Thursday, March 24, 2011

White Female Privilege? Blame the patriarchy. (This is my last post - at least for a while)

This is my last post on the Good Womyn Project.  Although attacking inequality is fun, it is too much work for me.  I am going to go back to my navel gazing on my blog, fauxwhore.com.  If you have any questions, drop a line. <3 xoxoxoxoxox. 


Andrea Plaid posted a piece over at the blog racialicious in which she argues that there is such a thing as White Female Privilege.  Needless to say, that went over like a lead Zeppelin in certain circles.  The canvas on which she paints her argument is the inappropriate, though I would argue excusable, tirade of Alexandra Wallace.  As a side note, I would have made it a "teachable moment" for Ms. Wallace, instead of delivering death threats.  But, of course, I'm an adult.  As Edward Lee, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent School of Law, wrote, "...While Wallace has no one to blame for the notoriety from her offensive video except herself, we do have to remember that she is a college student. There's perhaps no other population that is as prone to saying or doing inappropriate or embarrassing things as college students..." 

Andrea Plaid bullet points a number of examples of said "privilege".  Of course, I argue that being yourself is not a privilege, since I cannot control how other people treat me because of some immutable characteristic.  I have no more obligation to "check my privilege" than I do to apologize for myself - which is none at all.   That being said, Ms. Plaid quotes Arturo Garcia as stating, "After all, there’s a certain sector who’s perfectly willing to forgive/accept her views because she’s ‘hot.’"  I argue that the vitriolic reaction Wallace received was a result of the fact that she "...visually presents as the physical and sexual ideal of the 'all-American' blonde white girl-next-door..."  In other words, this is the exact opposite of White Female Privilege.  This is the White Female Burden.

Alexandra Wallace got metaphorically raped BECAUSE she was a pretty white girl.  It's the same phenomenon that happened to Carrie Prejean when she stated during the 2009 Miss USA pageant that she was against gay marriage.  When progressives are confronted with an opposing opinion, and that opinion is delivered by a person like Wallace, or Prejean, the sparks fly.  Because beautiful blondes are so sympathetic, it enrages those who oppose their opinions.  It's a form of jealous revenge - to tear down those whose lives seem so much better than our own for offending us, or saying something with which we disagree.

The reason I am writing this piece is not to be a Wallace apologist, but to point out the funny comments that occur after the Plaid piece on racialicious.com and on feministe.us, where the piece is discussed.  In those venues, the concept of "White Male Privilege" is not controversial.  But, Whoa hoo!!!!  White Female Privilege?

Luke Blue (racialicious):  "...I definitely see the ways this privilege functions/manifest *differently* for white women than for white men, but I think that difference is often about women in general having lower status in society than men due to patriarchy/misogyny etc....I equally firmly believe that dubbing a use of white privilege into which is enfolded a big fat submission to male supremacy (check out all those dumb little girl "like"s and don't-hurt-me-i'm-fragile giggles) is counterproductive and fogs a clear vision of where power really rests in our society. "

Sara (feministe & racialicious):  "Here’s my question:  Why call it “white female privilege?” White men also have a sense of entitlement when they’re saying crazy shit.  I’m not sure the tendency to “forgive”/ignore her views because she’s “hot” is a form of privilege. It seems like the same phenomenon we see when progressive views are “forgiven”/ignored in favor of attention to the speaker’s body."

LoriA (feministe):  "I’m with you, Sara. White privilege is absolutely a thing and every white person has it regardless of gender. But any sort of female privilege is just benevolent sexism that actually functions to hinder women and further the patriarchy. There were several examples of this that Plaid listed in the article that had me shaking my head like crazy..."

And LoriA again, as LoriA89 (racialicious):  "...Look, I'm all with you on the existence of white privilege, and I have that even though I'm female. But a specific kind of white female privilege? It makes exactly as much sense as the MRA-authored female-privilege lists, which repurpose benevolent sexism as something that actually benefits women. That is to say, it makes no sense."

Bellereve (feministe): "Agreed – it’s white privilege, not 'white female privilege.'"

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Advocacy Research and Junk Science - For Fun and Profit

San Francisco Weekly published a piece today (Pinto, Nick; Weird Science, SF Weekly, March 23-29, 2011) stating that the scare of an epidemic of children being trafficked in the U.S. for purposes of sex work is based on a piece of advocacy research conjured up by a non-profit called the Women's Funding Network.  The WFN hired a bogus political consulting firm, The Shaprio Group, to do a "study."  The result was a claim that, "an independent trafficking study released by the Women's Funding Network shows that over [a six month period] the number of underage girls trafficked online has risen exponentially..."  Many news sources picked up on the story and ran with the fake statistics within the fake study.  "'This new study seems pretty bogus,'" the SF Weekly quoted Ric Curtis, chairman of the anthropology department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, as saying.  The article goes on to say that, "[T]he group behind the study admits as much.  It's now clear it used fake data to deceive the media and lie to Congress.  And it was all done to score free publicity and a wealth of public funding."

A representative of the WFN is quoted as saying, "We pitch it the way we think you're going to read it and pick up on it."

Could it be that the more inflammatory statistics coming out of women's activists venues has something to do with that, "...wealth of public funding"?

If you are interested in looking at the study, they are still available on the Women's Funding Network website.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Uncle Tom? Reflections on Tom Matlack.

When asked what I do for a living, I usually tell people that I am a receptionist.  It makes my life easier and fulfills people’s expectations about me.  I don’t bore myself by having to explain my career (I find the subject of me profoundly boring).  I love it when men feign interest in my fake job, “Oh, a receptionist.  That must be interesting.  I guess you meet a lot of people.”   In reality, my real vocation is much more confrontational and aggressive.  I can be very good during conflict.  So, it was with some anticipatory pleasure that I began looking into Tom Matlack, disaffectionately referred to as “Uncle Tom” by a critic.  Tom Matlack is the founder of “The Good Men Project.”  

When I first started this website, I described Tom as “weird.”  At this point, I take that back.  I do think he has some eccentricities, but I don’t think they are fatal.  With his boyish good looks, and awkward presentation, Tom is certainly a character.  He is an admitted (former?) alcoholic.  Pearl S. Buck, author of “The Good Earth” and Nobel Laureate (literature) was his great-aunt.  He describes having grown up in an nontraditional household, “I was raised by a mother who burned her bra and who instilled in me the importance of female equality.”  In the same vein, he states, “My parents don’t like it when I call it this, but I basically grew up in a commune,” he says. “My mother had a strident form of feminism and it influenced me on a personal level – I found it scary.”

Tom Matlack is no dummy.  He was a successful venture capitalist.  It's kind of hard to argue that a "master of the universe" comes off as weak, but that is the punchline of this piece.  He attended Yale for graduate school, and Wesleyan.  This guy, by any man's defintion, is a success.

As much as I wanted to despise this guy, I can’t bring myself to dislike him.  His commentary on men and masculinity doesn’t come off as prosecutorial or accusatory.  He is more passive, with a kind of sad puppy dog air about him – like his picture.  He seems like a guy seeking approval and acceptance.  What I don’t like about Tom is that he comes off as weak.  Is he a feminist?  He doesn't tell us.  His description of the break up of his marriage makes him sound pathetic, “That very day, my wife threw me out of the house for being a drunk and a cheat,” he says. “I had to sit in my car in a church parking lot with all my clothes and explain to myself how I’d gone from the guy on the cover of The Wall Street Journal to someone with nowhere to go.”  

I don’t despise him for various reasons.  The Good Men Project doesn’t censor their site.  Quite frankly, I would totally understand if they took a more aggressive stance on reader comments.  Unlike many ban-happy, totalitarian feminist websites, GMP allows the most critical, and dare I say, vicious comments to stand.  The site attracts many MRAs, from the mainstream to the out-of-bounds fanatic.  I also can’t dislike the guy because he comes across as genuinely interested in men and masculinity, without the usual attendant disdain and condescension you get from self-identified male feminists.  

But, to read Tom’s canon, you realize that he actually never makes a strong argument.  His writing seems to always state a question, and then refuses to answer it with authority.  It’s like he is a victim of life, and he can’t quite understand what he’s doing.  Some of his pieces suggest a proposition, and then he quotes people he’s interviewed to give him the answer.  It's seemingly a way for him to avoid the responsibility of having an opinion.  But, that may be changing.  In a recent piece, "How the Wall Street Journal is Spreading Negative Stereotypes about Men," he makes his argument with authority.  Dare I say it?  He writes like a man.

He does acknowledges that men face challenges.  For instance, he writes, albeit weakly, that men get screwed it divorce. He details some of those challenges, “Seventy percent of the jobs lost during the most recent recession were held by men. The vast majority of those fighting our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are men. Generations of boys are growing up without fathers. Boys are falling behind girls in school. Male incarceration and recidivism rates are higher than ever. Divorce laws in many states are grossly unfair to decent, loving dads who want to play a role in their children’s lives...[T]he media are still consumed with the old feminist battle cry, to the exclusion of the predicament of boys and men."

Unlike many self-identified pro-feminist men, his point of view is not; “Why can’t a man be more like a woman?”  On the other hand, like many pro-feminist men, he thinks that post-modern manhood needs to change.  “We need to start thinking about manhood differently.”  He invites women to help develop that change. “Women have just as much incentive to help guys to figure out the new rules of manhood as men have in supporting women in their quest to overcome the obstacles of overt sexual discrimination.” If you look at that last sentence you notice that it states that women have an active role to “help guys figure out the new rules of manhood,” whereas men will have a passive role in “supporting women in their quest to overcome the obstacles of overt sexual discrimination.”  It seems Tom's passivity is to apply to all men.

Like many self-identified male feminists, Tom is anti-porn.  Being that he is too weak to outright state his position, he doesn’t come right out and say he is anti-porn.  But, the implication is strong.  “We seem to have forgotten that along the way, and our brain-numbing intoxication by pornography in all its forms threatens to end us—not because it is morally wrong but just because it distracts us from the truth and scatters our power.”  And, this, "Sexual exploitation in the form of pornography and prostitution is a serious problem, and it’s only getting worse."

In the end, I don’t think the ad hominem “Uncle Tom” is fair to Tom Matlack.  I think he is genuinely interested in the subject of men and masculinity.  He doesn't seem to come to the table in bad faith or with ulterior motives.  He does approach the subject of manhood from an angle that makes me a little uncomfortable.  I would have more respect for him if he would just come out and state what he means.  But, maybe getting out of my comfort zone is a good thing.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

What do YOU think about the GoodWomynProject?

This blog is a little over a week old now.  In that time, it's had nearly fourteen-hundren hits, with two-thousand and nine page views.  I'd like to get to know what YOU think of the content, presentation, point of view and overall substance of the webpage.  Please leave a comment below to tell me what is right or wrong.  No responses will be edited, and none deleted (unless commercial spam).

Friday, March 18, 2011

Let's put gender and $$ into perspective here.

Young women, welcome to paradise.

There is a lot of noise from some quarters that  make absurd assertions regarding gender and money.  For the most part, those assertions are either disingenuous, or flat out fabricated.  Let's examine the evidence


According to Girlpowermarketing.com ("Strategic marketing to the intelligent woman"), women control a disproportionate amount of wealth:
  • Women account for $7 trillion in consumer and business spending
  • Women control more than 60 percent of all personal wealth in the U.S. (Time Magazine contradicts this number, placing it at 51.3%)
  • Women comprise 51.4 percent of the U.S. population, and make or influence 85 percent of all purchasing decisions
  • Women are starting their own businesses at twice the rate of men
  • Women make 80 percent of health care decisions and 68 percent of new car purchase decisions
  • In 31 percent of the marriages where women work, women now out-earn their husbands (See the "*" below).
  • One out of every 11 American women owns a business (U.S. Dept. of Labor)
  • Women purchase over 50 percent of traditional male products, including automobiles, home improvement products and consumer electronics
  • Women account for 58 percent of all total online spending
In Warren Farrell's book "Why Men Earn More" (The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do About It), Farrell argues that "the power of money is not in its earning but in its spending."  American women control over 80% of discretionary spending, resulting in a "massive transfer of wealth from men to women."

*When it comes to controlling money, there are some disturbing statistics about who controls the money in a marriage.  "A recent PEW study of 30-to-44-year-olds showed that when a husband is the primary or sole breadwinner, household spending decisions are divided roughly equally.  He makes about a third of them, she makes a third, and they make a third jointly.  But, in the 22% of households studied in which the wife earned more, she made more than twice as many decisions as her husband about where the money would go.  The more money women earn, the exponentially more money they manage."  (Luscombe, Belinda; "The Rise of the Sheconomy," Time Magazine, Nov. 22, 2010.

In the overwhelming majority of the 50 largest metropolitan areas, single, childless women in their 20's earn substantially more (108% mean) than their male peers.  In selected cities, that number gets bigger; New York City (117%); Atlanta (121%); Memphis (119%); San Diego (115%); Sacramento (116%). (Sheconomy again).


Image source, The Financial Brand

Feminism helps men too?

That has got to be one of the biggest prevarications of the feminist movement.   I don't buy the idea that "feminism" = "equality."  As has been written, "If something has a direct benefit to an individual or a class of people, and a theoretical, abstract, or amorphous benefit to everybody else, realize that the proponent's intentions are to benefit the former, not the latter, no matter what bullshit they try to feed you."

When presented with evidence of an injustice by women against men, self-identified feminists inevitably counter-argue that feminism is not monolithic.  Their argument? Evidence of injustice against men, benefitting women either, cannot be attributed to feminists, or that the particular feminist involved does not represent all feminists.  To argue that feminism is so diverse an ideology that it cannot be confronted leaves the word so vague and ambiguous as to be devoid of any real meaning.

Let's get some concepts straight here.  If there is a situation that pits men's interests against women's interests, feminists predominately argue for the women's side of an issue.  Even when the equities are so obviously on the men's side, they come down on the side of the woman.  If you want to see blatant examples of this, research the issues surrounding paternity missattribution.  Feminists will do some pretty impressive intellectual gymnastics to justify an obviously unjust result.  So, to argue that feminism helps men, one has to believe that men are helped when their interests are overlooked or trampled.

Let's propose a theory.  The theory is that, when formulating an argument about the substance of an issue, self-identified feminists predominately assert conclusions that follow the following formulas:

Woman>Man
Child>Man
Woman>Child

If it appears in a particular fact pattern that there is conflict between a man and a woman that involves children, and the circumstances are such that the equities are indisputably on the side of the man, then the following formula will usually foretell the conclusion of a self-identified feminist:

Woman=Child>Man

(Where ">" = the equities as perceived by a self-identified feminist commentator.)

To test out this hypothesis, the argument invariably needs to have certain elements.  The commentator needs to be a self-identified feminist.  The interests of a woman, or a group of women, must conflict with the interests of a man, or a group of men.  The interest that is at issue must be viewed as having a theoretical impact greater than just the parties involved.  That is to say, by way of example, say Karen Owen publishes a deeply offensive "fuck list," and thereby sets up a conflict; Karen Owen v. 13 athletes' privacy rights, the conclusion must be viewed as having an abstract or theoretical application greater than Karen or the athletes.

Unfortunately, the formulas above don't have application to a great number of men v. women arguments, because when the facts are so bad for one side, the commentator often does not argue about the issue itself, but rather argues tangential issues that the writer would rather address, confirming their ideology.

Let's present an example.  Here is an article in "the f word" entitled "16-year-old girl convicted following 'false rape allegation.'"  What do we know from the article?  We know a 16 year old girl was convicted of perverting the course of justice.  We know that the girl in question was consistently inconsistent with the facts surrounding her allegation, and that her behaviour after the alleged rape was inconsistent with the charge itself.  But, Laura Woodhouse is "rather alarmed" by the piece.  She presents two arguments, (1) boy v. girl, (2) judge(man) v. girl.  In both of her arguments, she comes down on the side of the girl.  She argues that the boy may have raped the girl, despite the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and despite the conviction itself.  She also argues that the judge should not have convicted her because he could not know whether the girl consented, unless he was actually in the room.  Of course, that argument would go over like a lead zeppelin if it was proffered by a man stating that a judge should not convict a man for raping a woman, because the judge wasn't in the room to see if consent was given.  Silly.

What is my conclusion?  If the formulas presented give reliable truth claims about present and future commentaries, then I propose that feminist commentators are not interested in equity, but rather their arguments are based on emotion and favor those with whom they identify, and those similarly situated to them.

If anyone wants to test the theory, please do and let me know your results.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Incentives for False Rape Allegations?

There is an article in this week’s San Francisco Weekly (March 16-22, 2011, Volume 30, Number 8) that brings to light an issue that should be of some concern to Men’s Rights proponents.  The article, “The New U Visa” by Lauren Smiley, sheds light on a disconcerting situation in which undocumented migrants have an incentive to level and proceed with false allegations of rape and domestic violence against American citizens.  “’Getting status in the United States is such a big deal that it really can create an incentive, sometimes just to exaggerate, and sometimes to flat out fabricate,’ says Stephanie Wargo, a San Francisco public defender who handled a sexual assault case in which the complaint witness was applying for a U Visa. ‘I don’t know the solution, but it is a problem.’” 

The article goes on to detail that in the 2000 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress created the U-1 visa.  This type of visa allows an undocumented migrant to obtain a visa, that can lead to permanent residence status, if they were the victim of a crime or have knowledge of a crime, and “’has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful’ in the investigation and prosecution.”  In essence, this law gives an incentive for illegal immigrants to level criminal accusations against American citizens.  “The visa’s inclusiveness doesn’t stop at deportees; Victims can get legal status for their spouses and children, even those living in another country.  Victims under 21 can sponsor their parents and unmarried siblings under 18.  In the cases of murder or manslaughter, spouses and children can apply as ‘indirect victims,’ even if they didn’t witness the crime”

Prosecutors are using the U-1 visa to help with prosecutions, “’[T]he government has a witness that isn’t here legally in the United States, and they want their assistance in a criminal case, [a discussion of the U visa] is something that comes up’” (quoting Public Defender Megan Burns).  Yet, the fact that a witness in a criminal action received some benefit, i.e. relief with a U-1 visa, can be brought up at trial to impeach the witness’s credibility.  But, that proposition maybe under threat.  “[A]dvocates argue that information about victims seeking the visa is protected under the Violence Against Women Act.  They say allowing information about the visa into court hurts legitimate victims by casting doubt on their testimonies – especially in sexual assault cases, where a trial often comes down to weather a jury believes the man or the woman.”

To her credit, Smiley cites (albeit incorrectly) that the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that “’special immigration treatment…was highly relevant impeachment material…”  The case she cites is United States. v. Blanco.  It appears to be an unpublished decision, but its analysis is spot on.  In that case, the court held that the government has an obligation under the seminal United States Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), to provide exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant.  Blanco also cites Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that impeachment evidence is exculpatory evidence within the meaning of Brady.  If women’s and immigrant advocates are successful in excluding this relevant evidence, then we will have a situation where undocumented migrants can fabricate criminal allegations, receive a substantial benefit in the form of U.S. legal residency, and the fact could not be brought up in trial against an American citizen.  That, my friends, is disturbing.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Pro-Feminist Profile: Hugo Schwyzer

Who is Hugo Schwyzer?  He is a thrice divorced, former addict (trifecta; alcohol, drug, and sex - if sex addiction was actually an addiction), who's had erectile disfunction since he was seventeen years old.  He is a community college "professor," who teaches history and gender studies.  He suffers from a rather acute case of "gay face," though there is nothing wrong with that. 

If you want to know the thesis for every argument that Hugo Schwyzer makes, all you must do is read his Bologna through the lens of "Men must change.  There is something fundamentally wrong with men and masculinity."  Ask yourself, can you recall an argument by feminists that was predicated on the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong with women and femininity?  The assertion itself, whether expressed or implied is so absurd that any thinking person should reject any conclusion based upon such a premise.  Let's see some excerpts of Mr. Schwyzer's belief system in action:

He compares MRAs to the Ku Klux Klan:  "...I think it’s a classic case of false equivalence, as if MRAs and feminists are both equally right and wrong. It’s like saying the Klan and the NAACP have two different views on race relations. It adds respectability to the indefensible. That’s not to say, as I always point out, that MRA anger and pain isn’t real. But it’s woefully misdirected and involves a staggering refusal to take responsibility..."   I like this one, because it implies that Schwyzer knows better about what men are thinking and feeling, than they themselves.

He compares MRAs to the Klan, not once, but twice:  "No, not all MRAs are like the Klan...Those who argue (as Zeta and others do) that feminism is a system of oppression are indeed akin to those Klan types who argued that the end of Jim Crow was a kind of anti-white racism. I think the analogy stands."

Schwyzer argues, in essence, that men have to "man up" to feminism.  Vomit.  One thing you will see argued by "pro-feminist" men, more so than even with feminist women, is they believe that men "have to take responsibility," or have to be held "accountable."  In other words, feminism is a burden that men should cheerfully yoke.  This is not your sister's feminism, i.e. the liberating, empowering experience that gives you more freedom.  No! No! No!  Feminism for men  is a fucking drag.  If you read Hugo Schwyzer's website, you'll see "male responsibility" and "male accountability" are used repeatedly.  Here is a simple experiment; google "Hugo Schwyzer" & "male accountability" and then google "Hugo Schwyzer" & "female accountability".  The results show that for "male accountability" there are a few pages of hits.  With "female accountability, there are three hits, TOTAL.  That's because, in Hugo Schwyzer's world, women have freedoms, men have responsibilities.

He writes essays with titles, like:

1. The Blessings of Erectile Dysfunction
2. How Men's Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong
3.Why Does It Matter How Many Partners She's Had?
4. Men and the Sexualization of Young Girls.
5. Red-Hot Monogamy

Schwyzer is another pro-feminist anti-porn crusader (example 1, 2, 3.)  Having been in adult films, done sex work, and presently a board member of a non-profit that works to decriminalize prostitution, I find Mr. Schwyzer's anti-porn bullshit tiresome and cliche:

1.  "What we don’t know — or, as Jensen points out, what we don’t want to know — is how truly ugly pornography is. For a host of reasons ranging from denial to civil libertarianism to sheer horny curiosity, a great many voices across the spectrum are unwilling to name porn as one of the most corrosive influences on our culture and on our humanity." 

You notice, that when an activity is preferred by men, people like Schwyzer tell us there is something wrong with it.  Like football (which I hate); but, weren't we all told that women are more likely to get assaulted during the Superbowl?  Same crap here.  You never hear one of these guys saying some activity associated with women is "corrosive."

2.  "I am convinced sex not only brings pleasure but helps to transform the people who are participating in it. I am a better teacher, better friend, and better mentor because of the light that my wife and I reveal when we have sex with each other." 

I'm sorry, but doesn't the thought of having sex with someone who is "transformed" by sex, and has light revealed by the experience seem like a colossal  bore in bed? 

3.  "...Balancing thoughtful analysis with deep candor, he makes the most powerful case against pornography that I’ve read since the late Andrea Dworkin’s Pornography: Men Possessing Women, a book now more than 25 years old. And yes, Getting Off is dedicated to (among others) Dworkin herself..." 

Well, that certainly explains a lot.  Anyone who celebrates Dworkin is obviously a toadie misandrist.

4.  "...Robert Jensen makes a compelling, at times radical case against pornography — accompanied by a searing and entirely accurate indictment of contemporary American masculinity..."

 Here it is again.  There is something wrong with men and masculinity. 

I have a suggestion.  Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with Hugo Schwyzer.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Three days after starting this blog, it is cited in an argument.


Profile of me on "What Men Are Saying About Women"

It's strange how rad-feminism brings so many diverse political people together.  The blog, "What Men are Saying About Women" did a profile of this site.  Although my personal politics are probably 180 degrees out of phase with this gentleman, on the issue of feminist propoganda, we are nearly on the same page.  Below is the profile page on his website:

Monday, March 14, 2011

Let's Check In With The Patriarchy; Today in Rape Culture.

Rad Fem Reporting:  It appears from the sources below, an oppressive Maryland state trooper MOLESTED a newborn baby by kissing it on the mouth.  This after an unidentified man committed a "BIRTH RAPE" on a pregnant woman.  It is suspected that the woman gave birth after being battered by the birth rapist.  The birth rapist, who nine months earlier had committed the regular kind of rape, shouted out, "I will never pay child support for this child, you fucking cunt."  The trooper is also suspected of beating his wife, prior to leaving for work.  In the end:



Alternatively, here in the real world, where the vast majority of men are good, a Maryland state trooper committed an act of heroism, after another man helped give birth to a baby girl.

Trooper Saves Newborn on Roadside Monday Morning


PASADENA, Md. (March 14, 2011) – A Maryland state trooper on his way to work this morning thought he was stopping to help a disabled motorist, but ended up possibly saving the life of the baby girl who had just been born in the back seat of the car.

Sergeant Daniel McLain was traveling westbound on Rt. 100 near Rt. 10 at about 7:45 a.m. today, when he noticed what he thought was a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of the highway. Sgt. McLain saw a man outside the vehicle and detected a look of panic and distress not normally seen, even on the faces of disabled motorists.

When Sgt. McLain approached the car, he saw a woman in the back seat who had just given birth to a baby. The trooper saw the baby was blue and was still attached to the umbilical cord.

Sgt. McLain immediately began cardio-pulmonary resuscitation on the newborn. The baby responded to the CPR and began breathing. She soon returned to a healthy pink color and was transported by ambulance, along with her mother, to the Baltimore Washington Medical Center. Both are reportedly doing well.

Sgt. McLain is a 20-year-veteran of the Maryland State Police. He is assigned to the Quartermaster Division in Jessup. Sgt. McClain is the father of four children.

Smell My Vagina - Let's talk about white girl privilege, shall we?

White girl privilege - like white girls not getting arrested, humiliated or called out on inappropriate sexualized behavior.  You will notice in this piece that no one get's arrested.  No 911 calls are made.  No one accuses anyone of sexual assault.  Why?  Because, the parties involved are all adults and not narcassitic children. In other words, we take responsibility for our own behaviors, and forgive those who trespass against us.

Kate Harding at Salon.com wrote a piece on March 23, 2009 about bachelorette parties at gay bars ("Gay bars to bachelorettes: Not tonight, honey"). Apparently, it is a phenomenon that puts a soon to be bride celebrating her upcoming nuptials in a venue primarily geared toward people who can't legally marry. That is the crux of the debate in the article.

In the article, she explains the phenomenon:

"...They want the freedom to get plastered and dance without being groped by equally drunk straight men..."

I wrote a comment, replying to the article, stating:

"I don't believe that women are afraid of straight guys groping them. I believe that they are afraid of their own actions once they get drunk. They are afraid they'll wake up next to some stranger after a drunken f*ck fest, and their reputations will have suffered. In other words, women go to gay bars to defend themselves against their fellow mean girls..."

Why is any of this relevant? Well, funny you should ask. One night I went out to Martuni's bar here in San Francisco to meet up with "Charlie Girls." It is a get together organized by local writer Charlie Jane Anders for the TG community and friends to socialize. Martuni's is not a gay bar. It is an piano bar with a comfortable mixed crowd.

During the get together, a self identified lesbian, who's name I forget and whom none of us knew, introduces us to Natalie and Graham. "Like the cracker?" I ask. "Exactly," Graham replies. They are a couple from Phoenix, though Natalie now lives in Alameda. They are in their mid-twenties. Graham is visiting and looking for work locally. One of our tranny posse leans into me and whispers, "Someone tell Natalie that her boyfriend is gay." Graham looked gay. He had a severe case of gay-face and dressed the part. Natalie is drunk. She introduces herself by telling a joke. "What's the difference between jelly and jam? I can't jelly my cock down your throat." Apparently, this was a line some guy used on her recently.

Anyway, to make a long story longer, Natalie goes on to tell us how she loves trannys and that we are all her best friend. She finds the women hipsters in the mission to be rude, uptight and arrogant. At one point, she reaches between my legs and tries to touch...uh, mmm, you know what. I had to forcibly remove her hand, not because I minded that she cop a feel, but because I didn't wanna get kicked out of the bar. By the end of the evening, Natalie had shown everyone at the table her breasts (which were spectacular, by the way). Without bothering to add context to content here, let me say that in an exchange between her and me, I tell her, "I don't like vagina's because they smell like fish" (A little white lie. I love vaginas.) She grabs my hand and tries to stuff it down her pants to feel her vagina. I demurrer. So she takes her own finger, places into her pants, inserts it into her vagina, pulls it out, and places it in front of my nose. "My vagina doesn't smell bad," she insists. By the way, it didn't smell bad. But, that is besides the point.

The point here is that we of the XY chromosome types should not allow people to attribute malevolent behavior to us to cover over their own faults. We must demand that people take responsibility for their own actions, and insist that they not attribute decisions made by them to behaviors for which we are not guilty.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Stupid Behavior by College Students

There is a definite double standard, at least in the Jezebel community, when it comes to college sexual scandals.  Here are some examples of comments of Jezebel readers regarding Karen Owen's Duke Fuck List, and USC's Kappa Sigma email scandal: 


thetechdonkey approved by Fri 11 Mar 2011 2:47 PM

1. Can we out this guy so that all his future employers and girlfriends see his name next to this in Google?
2. Really, the only solution is to take over the country--we're better educated and more tolerant and loving--and place men in camps and farms for heavy labor and sperm donation. Those who have other more mental skills that are useful (mathematics and engineering) and are not deemed a threat can have electronic monitoring devices that allow them to interact with women at work for a few hours a day.

baconismyaesthetic promoted by rainandroses (semi-unpro) Wed 09 Mar 2011 9:09 PM

After reading this piece of racist, women-hating filth, I take comfort in the thought that this sociopath will be outed, and as long as he lives, future lovers, employers, in-laws will be able to read this and see the kind of person he is. For as long. As. He. Lives.

DexterHaven @SarahMC 30 Sep 2010 4:47 PM

…That is, that these guys are egregious bros, she was doubtless labelled a slut by them and others, and any consequences to be borne will be hers. That's not to say that she shouldn't have done it…

Rooo sez BISH PLZ Wed 09 Mar 2011 7:10 PM

These types should get a government-mandated tattoo across their foreheads saying "DON'T DATE ME".



rhymeswithfeather 30 Sep 2010 4:20 PM

...While I'm NOT condoning this, what 99% of people fail to realize is that no, it's NOT the same thing when a man does this...

Ms.Frost @rhymeswithfeather 30 Sep 2010 4:27 PM

…When a woman posts it, she is admitting to an unpopular behavior and while some of the men might bristle at their inclusion (especially those identified as having a small dick), for the most part it will do very little to their reputations, social life, or dating prospects.

It's not OK, but that doesn't make it the same as if it were reversed.

andromache the epigraphist 09 Oct 2010 11:43 PM

wow, she really put a lot of work into this. while I might not agree with her lifestyle choices, I respect her commitment to such a project.

EsRos27 promoted by Kaila Hale-Stern approved by 07 Oct 2010 2:43 PM

Everyone does silly things sometimes, like making lists of hookups, etc. She did a silly thing that got out of hand.

Although I disagree with some of the things she finds hot, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla, right (and, that is not a race reference)?

I do feel bad for her. I mean... She made this funny thing to send to her friends, and then one or more of then thought it was funny and sent it to someone else and so one. So, it got out of hand…

…However, that doesn't mean I am in any way criticizing the author's desire to put this in writing. People love to write their own stories that are important to them at the time.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

White Girl Feminist Words of Wisdom - Amanda Marcotte

Being that the definition of feminism I get from main stream feminists is that feminism is just a movment about equality, I thought it would be nice to start introducing ourselves to main stream feminists.  Here's our first contestant, Amanda Marcotte.

Amanda Marcotte has been described as, "a false-rape apologist, scum sucking bigot."  (Described by me that is.)

You can read Amanda Marcotte's invectives at Pandagon.net.

Duke Rape Allegations:  "…I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

MRA's:  "Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes…"

Catholic Church:  "The Catholic church (sic) is the classic example of what feminists like me like to call 'rape culture'."

Virgin Mary:  "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

Men and Rape:  "…men use sexual violence to put women in their place, and then a chorus of voices rises to blame women who get attacked for not knowing their place."

I just think this one is funny:  "Polls demonstrate that the average woman's craving for abortion falls somewhere below her craving for stubbing her toe but high above her craving for Young Republican cock."

Friday, March 11, 2011

Tilting at Windmills and Saving Our Sons

It is the Quixotesque quest of mankind to search for “the answer.”  The question, in all its contexts and permutations, is “Why?”  It speaks to the vanity and hubris of collective humanity that there or those who believe that they possess said answer. 

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama wrote a book, “The End of History and the Last Man,” with the na├»ve thesis that western liberal democracy is the final state in man’s socio-cultural evolution.  “What we may be witnessing is…the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” 

It is an exercise in comfort intellectualism.  Its narcissistic message:  we are special; we have arrived; we are fully evolved.  It must be comforting to believe that all that you know, is all that will ever be.  What makes Fukuyama’s piece ultimately unimportant is that it is unimaginative.  It fails to learn from the past, and fails to dream of the future.

Eighteen years later, we are presented with the silly literary trope, “The End of Men,” by Hanna Rosin, written with a metaphorical smirk and alleging:  “…the modern economy is become a place where women hold the cards.”  The lead in to the article asks, “…what if equality isn’t the end point?”  In Rosin’s world, “…some percentage of boys are just temperamentally unsuited for college.” “American pop culture keeps producing endless variations of the omega male, who ranks even below the beta…”  “At the same time, a new kind of alpha female has appeared.”  “The more women dominate, the more they behave, fittingly, like the dominate sex.”  “[T]he U.S. economy is in some ways becoming a kind of traveling sisterhood: upper-class women leave home and enter the workforce, creating domestic jobs for other women to fill.” 

Throughout the article Rosin alludes to, but is too cowardly to come out and state, her obvious conclusion.  She hints at her conclusion, ironically, in the form of a question, “What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men...More to the point, what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?”

What makes Rosin’s piece so absurd is that she assumes, like Fukuyama before her, that life has a punch-line.  Her argument is predicated on the notion that our moment in history, all that we know, is all that will ever be.  Women on top.  The implication being that it’s just a natural evolution of humankind, and now we have arrived at the conclusion.

If that is the case, we can turn our backs on our boys.  We can ignore and let stand our TOTAL abdication of responsibility for our sons.  We can celebrate as unavoidable our total failure to tackle the crisis in which we’ve allowed our sons to endure.  And ignore our sons we do; “"Boys' issues are being neglected, whereas girls' issues have been addressed for over 20 years, with great success," said Judith Kleinfeld, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.

So, here we are.  Can we not address boys problems with great success?  We know that young men are having a hard time.  Boys are four times more likely to commit suicide.  Boys are less likely to attend college.  If they do attend, they are less likely to graduate.  We know that women in their twenties living in urban environments significantly out earn their male peers.  The question is “Why?”  What are the circumstances that we've allowed to occur that make possible the crisis in which our sons find themselves?  What do we do to help these kids?  Do we start throwing resources at them like we do for women?  Do we conjure up false advocacy research that presents faux narratives of their victimization is schools, like the American Association of University Women did for girls?  Do we set up a White House Council on Men and Boys, to parity the White House Council on Women and Girls?  Do we start using Title IX to enforce academic equality for boys?  None of this is going to happen, unless we take a stand.  When women were behind, we blamed society and passed Title IX.  When boys are behind, we blame the boys and pretty much do nothing. 

What do feminists, those representatives of a movement purportedly working for equality, add to this conversation?  At first, they deny that our sons need any help at all.  In “The Myth of the ‘Boy Crisis,” Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Chait Barnett actually argued that there is no boy crisis, and addressing it is a waste of time.  But when that argument becomes untenable, feminists change course.  They invoke their ideology.  To the ideologue, their ideology is the answer to all questions.  To the priest, God is the answer.  To the corporatist, free markets solve all problems.  To the communist, Marxism is truth.  To the feminist, feminism is the answer.  And pro-feminist males say as much. 

Michael Kimmel has the answer.  He tells us that the same “ism” that actively ignored our sons and has worked against their best interests, is actually the solution.  “It’s feminists who are really ‘pro-boy’ and ‘pro-father’— who want young boys and their fathers to expand the definition of masculinity and to become fully human.”  The same ideology that accuses our young men of being wife-beating, child-molesting, rape culture apologists, is actually their salvation?  Really?  Well, it must be.  Pro-feminist Hugo Schwyzer, tells us so.  The three time divorcee, addict and community college “professor” informs us, “….feminism – with its remarkable claim that biological sex has nothing to [do] with our human potential – is the best avenue for our personal and collective liberation.” (sic).  Bill Patick, another pro-feminist states, “[I]t is not feminism’s attention to girls that is leaving the boys behind. Rather, it is our society’s resistance to educating our boys about women’s liberation that is leaving them so poorly equipped to face the world they will soon encounter.”

These shitbags, who are so willing to throw away our young men, want to solve their problems?  Don’t you believe it.  Needless to say, feminism is NOT the answer.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

I fucking hate The Good Men Project...

...from its creepy anti-porn crusaders, such as Marnia Robinson - who has the temerity to suggest parents put their sons on a masturbation schedule - to their weird founder Tom Matlack, who proudly wears the term mangina as a compliment and writes articles like "Manhood by Cuddle" and "Bawlin'" (which informs the reader that "Real men cry").  I even hate the fact that their masthead is not a hyperlink to their home page. The magazine is so chalk-full of pro-feminist freaks, and the women who cheer them on, that it makes me want to vomit. 

What is the difference between me and the circus of clowns that is the pro-feminist movement? I actually like men.  No, let me take that back. I love men. I like being with them.  I like the way they smell.  I like that they are direct; they are honest; they are brave and self-sacrificing.  I like that men attempt the impossible, and that even in failure, they are glorious.  I like men because they rescue people from burning buildings.  I like men for their bravado and expressions of risk - sometimes with devastating results.  At least they try.  Even in defeat, I am inspired by the attempt.

I am horrified that there has been a decades old movement to denigrate, dismiss, slander, abuse, castigate, accuse, and destroy manhood - White Girl Feminism. I hate that we have allowed the destruction of men to satisfy the self-serving vanity of the white, middle-class, entitled children that have woven themselves so deep in the victim narrative that they are unwilling to acknowledge their own privileged status in the western world.

So, let us critique what it is to be a woman in this society.  Let's look at feminist orthodoxy, advocacy research, political mendacites, and the "pedagogy" (a word I dislike, but is so infused in feminist academia that I thought it appropriate) they use to indoctrinate the most privileged people on the face of the earth, "white girl feminists."

tl;dr:  Anal sex is much less painful if you use a properly viscous, inert lubricant.

And who is this psycho-tranny?  That would be me.  What are my credentials?  Pretty much, none.

I’ve lived much of my life presenting as male. I am well aware of the discrimination of being thought of as the standard human being.  As a person who grew up on the lower economic scale, I am offended by middle-class and upper-middle class white women (whose father’s paid for their college and a trip to Paris) telling me that I was/am their oppressor. I am also offended by the patently mendacious advocacy research and propaganda of a movement that is purportedly about equality.

Facts about me:
1. I am proud to be an atrocious speller.
2. I've published my writing and exhibited my art.
3. I went to Berkeley.
4. I am not a prostitute (anymore).
5. It's really hard to embarrass or intimidate me.