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.

What, Exactly, is Harassment?

(And, when I say exactly, I mean, exactly.)

In the previous post, I touched on the idea that harassment, the term, is used to convey a construct. It serves, as such, to wrap a bunch of other concepts together in a label. So, what is this beast we throw around as the word ‘harassment’? What do we mean when we point a finger and identify this or that as harassment? What does the thing we’re pointing to look like?

An obvious place to start is the dictionary. Where does the word originate?  How is the word defined?

“The word is based in English since circa 1618 as a loan word from the French harassement which was in turn already attested in 1572 as meaning torment, annoyance, bother, trouble [1] and later as of 1609 was also referred to as the condition of being exhausted, overtired” and “harasser allegedly meaning harceler (to exhaust the enemy by repeated raids)”

From Cambridge Dictionaries Online, harassment, a noun, is defined as ​

behavior that ​annoys or ​troubles someone

From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, harass, a transitive verb:

Simple Definition
: to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way
: to make repeated attacks against (an enemy)

Full Definition
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently
(2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and
unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
: to worry and impede by repeated raids

Extracting meaning from these definitions, we can first say that harassment is behavior. Further, it is observed as repetitive behavior. At a minimum, we can say that harassment is an action that occurs more than once. This suggests, that in general, it isn’t a singular event. Building upon this understanding, the behavior is deliberate and intends to be perceived as undesirable or unwanted by the person the behavior has engaged.

Or, put another way, harassment is recognizable when someone repeatedly acts in a way that is intentionally annoying to another person.

Ok, great. So what is annoying? I’d say that someone’s behavior is annoying when it is unwanted by the person affected and persists.

It is important to note that people express annoyance by what others are doing quite often and in wildly diverse contexts. So, harassment cannot be considered synonymous to annoyance, but the meaning does contain the existence of an annoyance, one that is deliberate and a consequence of an act that intends to annoy.

And, with regards to identifying harassment, this brings us to another critical component of its’ meaning. The person the behavior intends to affect perceives the actions as they were intended to be perceived. The behavior, in fact, is annoying.

Fabulous. So what is annoying? What does that mean? To annoy is to cause a person to feel persistent, petty unpleasantness. An annoying action disturbs another person by “intrusion, interference, or petty attacks”. To bother is to intrude upon.

From Wikipedia’s harassment policy, we get some help with this from their defining the types of behavior that may be considered harassment (context is nontrivial here)

Harassment is a repeated pattern of
making threats,
annoying and unwanted contact, (ed. I’ll accept annoying to mean behavior
that is unwanted and is known to be unwanted but continues anyway)
personal attacks (ad hominem insults?),
intimidation, or
posting personal information (aka doxing)

(Most of these actions are primarily if not entirely verbal in nature. So, harassment is behavior that involves the use of words, in this sense, as opposed to other direct actions towards another person.)

Harassment is also characterized as behavior that is
…of an offensive nature.
something is  offensive when it “causes someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.”

So, if like the concept of harassment, we do not accept as fact that external stimuli can directly cause a person to feel anything other than what that person permits themselves to feel, this is not going to help understand the original behavior.

To clarify this further:
It can be argued that other people’s word, actions, existence, fashion choices, etc. do not and can not have the power or the ability to act directly on our internal state as to effect feelings within us.

It can be further argued that we experience feelings in response to and as a function of our own thoughts. Sometimes the thought may occur too quickly for us to have a cognizant awareness of it, but, we can presume some thought or series of thoughts was involved when something in the environment results in our experiencing a change to or a development of emotion.

Emotions are not random biological events that can strike at any time. We are not hapless victims of emotions that are thrust upon us by external, uncontrollable forces.

It is easy to understand how this can be mistaken as being the case. It’s very common to assign cause to proximity. Something in our immediate environment happens almost simultaneous to our experiencing a change in our internal state. We naturally associate one as causing the other. However, there was something even closer to the emotional state of the person than what is happening externally in the environment: their thoughts about the environment.

It is true that something has occurred in the environment that caused a reaction, but the reaction it caused was the thought formed about what we were experiencing. In order to engage our emotions, something first has to be identified and recognized in the process of thought that may, indeed, be immediate and too brief to notice, but it is the thought, first, that informs our emotions. It does this by the connotations associated in the thought that are formed by the beliefs we hold as true, our capacity to understand what we experience, the manner in which we interpret events, our tendency towards abstract or concrete thinking and the quantity and quality of information available to us at any given time.

As infants, human beings use emotion instinctively to effect the changes required in the environment in order to survive. By expressions of raw displeasure such as crying, an infant is given the ability to attract attention to its state. The person responding is left to determine what needs to change in order to relieve the distress. There are a finite set of possibilities, as an infant’s needs are simple.

Even at birth, emotion serves as device that informs a person about their experience and at no point is relegated as a subferior product of the mind that is vulnerable to external hijackings and exploitation. We manage to do that all by ourselves with our unverified assumptions and unexamined beliefs.
Essentially, it seems to me, that nothing in the universe has direct access to what our minds are up to. The best we can do is communicate what we think is going on and hope we’re understood. But, it’s not likely. And, we can only hope that whatever someone communicates to us about what their mind is up to is both truthful and accurately understood. But, that’s unlikely, as well. (See Wiio’s laws of communication)

So, again, this means that we have emotional responses, positive or negative, because of what we think and the value assignments we attach to these thoughts. This is why your t-shirt that says “Fuck the Pope” is offensive to Mary but is amusing to Carl and has no effect on the guy who doesn’t read a word of English.

Mary reads your t-shirt, and, because of Mary’s beliefs about what is good and what is bad, she thinks people shouldn’t say things like that and since you are wearing a shirt that is doing something Mary thinks is bad, Mary responds to her own thought by feeling ‘offended‘–hurt, angry, upset, etc.. That’s not your T-shirt’s doing. Mary has done this all by herself.

Ok, so, Let’s try again…
harassment is behavior that intends to upset someone (and online, this is usually associated with the use of words), succeeds in that it results in a person being upset, and is characteristically repetitive. Again, holding that we don’t buy the idea that our feelings are thrust upon us from outside forces we can change this to behavior that we associate with beliefs we have that when we think about them we feel disturbed or upset. And the behavior in question is repetitive.

A successful harasser, then, is one who can correctly predict how we will respond to their behavior based on what they presume we believe, value and know. Here’s a tip: if someone like a potential harasser understands your beliefs, cognitive abilities and limitations and values better than you do, that is probably something to correct.

Question: What if I don’t interpret your comments as harassment? If you intended that I would have a negative emotional response but I did not, was I harassed? I don’t think so.

A most objective definition would be that harassment is any unwanted behavior directed towards another person that is repeated for the purpose of tiring or overwhelming that person because of their expected emotional response.

Quiz: What controls your emotions?

If the emotional response expected doesn’t  happen, what then?



A Love Letter to Ron Maimon

Thank you for the most stimulating and satisfying 10 hours I have ever spent reading the internets.

I don’t know enough details about any of what I read to pitch an opinion, but I am sold on the methodology and I have brain love for you on principle, alone.

In fact, you are the meme of principle. Oh, baby, the way you talk Jesus, Nietzsche and Hitler into the same story made me giddy. And your epic thought bombs on the Feynman Lectures will probably be the death of me.

But, I just cannot stop.

Today, I’m just really grateful we occupy the same planet. I’m good with just that. That’s how deliciously perfect you are in principle. And, God knows, I am a soldier for a to die for principle. Ask any company that I have worked for. It may take a few seconds for the wincing to stop before they can answer.

Harassment is in the Eye of the Harassed

I’m not gonna lie: whenever I come across another writer on the internet detailing their crusade to abolish harassment and bullying across the globe, I experience this involuntary spasm between about the bottom of my nose and the top of my chin that makes a noise that sounds exactly like “fuck my life.”
I know, weird, right?

Here’s why I have a private hate fest in my head for these articles that emphasize that online harassment is tantamount to being a crime requiring swift, painful and public consequence by…the implied internet Justice System and site specific virtual law enforcement officers. Virtual cops? Who am I talking about?

This would be the targeted recipient of all the complaints about the harassment the author in question is demanding justice from. So, for every article I read about the plague of harassment, there is always a mention, albeit brief or book length, of appealing to some assumed authority for relief from the abuse suffered.

The harassment. The verbal violence. The unwanted communication from the undesirables. The cretins with labels attached like “misogynist”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “asshole”, and my personal all-time favorite catch all description “men”. Because, face it, “men” is a word that pretty much can say it all, am I right, ladies? Yeah. Fuck that. And, fuck you if you were agreeing with that.

This is where I am *not* going to say I am sorry about anything. I’m not sorry that some of you have had experiences with certain people…and I’m not sorry that we live in a society that …and I ‘m not sorry that you’ve had to suffer the pain of …I’m not.

I’m not going to say any of those things that get said because I don’t even know what the fuck it means to say that I’m sorry for something I can neither take responsibility for having done or being able to solve. And, I can’t figure out how my being sorry about what is going on inside another person’s mindscape could even be of any use.

Truthfully, I cannot even conclude that anything more than the suffering person’s perception has any skin in some games. And, life (my life, specifically) is too short and time (what remains available for me to use) is too limited for me to include in the mix of all the things I need to concern myself with the state of everyone else’s perceptions or the requirement that I validate them at every perceived slight.

Here’s my philosophical opinion about harassment: If an act of harassment happened in the woods and no one was there to see it, there was no harassment.
In other words, for harassment to exist, a person perceiving harassment is required.
If not a single person ever again decided that the words or actions they were engaged with were harassment, harassment ceases to exist. It is purely a mental construct. It is entirely subjective. That’s what constructs are: subjective.

As such, it is completely outside the scope of anyone else having any direct knowledge of what the concept means in the context of someone else’s experience. You can’t define it for me. Meaning, you can’t tell me I have been harassed when I don’t perceive myself thus and you also can’t substantiate my perception beyond what I say it is. You kind of have to just take my word for it.

And, don’t you all have things to do in your lives that require you spend time doing them instead of all the time being spent attempting to validate self-reported perceptions? Ok, someone has had their feelings hurt. Assuming that this someone has honestly reported what they perceive as hurt feelings, can anyone else see how unproductive this is? Seriously, this is regressive. Do you seriously raise your children to focus on their hurt feelings or do you give them tools and examples of how to process their internal ups and down in a way that allows them to keep moving forward?

We, as a society, have literally changed public policy because of self-reports of hurt feelings! Hey! If my feelings are hurt guess who is responsible for changing that? I am. They are my feelings. My impossibly subjective feelings that no one other than me can directly access, and therefore, have absolutely no power to change.

I hurt my own damn feelings because I choose to perceive what happens externally as doing so. I make this shit up in my head! Just like everyone else. So, why, why, why are we seeing this movement that insists on pretending otherwise?

I truly feel like we have all been tossed down Alice’s rabbit hole and are being held captive at the Mad Hatter’s tea party. Then, when the crazy gets real thick, we all get herded over to the Queen of Hearts court of nonsense for some adjudicated absurdity.

If you don’t want feelings to be hurt, than stop hurting them! How? Stop choosing to internalize words that other people say. Stop making what happens in the world personal to your experience. Stop believing that words spoken by people you don’t want to hear from are viable threats to your well being. Have you ever notice that the same words spoken by different people yield very different perceptions?
That’s why it is inane to chase after this harassment demon. ANY ONE ANY TIME and for ANY REASON can perceive ANY THING, including that they are being harassed, and it makes zero sense to treat it as if it is an entity in its own right that can be destroyed.

You slay this dragon once. It’s your dragon. I have one, too. So does everyone else. I can’t get rid of yours and you can’t get rid of mine. We can’t be in each others’ minds. That is an irreconcilable fact.

It seems to me that at some point, it became normal to address whatever anyone asserts as their experience as having the same credibility as historical fact. And before anyone veers off into their treasure box of existential tripe scraped off the floor of what little understanding they could grasp of freshman year philosophy 101, I’m here to make the pointed assertion that for the purpose of this essay, history exists and facts are the stuff in that history that are tangentially real, true, whatever.

And, sure, our perceptions occupy a kind of space, but when weighed against those other things that are collectively perceived and can be quantified independently of the observer, perception should not be given equal standing.

In fact, it should be given the amount proportionate to exactly that of existing in one, isolated, and unverifiable environment–a person’s imagination. Real or contrived, that’s what every perception of harassment is: someone’s unique translation of events as they are processed through one person’s cognition and interpreted by the words spoken or written to convey the perception. It is entirely subjective. It does not exist independent of the person experiencing what they perceive as harassment.

I’ll go so far as to say that even if I intend with all my might and muster to use my words to verbally harass you, my intent being that after receiving my message you feel as though you have indeed been subject to harassment, if you instead perceive my words as something else that is not in your assessment harassment of any kind, it wasn’t harassment.

The target for the ‘harassment’ was apparently missed. Harassment requires someone to catch a ball, look at the ball and identify it as a ball of ‘harassment’. That same ball may get thrown to ten thousand people before it ever finds itself in the hands of a single person who, in their mind, sees it as ‘harassment’.

For some reason, it’s now the assumed truth that this suffices as reason enough to get rid of that ball. If it offends even one person (based upon what is subjectively stated as being true) than it is valid. This is how we validate one another, now. We validate other’s experiences by accepting them carte blanche, but even more, we validate them by insisting and campaigning that this experience be universally true for everyone, for all time and under all circumstances. Because life is just simple like that.

But, even allowing for this insane and untenable world view (good luck sustaining this ontological paradigm without falling into your own pile of dog shit), I don’t want to live in a society that thinks it’s laudable behavior to tattle tale when their feelings are hurt so that my rights to speak freely are policed by the zeitgeist mob like social miscreants running around in ‘neener neener’ t-shirts on their power trip to get someone in trouble ”’oooo you are sooo in trouble! Word Police! That person said I was “….” and that’s harassment! Make it stop! I am fighting for all of us, here, love you!!!!!!!!!!!!<hugz>”

Brass Balls

Police union calls for law enforcement labor to boycott Beyonce’s world tour.

“We are very happy that our brothers and sisters in blue are boycotting anyone who tarnishes the image of law enforcement.”

Then boycott yourselves. Because it is not some pop artist or dancer costumes responsible for killing law enforcement. The killers are the people that shot them dead. It isn’t Beyonce killing unarmed black Americans. It’s law enforcement. The ‘boys in blue’ have tarnished themselves. And, they have done a fantastic job of it.
Show some accountability. Stop blaming the nation’s citizens for calling out the criminal violence done by law enforcement. This is not our grandparents era, anymore. Younger generations expect you to act right.
You might consider just doing that.

Recognize the Face of Narcissistic Injury

Oh, cry us a river, Zoe Quinn. I know it won’t make any difference in your case, but, do know that there are people who are not as easily manipulated, who have no personal or political power agenda and have a solid grasp on where bias begins and ends. These are the people who will never co-sign bullshit like yours.

Your entire ‘brand’ is a confabulation. It’s a story you have contrived by cleverly going in the direction of whatever topic of social outrage is currently trending. You’ve managed to jump on several of those ships and have sailed them straight into where you are today. I’m standing on the shore of my own landscape and what I see as you pull in with this shipwreck of a tale is a very dangerous person. Your unchecked volatility and narcissistic rage make you, indeed, a danger to anyone who comes within proximate distance of your life style of deception and manipulation for personal satiation. You are addicted to your sense of entitlement.

You are the quintessential abuser. Do not reproduce more of whatever might be lurking in the shadows of your chromosomal soup that would continue the madness that is you.

The War on Roosh V.

UPDATE: Roosh V. spanks the media for their abhorrently irresponsible behavior



On February 6, 2016, a scheduled multi-gathering of men that follow  the MGTOW movement, specifically, Roosh V.’s Return of Kings blog, received such negative news and social media attention that digital petitions were circulated to collect signatures of people opposed to the local meet-ups, and even leaders of nations had something to say about the man, his blog content and their dislike for both.

That isn’t the best back story. I’ve not done the details any justice. But, I’m not so interested in what Roosh V. and his supporters are doing as much as I am disgusted with the response they’ve received. It is, in the world I’ve been living within, completely out of pocket, inappropriate, over the top, and once the dust settles, I really hope that there is a collective group conscience that grasps how really appalling the reaction had been. I would describe it as histrionic as well as it being most revealing about how those that proclaim to be defending the rights of half the population was so very quick to aggressively shut down the basic rights of a much smaller group of men to gather peacefully to meet and express their beliefs freely.

Here’s the thing, people: It’s really none of your business. When I read one self-proclaimed feminist activist say that her petition against these meetings was to protest and fight “terrorism against women”, I had had enough. This woman is far more responsible for escalating violence than anything I’ve come across from the MGTOW crowd. If she honestly believes that these men are waging terrorism against women, she is delusional and needs psychiatric evaluation and possibly treatment.

I am much more concerned about the people stomping all over the civil liberties of others than I am in any way disturbed by a bunch of guys getting together to drink beer, slap each other on the back and hook-up with women hanging out in bars.

Here’s a news flash to the ‘activists’ thwarting this terrorist plot to assail vulnerable young girls in bars with evil PUA tactics: there are no young girls in bars. If there are, that’s the problem you should be fixing if you find any.

Women patronize bars and clubs. Women are adults and as such they are agents of their own free will. You have heard of self-agency, right?

Well, here’s the bombshell. Ready for it? Listen up. The majority of women who are drinking in bars and clubs actually WANT to hook up with a guy. It’s why they are there. Can you imagine that? Women are out there HOPING that they’ll run into a man who can charm her pants off. Literally. So wtf are you actually trying to achieve?

Frankly, what all this has done in my opinion is PROVE the points some of these men have been making about ‘green haired activists’ and ‘feminazis’ and ‘white knight types’.

Bottom line is that that it is NOT OK to threaten Roosh V.’s mother and family with personal violence. It is NOT OK to make it unsafe for people to gather peacefully to talk about what they believe and it is NOT OK to twist words to make them fit an agenda that threatens the civil liberties and self-agency of other human beings who do not share that agenda.

Maybe your agenda is actually WRONG.

Maybe it isn’t nearly as universally sound as you think it is. Maybe you need to mind your own business and work on fixing ACTUAL problems of terrorism and personal violence against women, such as the ones you, Green Haired Activist, are creating for us.

I want no association to any person who self-describes as feminist, at this point. I am just thoroughly sickened by the stupidity and hypocrisy this entire week’s events surrounding Return of Kings blog followers.

All the adults should grow up, already.