internet. All the policing of the words people use and the hypersensitive response to everything as online violence and harassment and hate speech is clearing the path for the agenda pushers to introduce policies that seem to the majority of people who don’t know any better like the right thing to do.

People who aren’t nice shouldn’t say anything at all, anyway, right?

Catharine MacKinnon at Brattle Theatre, Cambridge, MA May 2006

One of these women is Catharine MacKinnon. You might not remember this old skool feminist, but Catharine can be given complete credit for single handedly creating the sexual harassment laws enacted in the 1970s. MacKinnon wrote the legal theory that she pushed and pushed to be reviewed and then when the perfect storm of circumstances presented themselves (were artificially constructed), she managed to successfully have that legal theory tested and approved by the courts.
In case you aren’t sure if MacKinnon did the world any favors, here is a quote of MacKinnon from the book “One Word”:

“The law of equality and the law of freedom of speech are on a
collision course in this country,”

And Katharine would know because she’s one of the attorneys who has been at the forefront of the anti-pornography movement. Think what you will of pornography, but the freedoms that currently protect it from being censored are exactly the same freedoms that Katharine MacKinnon’s feminist ideology intend to suppress because the freedom to express opposition is an obstacle to getting their way.

I could go on this train for an even more inconsiderate amount of reading space, so I’ll make myself stop and just say that I’m really fucking glad there are other women out there that smell the bull shit and understand the damage these fanatics are doing to our children and their future. Why can’t they just trundle off to their own island together and be gross where no one else has to be bothered so the women that aren’t crazy have a chance to correct what’s been whacked out of alignment, clean up the mess that we’ve made and start raising our children in a way that gives them a hopeful life to look forward to in a society that isn’t contaminated with mutants.

Social Non-Science

After watching a series of fascinating videos in the filmed documentary that led to The Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) closing Norway’s Gender Studies Institute (NIKK),  I was inspired to make some associations with something else I was reading in another browser tab about bullshit.

Harry Frankfurt wrote of bullshit and bullshitters:

Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attentionto it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

In this paradigm of truth, there are truth tellers, liars and bullshitters.

If you watch the videos (that have subtitles in English, btw),  social scientists responsible for  social policy based on Scandinavia’s flagship “Gender Theory” were confronted on several politically controversial subjects with actual scientific data from bona fide scientists (you know, the ones that use something called the scientific method).

images (2)You can start with this one about gender equality.

Almost each and every one of them, when asked why the scientific data contradicted the key tenets of their answers about race, gender identity, gender roles and sex, the response, almost verbatim was “the science isn’t interesting” or “science isn’t important to consider”.

The height of intellectual dishonesty and refusal to even allow scientific findings in to the conversation is, frankly, stunning. I highly recommend watching them, yourself, because I sincerely doubt I can do them the justice they deserve when I attempt to describe just how inane the “social scientists” rationalized their work to suppress any conflicting knowledge from biologists, evolutionary geneticists, and medical doctors. In their world view, the public cannot handle the truth and it is better to not to know what isn’t helpful to society *as they have determined is or is not helpful, obviously.

So, that makes them the perfect example of Franfurter’s bullshitters: people that don’t bother even acknowledging the truth when it’s available, but makes up stories in their head they tell society because it is closer to what their vision of utopia looks like.

Instead of scientific standards, they follow political standards. This should be justification enough to change the name from social science to social theory, as a very generous compromise. Personally, I would opt for social sycophants.

And a great example of the hypocrisy of ‘sexism’ in Finland can be found right here.

Not All Equality is Created Equally

And in our attempt to empower the weak, we empowered no one.

This is the phrase I read this morning in a post from my blog roll feed that stuck with me all day. The article itself is definitely worth every bit of the read and I’m grateful it included this phrase because it was nagging at me until I took time to figure out why it was nagging me.

The question was answered when I was doing an unrelated search on a term definition and remembered something I had read recently about equality. Mainly, the thrust of the idea was that equality as a concept is quite unlike equality as it must be established.

But, what do I mean when I talk about equality? That’s actually the question we all should be asking when someone brings that term into a discussion as well as anyone who identifies with or opposes a movement that includes the word equality somewhere in the description.

The Multiple Faces of Equality

The common dictionary definition defines equality as a noun that means

the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

And, if one were to stop there it seems like when someone says they are ‘for equality’ that means they think the group of people that represents them should enjoy the same status, rights and opportunities as the group that has what they want. Or, conversely, it could mean that a group of people should not be denied equal status, rights and opportunities.

This is so palatable to accept as egalitarian and true, that the definition is left unexamined while the person who swallows this definition begins to identify themselves with movements that have, as their core principle, that word ‘equality’.

And there would be no problem with this except the fact that when equality is taken out of its theory and applied to an existing society of people, it meets a barricade. Because, it turns out, the definition of the word was really just referring to equality as a container word. As a container word, equality contains sub-types of equality that as a whole, describe the general concept.

In a series of posts I’ll write about these sub-types. They are

  • Ontological Equality
  • Equality of Opportunity
  • Equality of Condition
  • Equality of Outcome.

    And it is this equality of outcome that I believe is hidden in the agenda of the feminist movement even to the mainstream supporters of feminism who are not cognizant of either the existing effort to achieve it nor the implications of doing so. As long as they believe that they support a feminism meaning something benign they continue to identify with a term hijacked by a covert agenda. I don’t make the news, here, just reporting what the facts available are.

The lack of understanding that exists by those who support ideology founded on the equality concept creates an enormous amount of confusion for themselves and others when one of types of equality at play are not aligned with reality.

When equality is not the ontological equality assumed as given but is one of the other types, that means that equality is being introduced to an existing state of inequality.

And, the only way equality can be applied to an existing state is to change it by exerting itself. That means that in order to create a new state of equality, actual people have to either be given or must otherwise assume power of authority over the other people. There is just no way around that. Equality is not a condition that spontaneously exists when everyone is sufficiently informed of its impregnable moral superiority. No.

It is a process of some group making an assessment of what another group has that they believe that group has unequally to them AND is thought unfair. Because we have any number of occasions where a group has something that other groups do not have but it isn’t considered unfair because of the nature of the thing and the group that has it. As a very off the top of my head example that I’m sure is lame, but attempts to explain, there is a group of people I do not belong to because I am sighted and they are not. This group of people identified as those who are blind have an unequal right to bring their dog where ever they want. Sighted people don’t have that right. That isn’t an equality situation. But I would be rightfully mocked if I were to further assert that it were unfair and then pressed to have the same right for my group. It’s a strange example because in effect the right of blind people to use service dogs was one that was established in order to bring equity of accessibility to a disadvantaged group.

And this is the crux of the argument. Those arguing for equal status, condition and opportunity must not be a group that is a position of power or advantage to the group it will ultimately be saying must sacrifice what they have either voluntary or by imposition.

A feminist, specifically, has recently been defined as anybody that believes there should be equality between men and women. And for so many people, that is all they want to know. Based on this sentiment, they identify as feminists and go forward to argue the merits of this idea. I mean, who would even suggest that people shouldn’t share equality just because of their sex, right?

In truth, this belief doesn’t hold any useful meaning when argued this way. It makes no attempt to address the meaning of the term equality beyond the surface of a container description and without intellectual honesty, there is little reason to be persuaded to think the changes that would be required had any credible basis.

But, instead of understanding that the problem is caused by ignorance of meaning and implication coupled with a refusal to acknowledge when the opposition has a valid point, the entire discussion disintegrates into divisiveness and resentments fester as people one the extreme and radical ends of each position begin to make ground towards the middle, ultimately, creating problems for anyone who affected by distracting attention away from the cause of the conflict onto something that feeds an emotional craving. It makes it easy to give in to the temptation of lashing out in anger when a target generously presents itself, which is exactly what the factions do. In many cases, they aren’t more than attention seeking groups. In some, they are radical in their agenda and negatively associated with the mainstream movement du jour.

Next post will cover Ontological Equality

Choosing the Wrong Hill to Die On: Feminism In the Internet Weeds

Some Feminist Tactical Problems

1. The feminist agenda is a fight with a misidentified enemy. Men are not the enemy of feminism. White men are not the enemy of feminism. White privileged men are not the enemy of feminism. The enemy of feminism is within the body of constructs that is perceived. What is feminism? The answer is not definitively owned. Who are feminists? That answer, too, has no clear answer. Is equality for women the pursuit of feminism? If so, the means of attaining this equality and how to know it’s been reached are very unclear.
The ‘in the weeds’ tactics or operant behaviors of self-declared feminists includes demands upon others to change the words they use, to accept definitions as they decide, to silence voices in any volume or tone that do not follow the script that is approved and if you are a man in the discussion, be prepared to be met with immediate scrutiny and suspicion. These soldiers state that the target of their message should not be considered men, in general. Or white men specifically. They are not ant-man they proclaim. Their behavior says that they are. And meet the new bully, the face of abuse and narcissistic entitlement and rage—your post-millenial feminist quasi-gay/lesbian/transgender bodyguard (until the gay movement doesn’t need their help, (votes) anymore)

2. Hypocrisy. Some call it a double-bind. I call it self-absorbed magical thinking. Celebrities that are attractive females, and arguable, celebrity status is enjoyed from attractiveness being a first cause, cannot simultaneously solicit celebrity status using their sexual attractiveness in their ‘brand’ while also denouncing actions resulting from the sexual attraction others have for them. Male others, specifically.
Sex is either good enough to sell yourself on or it’s not what you will seek to be identified by. This equally applies to us garden variety females that want to enjoy the pleasurable feelings and benefits of attention and attraction by ‘owning’ their sexual power and expression thereof in speech and dress but then respond with indignant self righteous horror when this display of power results in responses they don’t approve. At least not when it is from some people. They approve if from others. That is the point. They believe themselves entitled to controlling both their expression and the response of others. This is a power trip, ladies, that is not rational. You *think* it sounds reasonable, but, in fact you are deluded by your own bias of wanting things your way that badly. In fact, you are now willing to compromise the right of others to free expression, the access to ideas different than your own and a commonly understand lingua fresca all in the name of getting your way. You want it all. You are not my representative because you are sounding more everday like the bullies and abusers you profess being victims to. You behave like assholes. You are dictatorial. You are being influenced by the radical agenda, and if you are not aware of the very real existence of the radical arm of gay rights feminism, (and they are indeed radical and hostile to hetero relationships) you are a shill. A very dangerous shill being used to parrot what you believe is getting you your way. It won’t. But, you’ll have more lesbian friends you can hang out with after all the men revolt against putting up with your crazy bat shit demands.

4, Going to war against men is a bad idea. Men are primed to win competitions. Women are primed to make competitions civilized. When a woman pits herself in a fight against a man, she is ultimately shocked when she faces a response that is brutal, vicious and cut-throat with a win at all costs bottom line. She expects him to fight fair and according to ‘her’ rules of civility. She brings her mouth to a fight and is outraged when he teeth are knocked out of her head by sucker punches to her feelings of safety and character. The fight was her decision. She declares a war against an enemy she doesn’t know and believes she is entitled to control. Smacks of that privileged entitlement we hear so much about white imperialist men and slave owners (white men). Ladies, you have not picked this battle wisely and you have chosen the wrong hill to die upon.
So, what’s more important to your agenda? Ultimately, do you want to be right or do you want to be happy. In this cluster fuck we have, today, online, you cannot have it both ways. You just can’t.