Not on our watch! – Google
When talking about his own sexual experiences as a teenager Milo said the exact same thing Eve Ensler wrote in the Vagina Monologues: “it was a good rape”. Strangely enough it only caused a mild controversy in the case of Ensler, who then adjusted the words of her play a bit and everything was fine. On the other hand cretins and retards are now calling Milo a pedophile for saying he didn’t find having sex when he was 13 traumatizing. Newsflash, fuckwits: having sex as a teenager doesn’t make you a pedophile, and it doesn’t even make your partner one if you’re biologically mature. Pedophilia is the desire of biologically immature children without secondary sex characteristics, something that does not apply to teen boys who already have erections. Having sex with them is considered statutory rape, as they’re under the age of consent, obviously, but it’s not pedophilia.
Anyways, it’s pathetic how scum like Lena Dunham get away with molesting their own siblings, Eve Ensler gets away with calling the rape of a 13 yo girl “good”, but Milo talks about his feelings about getting molested and it’s reason enough to decry him as a sex offender of sorts. It makes me sick how people are unable to think beyond pre-digested thought panels served to them by the media.
When there’s a discussion about male suicide the main narrative is usually the feminist one about how “toxic masculinity” makes men suppress their own (or each other’s) feelings, resulting in a higher number of suicides. Now that feminism is losing some ground this narrative was begrudgingly supplemented with the confession that men usually don’t have personal or institutional support networks like women do – a strange thing in a society built to serve men at the expense of women if you ask me -, but this is turned on its head by implying it’s also the result of toxic masculinity. The mainstream notion about male suicide is something like this: men have it so much better than women, yet they suppress their emotions because men are emotionally stunted neanderthals, and this leads to suicide. The proponents of this notion seem to agree that keeping silent about small problems is 4 times more unbearable than real hardships, which seems quite peculiar to be honest.
The simple truth is that men have more problems than women. If you saw a statistic saying indonesians have 4 times the suicide rates of germans your immediate guess would be that indonesians have more problems and hardships, right? The same should be the case for the statistical difference between men and women as well, only nobody seems to entertain the thought because it’s going against the prevailing feminist narrative.
So let’s analyze what’s really going on by looking at the leading causes of suicide in different age groups.
1. Childhood suicide
The leading causes of suicide for children are:
2. Teenager suicide
The leading cause of suicides for teenagers (apart from things filtering through from the previous bracket) is romantic failures. Teenaged boys realize that for about 90% of them “dating” is not a joy but a serious, continuous effort; apart from the most popular guys none of them receive any attention, praise or interest from girls. What feminists say is a sexist stereotype against women, namely that they’re passive in dating situations, is what guys experience first-hand: if they don’t try to initiate contact nobody gives a shit about them. Since most girls receive more attention than they can handle it never crosses their minds to initiate contact with ‘average’ boys. Many men never receive a single heartfelt romantic compliment in their entire lives. This is soul-crushing, but boys are raised to never complain, and anyone can imagine the backlash if one of them would start lamenting how girls never compliment him. Ever.
So boys learn to ignore this, but it still undermines their sense of self-worth and self-confidence.
Add to this the fact that one of the most important hormone of sexual thirst is testosterone in both sexes, something which guys have about ten times as much, and you can realize how dating is a pressing biological urge for teen boys while little more than an interesting pastime for teen girls. This is of course necessary for natural selection to work properly – women have to control their urges better than men to be able to choose the fathers of their offspring -, but it creates an environment where male intimate needs are never quite met. Since popular boys have the same urges as average ones, and no reason to suppress them, they enjoy practically unlimited attention from girls at the cost of average boys getting rejected all the time. Why would a pretty snowflake care about Average Joe when Lead Singer Mike and Football Captain Aiden both show some interest in her (no matter how superficial and fleeting that interest might be)? So for most teenage boys the choice is between facing constant rejection in the shadow of luckier guys or abandoning initiation of contact altogether which equals guaranteed loneliness.
This could easily lead to suicidal thoughts for boys as they feel they face a lifetime of loneliness with no chance of finding a suitable partner. Most girls never experience this feeling because even the below average ones receive a certain level of male attention, so for them there is a guaranteed consolation price, they just have to settle for it. There’s nothing like that for guys. Girls know they have intrinsic value, but most boys feel they are only valued for what they have, if that. They realize nobody will ever love them for themselves, and it presses them towards risk taking, being competitive, and sacrificing things for success, to earn female companionship. Those who don’t realize this or don’t have what it takes to succeed are turning into the “nice guys” and “manboys” feminists love to deride for not being attractive and useful enough to women.
3. Adult suicide
It’s not hard to notice the common theme: the most frequent causes of suicide are either specific to men, hit men significantly harder, or have safety nets for women only. Waving all this away with the notion that everything would be fine if only men were able to talk about their feelings is pretty much retarded, but of course our societies leave us no other choice considering how straying from the “women have it worse” narrative is forbidden. If you’re unwilling to notice that men are killing themselves because they have serious problems you must find some sweeping pseudo-psychological narrative to cover the truth.
Strangely enough the patriarchy never shows up to help men in tough situations; their male privilege seems to malfunction right when they would need it the most. On the other hand women seem to be immune to most of the aforementioned problems because society is set up in a way that protects their innate privileges and grant them artificial new ones. The signs of “patriarchal oppression” feminists are up in arms about are not cause for suicide; that there are more male CEOs or politicians means fuckall to the average women. The signs of the so-called oppression of women are always abstract and never manifest directly in an individual’s life, unlike male problems that are direct and severe. If you realize this the feminist explanation for male suicide (ie. that men are stoopid) looks not only asinine but destructive – it prevents help from reaching those who need it the most.
It’s not really news but assclowns on the internet are offended just now that in hollywood’s version of Ghost in the Shell the main protagonist will be played by Scarlett Johansson – a white woman!!! I have three things to say about this:
First of all, white characters are routinely blackwashed nowadays, and if you don’t find that equally as offensive as whitewashing you’re a hypocrite whose opinion is worthless.
Secondly, both Hollywood and the US are majority white (and no, this is not a “problem” to be solved), which means the new GitS movie will be made by mostly white people, for a market consisting of mostly white people. Producers are free to think that hiring white actors will make them more money, that’s not racism. Accusing them of giving roles to whites just because they hate blacks/asians is clearly retarded since they only ever care about profits. And since they have bought the license to GitS it’s entirely up to them to do whatever the fuck they want with it. It’s not a “japanese movie” any more. If asian folks don’t like the idea of white actors in GitS they shouldn’t have sold it to a white studio in a white country. Hollywood is a business and it’s under no obligation to promote anyone or anything at its own expense, be it asian actors or wretched ideologies.
Finally, if you think whitewashing or cultural appropriation are real problems it’s obvious you hate whites and/or cultivate an extraordinary amount of white guilt. You can try hiding behind the excuse that hating whites is not racism, it won’t make you any less hateful. Just like how black or asian people are allowed to freely reinterpret or reimagine any form of art, white people are allowed to do the same, and it doesn’t suddenly mysteriously become racism when whites are doing it. And nope, no amount of braindead mumbo-jumbo about power structures or institutional fuckery will change the fact that if something is not racist when some races do it then it’s also not racist when other races do it. Trying to argue otherwise is just proof again that you hate white people because you’re a bigot.
So, basically, if you have a problem with ScarJo in GitS just because she’s white, go fuck yourself you retarded racist crybaby.
ps. I know she doesn’t like being called ScarJo, that’s why I’m doing it, because who in their right minds would call a nickname like this “violent”?! Fuck me, people are stupid.
Original comment on reddit, quoted in full:
I’ve been reading “Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics” by Tim Goldich. In it he cites a quote from the Daily Bruin (1996), extracted form a book by Cathy Young (Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality). It encapsulates the attitude of many feminists (and dare I say it, women in general):
In a 1996 article in the campus paper the Daily Bruin, UCLA student Jessica Morgan calls it “creative feminism.” Women, she asserts, should employ “a combination of feminist ideals and the advantages that come with being female” to achieve their ends: fall back on feminism if they feel sexually harassed but on femininity if they need to use sex appeal to get their way; refuse to defer to men but rely on them to do manly things like squash bugs. “So men are confused, and I say ‘good,’” adds Morgan. “The more confused the men of this country are, the easier they are to manipulate…. The more easily they are manipulated, the more likely it is that we’ll get what we want—whatever it is that we want.”
This is what I have found so aggravating about feminism for the last 40+ years. Most of the time this attitude remains largely unspoken, at least publicly, but this woman has laid bare the way many women think of men.
Who could be the best advocate for feminism? Who is the one person amongst the living who encapsulates the spirit of feminism perfectly?
If we’re looking for the avatar of feminism, this person must meet a certain set of conditions:
Drumroll please… The embodiment of feminism is Christina Hoff Sommers.
She passes all those tests with flying colours, plus she has some added bonuses as well, like an academic background, a high level of dignity and respectability, and a certain air of femininity as well. If there is a human being on this planet who is perfect for representing feminism, it’s her.
Now, what does it say about the actual feminist movement that it ostracized her, more often than not calling her an “antifeminist”?
It says that the feminist movement does not represent what is written in the dictionary about it. Since she represents all the values associated with ‘dictionary feminism’, the opinion of any given feminist about her is their opinion on dictionary feminism. What they say about her represents their stance on the core values of dictionary feminism. When they say she is the antithesis of what feminism stands for today, they admit that feminism is, for all intents and purposes, the polar opposite of what the dictionary says about it.
She cares about equality, she doesn’t hate men, and she only deals in truth. This makes her an antifeminist. What is a feminist then?
There’s no escaping the fact that oppressors are evil. When faced with this notion some progressives might try to evade this fact for reasons I might detail later, but really, our human minds think in simple terms. If you oppress others, you’re an evil bastard. Oppression personified is a tyrant ruling over people with an iron fist, entertained by their needless suffering. It’s not often that we think of oppressors as a merry bunch of nice people inviting others for a picnic.
So when the soldiers of identity politics talk about minorities being oppressed (even though there are no laws stacked against them), gullible people will feel a subconscious antipathy towards the designated oppressors. The larger the oppressor group, the less likely that these honest dupes will directly hate all of them; they will just have a quiet resentment seated at the back of their minds waiting to jump forward at the first sign of real or imagined slights. You can see this all around when seemingly normal people become lunatics frothing at the mouth organizing hate campaigns against someone wearing the wrong shirt, writing the wrong story or telling the wrong joke. (No, I will not link to Taylor, Whedon or Hunt, you already know what I’m talking about.)
There are 3 distinct minority movements under the umbrella of progressivism, with different ideas about who the oppressors are. Feminists say it’s men, the civil rights crowd says it’s whites, the LGBT community insists it’s hetero, cis-gendered people. When any of them attacked their oppressors in the past, they have hit the wall built by the other two progressive groups: white feminists saying men are evil were scolded by the civil rights movement because saying anything bad about blacks is racism; the LGBT folks intervened claiming feminists can’t say anything bad about homosexuals or transsexuals either. Thus intersectionality was invented. After a couple of rounds of this silly game they realized that the group of oppressors each of them can target is pretty small; after all the minorities were taken out of the picture the remaining “majority” was that of cis-gendered, heterosexual white males. This is the group all progressives can hate without repercussions, because nobody will come to defend them and they can’t defend themselves since they are the oppressors. Whatever oppressors say is automatically discarded because oppression: loop closed, case closed. White men are evil, and the only ones who could disprove this are white men, whose words don’t count.
Enthusiastic progressives (also known as the warriors of social justice) fight simultaneously against all forms of oppression – which means they fight with tripled anger against the only acceptable target: straight white men. They hate oppression, so they hate oppressors, and in their eyes heterosexual white males are responsible for every oppression in the world.
What does this have to do with the sci-fi award of ever-declining prestige, the Hugo? The social justice bullies claim it was attacked by nazis! No, I’m not kidding. This supposed ‘right wing attack’ and the progressive cry for help pretty much directly proves that the Hugo already was (and still is) under the influence of progressives. If it were controlled by evil white men, why on earth would they attack it now? Problem is, progressives always argue from the position of victimhood, meaning they can never admit to being in the position of power, so even though they have near-total control over the Hugo, they must claim they don’t.
They say conservative writers receive the Hugo only so rarely because – judged strictly on merit and literary criteria – conservative sci-fi is bad. What are these literary criteria, you ask? The race, sex, and sexuality of the author, of course, plus the ideological dynamics in the book under the magnifying glass. In short, everything is decided by the book’s relation to straight white males. If it’s neutral, or, god forbid, favorable towards this evil demographic, the book is bad. It’s not good literature, it’s not good science fiction. It’s the work of oppressors! And people enjoying these books must be evil as well, because no decent human being could or should enjoy a book that’s not about the evilness of hetero white men. Readers loving books that aren’t about the oppression of women are sexists; people enjoying books that aren’t about the oppression of non-whites are racists; fans consuming books that aren’t about the oppression of LGBT people are some kind of phobes… You get the idea.
To summarize: if you think sci-fi means a fun combination of science and fiction, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobe, neo-nazi scumbag and you should probably die. People who aren’t shit like you prefer sci-fi like this Hugo-winning piece of perfection: If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love – a beautiful tale of hetero white men racistly and homophobically attacking a non-white individual with pool cues in a bar, beating him to a bloody coma for no other reason than them being typical, run-of-the-mill hetero white men. (Don’t ask where’s the sci-fi in that, that’s irrelevant.)
They say conservative sci-fi is bad because it doesn’t convey progressive values. This admission is self-defeating as it proves the ulterior political motive it tries to deny, but hey, let’s not hang up on such minute details. We all know the only good sci-fi is social justice sci-fi – that’s just the way things are and this in no way means that the social justice bullies have taken control over the Hugo. It’s them evil white men who attacked the completely neutral Hugo absolutely unprovoked!
So there’s this progressive crowd projecting all the world’s evil onto straight white men. They offer only one way for these evil fuckers to redeem themselves: join the group. If you officially join us, they say, we will not harass you (until you do something that bothers any other member of the club). And here we arrive at the case of George R. R. Martin, who is seemingly the go-to authority about the nazi attack on the Hugo.
Dear George, grow a spine.
You and I both know that none of the puppies are neo-nazis. It’s a laughable accusation leveled by totalitarian-minded people who can’t suffer anyone disagreeing with them on moral questions. They are so pure their enemies must all be totally evil, right? Isn’t this something you fight against in your books, this black & white morality that infested 20th century fantasy so thoroughly?
You and I both know perfectly well that the puppies have amongst their ranks women, non-whites and every possible gender/sexuality combination. They are not against these people, they are these people, just as much as you guys are. And it’s not them rummaging through authors’ underwear to determine if their books are good. It’s not them turning to the spectrometer aimed at writers to determine what to think about their work. It’s not them calling books “bad-to-reprehensible” without reading a word of them, based solely on the authors’ political views. It’s not them thinking the sci-fi community should be reduced to a certain set of people, with the wrongfans kicked to the curb.
It’s you guys.
It pains me that you’re immune to the realization that you are the intolerant, bigoted hacks you warned society about. You want to “purify” science fiction, you think the value of a book is between the legs of the author, you care about the color of a writer’s skin. You’re practically obsessed with these things and couldn’t care less about actual science fiction.
No, yeah, not you personally. You’re just a part of this machine, and your uneasiness is palpable. You’re trying to navigate these waters the best you can, but that is only good enough for cowardly copouts like this:
“Are these the neo-Nazis and rightwing reactionaries we have been warned of? The truth is … no one knows”.
Why George, there are people who know. And I guess you’re one of them. You just can’t say so because it’s not in your interest – the progressive crowd might attack you! Again! But this kind of weaselry tarnishes your reputation, as respectable people would defend others from grave, unsubstantiated, outlandish accusations. Eric Flint had the spine to do it, because he’s a man of principles. You are, it seems, a man of interests.
These false accusations are serious, foul, and indefensible. If you have a molecule of decency left circulating in your veins you don’t go around accusing people of naziism just because they like their science fiction free from thoroughly politicized ‘social justice’.
So here we are. Progressives want to deny their influence over the Hugo so badly they resort to calling non-progressives nazis. They have no other cards left. If this fails, just like all the previous methods, they will be naked. If it’s not radicals “attacking” the Hugo but decent everyday people, then it’s radicals “defending” it. After this line has been crossed, admitting that John C. Wright or Larry Correia are not neo-nazis is an indirect confession that Irene Gallo kinda’ is. She’s the kind of person who thinks it’s fine and dandy to smear and slander, to demonize and denigrate people she doesn’t like, because anyone disagreeing with her is evil and deserves it. Ruining reputations and hurting careers is okay, since any and all differing opinions are literally naziism. Why wouldn’t she call her enemies nazis? If the only way to hurt them is to lie outrageously, so be it. Who cares?
There are some who care, actually: people with a sense of justice – not the social kind, the traditional one.
The politically correct progressive crowd knows perfectly well that non-progressives live in fear of them, censoring their own words and actions to avoid the fate of Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt (who got shafted with a lie by the way). What does it say about their character that they think this is a good thing? They think non-progressives should live in fear because we’re evil. This level of wrongheadedness is astounding.
Newsflash: if people fear you because you routinely organize pitchfork mobs to destroy people’s lives you’re not the enlightened good guy you thought you were. If your only way of expressing your moral superiority is organizing hate campaigns you’re not the enlightened good guy you thought you were. In fact an enlightened person with superior morals would be more forgiving, compassionate, empathetic, patient, understanding – none of which describes you at all. You are the polar opposite of these. Oh, you think you have these traits in spades if we’re talking about certain races or genders… Which makes you a racist and a sexist. Let’s be honest here for a second: you see whites and men as your enemies. Your general relationship with these folks is pretty much exhausted by reminding them to check their privilege and sporadically mentioning “feminism cares about men too” while chanting “you are fucking scum” to the faces of men who want to listen to a lecture about male suicide.
But of course most progressives know all this deep down, they’re just enjoying the power of terror they have. Why would they leave the mob? Then they’d have no power over their enemies and they’d also have to self-censor in fear of the progressive crowd. It’s much better to wield a pitchfork than to be on the pointy end of one.
In fact I’m thinking of joining them and becoming an authoritarian, totalitarian nazi just like them…
Just kidding. I have morals. Not superior, just the garden-variety.
The idea behind opposing slut shaming is a misunderstanding. Feminists were never known for perfectly understanding the intricacies of sexual dynamics or the psychological differences between the sexes, so building their case against slut shaming on this misunderstanding is more or less expected.
They think men and women are generally the same, therefore men and women should hold the same standards and have the same preferences when looking for a partner. If men and women have different standards then there’s a problem with men. If males and females have two different sets of expectations then the female one is correct, and the male one is wrong. Men having a different standard means they have a double standard! And they must be cured, ie. turned into women.
It’s obvious that women generally prefer experienced men. How do I know this? Because they call the inexperienced ones losers, and they use the word “virgin” as an insult. They might deny this when pointed out but they instinctively know that a man seducing many women is successful, he is doing something that requires talent, charms, effort. On the other hand a man without conquests is a man without talent or charm. Instinctual female urges like hypergamy and preselection reward experienced men, there’s no question about that.
Men on the other hand tend to choose differently according to the role the potential partner will fill in their lives. For short sexual flings their expectations are purely aesthetic, or to put it another way: their dicks will decide. This of course means that most men don’t have any problems with sluts – they will have fun with them and move on. Only losers fall for sluts though, and that is because men who aren’t losers become a lot more pragmatic when choosing long term partners. Men generally invest a lot of emotions, energy and resources into long term relationships and they care if that investment will be worth it or not. Wasting your time and money on a slut who will leave you at the first chance of fucking someone hotter is utter foolishness. For LTRs men want women who don’t cheat or leave easily, ie. women who are able and willing to control their own sexual urges to achieve long term goals. This is of course all the more true for marriages, where the risks for men are multiplied by infinity. Choosing the wrong woman might lead to a divorce, ie. the man losing his children, home, life savings, the fruits of his labor for the next decade or two, and, ultimately, his freedom or his life. This is serious business.
How do we know if a woman is able and willing to control her sexual urges? She has a history of doing so. Anecdotal evidence, the wisdom of the ages, and actual scientific studies all prove that sluts are not good LTR material. Sorry sluts, it’s just the way it is. You might be offended by the saying “once a slut, always a slut”, but it’s statistically true. You come with an increased risk of cheating and divorce that men don’t want to take, whether you like this or not. You might say or think you’re a reformed slut who’s finished with the cock carousel, but please understand if we rather believe the statistics.
Many people will say the double standard is that men expect women to have a low partner count while they rack up theirs. Newsflash: men should fulfill women’s expectations, not their own. Why on earth would they meet their own expectations for women if that is detrimental to their chances with women, since the two standards are pretty much polar opposites? The only logical solution left is that nobody should have any expectations at all… Which, albeit an interesting thought, will never come true.
So, men and women have opposite standards when choosing long term partners, and for good reasons – but of course no reason is good enough for the ideological horde which believes that men and women must be made the same. Males must adopt female standards or else! Sluts are just as good as non-sluts, and men should not have the desire or the ability to differentiate. How dare they expect a woman to control her sexual urges? That’s placing unreasonable expectations on women! Men want to rule over women and restrict their sexuality!
Except male preferences in choosing their partners are not controlling women or restricting their actions. It’s simply a question of personal taste, much like women preferring tall men over short, rich men over poor, and so on. Preferring chaste women over sluts for LTRs does not constitute discrimination against anyone. It’s the prerogative of any one individual to choose his/her intimate partners according to any criteria s/he sees fit. Me saying that I like women with big tits, a firm ass and a low partner count does not restrict anyone’s sexuality in any way, shape or form.
So, back to the main point: feminists find fault in men having their own set of standards. It must be done away with and they must adopt female standards because… patriarchy! Or equality, or something. The desire for virtuous women is wrong because sluts find it too hard to cope with. They want high quality men with low standards and they fail to see how that’s practically an oxymoron. For them it all seems logical: if women don’t have a problem accepting partners of considerable experience, men mustn’t either.
At least this is the story they try to project, in all its hilariousness. Their epic hypocrisy becomes self-evident when one realizes that they do shame men for being succesful with women as well, hence the terms womanizer, lothario, skirt chaser, player, rake, etc. They want men to accept sluts, yet they demonize men who chase skirts because they supposedly “take advantage of women” or something. When two consenting adults are having sex, the woman is empowered and is discovering her sexuality, but the male is a lecherous villain with ulterior motives. So the woman is empowered but is also a victim… Try to make sense of that.
The only actual double standard in this picture is that feminists demand that men accept any and every form of female sexuality, while they shame and bash all forms of male sexuality. We arrived at the point where all feminist ideas meet: women are wonderful, men are evil. Actions and opinions don’t have any inherent moral value; they’re good or bad according to the genitals of the people doing or having them.
What they also miss is that slut shaming was invented by mothers and grandmothers who knew for a fact that only losers marry sluts, and who didn’t want their daughters and granddaughters to marry losers. So they told them in no uncertain terms that sleeping around is out of the question. In a weird fashion this is the western equivalent of female genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa. The goals are the same, only we’re a bit more intelligent here in the west: we deter young women from ruining their reputation by talking to them instead of cutting off parts of their vagina.
Men generally don’t confront women openly because they know there’s nothing to gain from it. The general public treats men who confront women as garbage, regardless of who was right or who “won” the argument. Men calling women sluts openly is pretty much nonexistent. It’s women who backstab each other or knock each other down a few pegs on the social ladder by namecalling or gossip. If feminists want less slut shaming they should tell women to stop undermining each other this way.
What’s absolutely sure is that feminists attacking men thinking they’re the masterminds behind slut shaming are idiots. That, and quality men will never marry sluts, no matter how hard idiots try to shame them into it.