Meme - "Chole Craig: wouldn't it be cute if we slowly hunted the men into extinction"
"Kirsten Marie: super cute tbh"
"Dan Nad: Wait what the fuck? That's not even funny?"
"It's actually SUPER funny, that's why we're laughing"
"Mayank Kr: Bold of you to think that you can hunt down men into extinction. By time you lay even a single finger you will be 6 feet under the ground. And that would be funnier."
"Chole Craig: Whoa I'm gonna make a random guess and you tell me if I'm right.... You identify as an incel."
"Kirsten Marie: okay psycho sounds like you really want to murder women"
If you criticise women for fantasising about gendercide, you're an incel. And if you talk about male self defence against gendercide, you want to murder women
I’m leaving Sleeping Giants, but not because I want to | by Nandini Jammi - "How my white male co-founder gaslighted me out of the movement we built together."
Whether she's right or not, either way, this makes liberals look bad. Either (white) male feminists are scum or she's lying when playing the race and sex card
The Most “Unique, Excellent, and Promising” Episode - Freakonomics - "Men were more than 12 percent more likely to use at least one positive term in the title or abstract of their paper. This gender difference was even more pronounced in research published in the highest-impact journals... they weren’t necessarily more novel, or unique. I say that because we looked at articles published in the same journal, which is an important marker of an article’s actual novelty, and in the same topic area, and found that scientific teams led by men were significantly more likely to upsell their studies compared to teams led by women. That self-promotion may have paid off — studies using positive terms, like “novel” and “unique” did end up getting more citations, which means: they got more play... A paper by Julian Kolev, Yuly Fuentes-Medel, and Fiona Murray looked at the review process for research grants at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They found that applications from women had lower scores from reviewers, despite the foundation having a blind application process. The reviewers didn’t know anything about the applicants. So, how could this be?
GINTHER: It was a result of the words that they used that were, you know, grandiose relative to the words that women were using... One of the things I noticed about the paper is that the pool of applicants to the Gates Foundation is the same as the pool of applicants to the National Institutes of Health. And there’s no gender gap in funding at the NIH. So the question is what’s going on? If you look more carefully Gates Foundation approach, they have the reviewers read like a hundred, three-page proposals. I don’t know about you. But after proposal number five those big superlatives are going to resonate more with me than “We carefully considered and found” type language. So, I attribute some of the findings of women’s proposals being disadvantaged in the Gates foundation as an artifact of the review process at Gates...
They looked at Twitter use during a health policy conference and found that male health policy tweeters had a bigger following and were more likely to get retweeted than their female peers.
ARORA: So what you’re starting to see is at least that, you know, the very real sort of inequities with social media use. It’s sort of an extension of real life. And even though it’s a novel tool, if left to itself, you know, those same biases occur.
Sadly he assumes that all papers in the same journal are equally valuable. The more compelling conclusion is not kosher: studies using positive terms get more citations because they really are better
Unfortunately neither mentions a more compelling explanation for why there is no gender gap in funding at NIH: the grant process is not anonymous, so they can ensure that there is no gender gap
Unequal outcomes must be due to "biases" and there is no other explanation
NIH Considers Anonymity for Grant Applicants - "The National Institutes of Health, the largest provider of basic research money for universities in the United States, has long struggled with both the reality and the perception of bias in its grant awards. Over the years, it has taken steps to help black researchers, scientists at lower-prestige institutions, and those offering riskier proposals. It has tried to keep personal idiosyncrasies, financial conflicts, and opaque methodologies from skewing its grant-making processes."
Meme - "FEMINISM IS ABOUT GENDER EQUALITY. IT SAYS IT IN THE DICTIONARY."
"MEN DON'T SUFFER FROM SEXISM. THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF SEXISM DOESN'T MAKE THE AUTHORITY ON ALL WORDS"
Young Turks Founder Running for Katie Hill's Seat Posted Crude, Sexual ‘Rules’ for Women - "The Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur, who is running for former Rep. Katie Hill’s (D-CA) vacant seat in California’s 25th Congressional District, posted crude and sexual “rules for women” online"
So many big-name liberals claiming to be ‘male feminists’ are really sexual predators - "There was the paradigm-shattering discovery that Harvey Weinstein and a score or so of other Planned Parenthood donors were actually sexual predators. There was the abrupt downfall of feminist hero and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who was apparently enthusiastic about abortion and beating up his girlfriends. Senator Al Franken, who served as a relentless and reliable attack dog for the abortion industry on a variety of committees, was forced to resign in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations. Even Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been accused of groping a female reporter back when he didn’t have a carefully constructed image to uphold. These examples and many more have triggered a series of discussions on the not-so savoury reality of the “male feminist,” Clintonian men who know all the right buzzwords and support all the right causes but also happen to be pigs. Many now-conservative women who left the Left have written about the predatory men that they were forced to deal with in progressive circles—men who would, incidentally, be fierce in their defence of the right of women to abort any children that might be conceived in their casual encounters. As it turns out, there are plenty of selfish reasons a man might be fervent in his support of reproductive rights, and they have nothing to do with a passion for the works of Gloria Steinem. One of those men, it turns out, is Cenk Uygur, the host and creator of The Young Turks, a popular left-wing YouTube show. Uygur, who never passes up a chance to discuss his feminism and support for abortion, turns out to have been a very different sort of bro in the early 2000s, when he ran a blog recently uncovered by The Wrap. Uygur, it turns out, has written that women are “genetically flawed” because they don’t want to sleep around enough (especially with him), wrote that women should be sexually available for men very early in the dating process, and details evenings where he managed to successfully round a few bases with several dozen women. It gets worse. In another blog post, Uygur’s buddy (David Koller, now senior vice president of operations at the Young Turks), describes teenage girls “around 14-16” as “whores in training.” As recently as 2013, in fact, Uygur was tweeting out explicit admiration of a variety of female attributes that did not include anything remotely feminist, and would certainly not pass muster in the #MeToo era. Uygur responded to the discovery of these blog posts by The Wrap by admitting they were “ugly,” insisting he and his buddy had never picked up any underage girls, and noting that he deeply regretted “having written that stuff when I was a different guy.” So what does Uygur mean when he says that he was a “different guy” back then? He means that he was (apparently as recently as 2013, if his tweets are any indication) a right-winger... How very big of him, to criticize some fictitious, conservative version of Cenk. It’s also a colossal cop-out. The reality is that conservatives have opposed the very Sexual Revolution that Cenk and his progressive pervert pals have championed as a way of life... And as it turns out, Cenk must have been a “conservative” very, very recently—at least according to one former Young Turks staff member who spoke to The Wrap on the condition of anonymity, relating how Uygur “still makes comments that make female staffers uncomfortable.” Apparently, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. “Cenk is just a knucklehead. He’s a boy. He talks about women the way I talked when I was 13,” the former staff member related. “He’s obsessed with body count—basically, how many people you [had sex with]. This is an important number to him.”"
Seoul's "feminist" mayor is only one of South Korean President's allies accused of sex crimes - "The woman who accused Seoul's mayor of sexual harassment says the city government told her he wasn't "that kind of person" when she made her complaint, according to two non-profit organizations working with her. Park Won-soon, 64, died in an apparent suicide last week shortly after the sexual harassment claims were filed with police, meaning that the victim's claims won't be criminally investigated. But the accusations of Park's former secretary have sparked a firestorm among women's rights groups in South Korea, and raised questions over how seriously sexual harassment is really taken by President Moon Jae-in, who campaigned on the promise of becoming a "feminist president.""
Meme - "Making a girl believe that you like her just so you can have sex with her should be classified as sexual assault. But no one is ready to have that conversation yet"
"Tricking men into paying for dates when you had zero interest should be felony larceny too."
Alyssa Milano Says Childbirth Reminded Her of Being Sexually Assaulted - ""I remembered at one point [during childbirth] really not enjoying the fact that lots of people had access to my vagina," Milano, 48, tells host Zoë Ruderman, Head of Digital at PEOPLE. "And thinking to myself, 'Why does— I don't like this. Why does it feel so familiar? I've never had a baby before. Why does this invasive feeling feel so familiar?' That was just a fleeting moment, a tick in time, but I didn't forget about it.""
They could've given fewer people access to her vagina and then her baby could've died and she would've been blaming the hospital
Opinion | Why can’t we hate men? - The Washington Post - "it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half... is it really so illogical to hate men?... So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win."
People still claim with a straight face that no feminist hate men
This won't stop sucker men from being "allies" to people who hate them and want them marginalised
With ‘I Hate Men,’ a French Feminist Touches a Nerve - The New York Times - "The feminist essay, which makes a case for shunning men as a legitimate defense mechanism against widespread misogyny, was initially published in French by the nonprofit press Monstrograph. It only printed 400 copies. On the day it was released last August, however, an employee of France’s ministry for gender equality, Ralph Zurmély, emailed Monstrograph from his government account. The book was obviously, he wrote, “an ode to misandry.” Zurmély, who hadn’t read the book, likened it to “sex-based incitement to hatred,” and concluded: “I ask that you immediately withdraw this book from your catalog, subject to legal prosecution.”... The French ministry of gender equality, in the meantime, has taken pains to distance itself from Zurmély’s threat. A spokeswoman for the current minister, Élisabeth Moreno, said that she “firmly condemned this isolated act,” and added that Zurmély was in the process of being moved to a different job, “at his request.”... For Harmange, who volunteers with an association supporting rape victims, misandry had come to feel like the best concept to express her frustration with structural gender violence. “It was an insult you would get as a feminist,” she said. “Whatever you say, as soon as you criticize men, you’re accused of being a misandrist. That’s when I realized: Actually, that’s exactly it.” The short, fluid “I Hate Men” is part of a recent revival of anti-male sentiment in French feminist literature"
Of course, anyone publishing "I Hate Women" would be in jail very quickly
Apparently in France, gender equality is about hating men
Suzanne Moore: Why I was wrong about men - "As a class, I hate men. I’ve changed my mind. I am no longer reasonable... Having tried to live with various mishaps [relationships], I realise that this is not for me and it never will be. But then, nor will the kind of reasonable feminism in which we make allowances for men. Because they are men... If you are interested in the liberation of women, you’ll find that the biggest barrier to this is men: men as a class. I used to think, “I don’t hate all men.” I had therapy and everything. Now, I think that any intelligent woman hates men"
Ironically, she got kicked out of the Guardian for "transphobia"
Why It's Not OK to Hate Men - "Is it okay to hate women?... misandry – the unapologetic hatred of men as an undifferentiated group – is nothing new. Radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanis (founder of the Society for Cutting Up Men and shooter of Andy Warhol) were the most famous man-haters in the 1970s, but were pretty much disavowed at the time by many more mainstream feminists and later by third wave feminists. Misandry went out of fashion during the 1980s and the idea that feminists were all ‘lesbians and man haters’ was rightly ridiculed. Now it’s back – and much closer to the mainstream than it was 50 years ago. Despite all the remarkable advances we have made in gender equality, the idea that all men are the enemy of all women has been given a new lease of life, helped by the disgrace of Harvey Weinstein, the rise Donald Trump and the successes of the #metoo and #timesup movements... in ‘The Cut’ section of the New York magazine, a member of the public writing in complains to the ‘agony aunt’ – the journalist Heather Havrilesky – that she “hates men” and is in danger of becoming a “cranky old bitch”. Heather suggests in reply that she simply embrace her inner bitch. “Most men are terrible,” she says. “Most men are shit.”... I have occasionally indulged in group hatred – ISIS in their racist, faithist, head-hacking, innocent-slaughtering prime, the Conservative Party in the 1980s, anyone involved in Prog Rock – but it’s not a very healthy principle to base your life around. What does it mean to hate an otherwise random and unrelated group of people, as opposed to a specific individual? We can all enjoy hating, say, Nazis, pedophiles, and ISIS executioners beheading an aid worker. Hate can be reassuring, which is why it is so seductive. But when one is hating Nazis, one is hating people who subscribe to an ideology, an idea. Pedophiles and ISIS executioners are historically smaller groups, but they are also defined by a particular idea – sexual attraction to children and the cult of death. At some level, they’ve made a choice. No one is born a Nazi or an Islamist murderer, and even if Pedophilia is genetically influenced, that doesn’t absolve its perpetrators of guilt. However, hating men is not hating an idea or an abhorrent form of behaviour. It is hating half the world’s population, rich and poor, kind and cruel, black and white, gay and straight, just because they happen to have a Y chromosome. To hate such a disparate group seems – is – demented. However, there is a prism through which it makes perfect sense, the prism constructed by the odd and contradictory fusion of neo-Marxism and post-modernism. In this scheme of thought, now widely taught in the humanities and social science departments of the West’s leading universities, there are no intrinsically superior, universal values, like love or dignity or general human goodwill – and no such thing as ‘objective’ truth in the scientific sense. It’s all relative. There are just multiple and sometimes overlapping groups that compete for power, and their values, even their idea of what constitutes a ‘fact’, are determined by the relative status of their group. The most powerful group in society – in all societies – are men, and men, therefore, are collectively guilty for the oppression of every less powerful group. Since anything men utter is tainted by their place in the power hierarchy and their implicit desire to maintain that power – a homeless man at Grand Central station may be surprised, even delighted, to learn that he occupies a ‘privileged’ position in this hierarchy – nothing a man says can be taken at face value because, consciously or unconsciously, it is imbued with patriarchal values and language. Whether they realise it or not, all men are engaged in a struggle to consolidate and extend their power, particularly over women. This is doubtless why, according to this theory, rape is considered a manifestation of male dominance – of the patriarchy – rather than an expression of sexual desire. Power is everything – which tells you something, perhaps, about the status anxiety of this theory’s most fanatical adherents... This analysis, given a moment’s thought, doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even if you accept that all the ills of the world are down to patriarchy and the dominance of men, you have to concede the corollary – that all the triumphs of humankind are down to the patriarchy also, from medicine and science to the highest reaches of art and culture... Hating men is counterproductive. Hating men is not going to advance the cause of gender equality. On the contrary, if you tell someone that you hate them, simply because they have a penis, they have two basic alternative responses (other than ignoring you, which is probably the most sensible response). They can cringe and apologise – as many liberals do in the face of such onslaughts, hoping in vain for rehabilitation. The Maoists and their show trials did a lot to reveal the intrinsic human propensity to confess to imaginary sins. Alternatively, and more dangerously, you can respond with, “If you are justified in hating me then I am justified in hating you.”... Perhaps those flirting with ethno-nationalism have been deterred from embracing it in the knowledge that it will make them a social pariah. But it’s harder to abandon your gender... Hatred can be a way of virtue-signaling – a way of contrasting yourself favorably with the hated party, i.e. as a ‘good person’ in comparison. To hate Nazis means you’re publicly announcing yourself as not being a Nazi. To hate pedophiles means you are not a pedophile. However, for all its short-term payoffs, hate strangles all understanding. This is as true when directed towards genuinely hateful groups – like white supremacists – as it is for those less universally deserving of condemnation, such as men. Once you hate someone, or a group, you don’t have to bother understanding them. It simplifies the world and saves a lot of mental spadework."
This is another explanation of how postmodernism dovetails with critical theory to seemingly paradoxically incite hatred towards men, straight people, white people etc
This also calls to mind the problem with hating the patriarchy but loving the patriarch - as feminists ironically point out when it applies to gays, hating the sin bleeds over into hating the sinner
J on Twitter - "Menstrual symptoms can really be debilitating. Why doesn’t it qualify for time off work yet?"
"Im a business owner & I refuse to pay menstrual leave. 1) I can't afford it. 2) Y'all can control y'all cycles, I know y'all can. Do it at home & turn it off before coming to work. Be a professional no matter how bad the pain is. Respect your male coworkers & be nice to customers"
In a group I was in ("time to play satire, shitpost, snowflake or sock" - ironically, full of snowflakes) on this some people (almost all women, many of whom seemed to be feminists given their misandry) were insisting that periods couldn't be stopped, then when I pointed out that they could, I was told that that doesn't work for everyone, and isn't foolproof. Somehow, the comments were all in that vein rather than on the "do it at home" portion
Apparently you can't say that people with cold hands should wear gloves, since some people have 6 fingers so they can't wear gloves. Presumably you can't say that women have periods either (even before taking trans mania into account) since some women don't get them. Most probably these people are just being obtuse as a way to bash OP #2 since then they can claim he (and other men) are wrong and rag on them for supposedly not understanding how vaginas work, or having never touched a woman (since they love to incel-shame men who disagree with them)
More And More Women Are Choosing To Skip Their Periods - "More women in their 20s and 30s are choosing contraception that may suppress their menstrual cycles, says Dr. Elizabeth Micks, who runs an OB-GYN clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle. "In general, I think views are changing really rapidly," Micks says. "That need to have regular periods is not just in our society anymore."... With traditional birth control, a woman takes a hormone pill for 21 days to stop her cycle. Then she takes a sugar pill for a week, so she can have what looks like a period. But Micks says, physiologically this isn't a real period at all. And it isn't necessary. "There's absolutely no medical need to have a period when you're on contraception," she says... when doctors actually asked women if they wanted to have these fake periods, many said they didn't. Today women have many options if they want to try to suppress their cycles. There's the hormonal IUD, an arm implant and a hormone shot. They can also take some types of birth control pills continuously".
One feminist mocked this article for being from 2016. Apparently something has changed in female physiology in only 5 years. Ironically they're probably usually NPR fans
Why Menstruate If You Don't Have To? - The Atlantic - "“Once your periods are established, we can turn them off,” Sophia Yen, a pediatrics professor at Stanford Medical School, told me. “We now have the technology to make periods optional.” Few are as passionate as Yen about the possibility of a world with far less cyclical bleeding. “It’s my crusade,” said Yen, who also co-founded and runs Pandia Health, a birth-control-delivery company. “This is my moonshot.” People who have periods spend an average of 2,300 days of their lives menstruating. If more people chose to silence their period—or even just dial down the volume—that would mean a decrease in iron deficiency (which women experience at far higher rates than men), and fewer plastic tampon applicators littering landfills. Yen envisions the period of periods soon coming to an end"
One woman claimed that this was invalid because only 3 women in the world didn't bleed on birth control, got side effects or ever wanted to have kids and that I needed to "link medical journals or websites cause the Atlantic isn't it baby". Besides ignoring the Guardian, it's funny how the unapproved news sources are now not just Fox News and the Daily Mail. Anyway she shut up after I quoted Healthline and WebMD
One guy claimed that Sophia Yen was being misquoted (that would be a huge misquote) and that amenorrhea was unhealthy. So I showed him a transcript of an interview with her.
Naturally, even when I quoted her own words and asked pointed questions about what they meant, he insisted I was twisting them and said that people who have uteruses can never be wrong about their bodies (when they say women can't control their periods)
Getting Rid of Women's Periods With Birth Control is Perfectly Safe - The Atlantic - ""“There is no medical reason why a woman has to menstruate every month,” said Alyssa Dweck, an assistant clinical professor of OB/GYN at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York. “And there is nothing wrong with tweaking the system if bleeding is difficult for women.”... She could stock up on birth-control pills, skip the placebo week and be on a continuous hormone dose that would eliminate her periods and alleviate her suffering... Carolyn Thompson, an OB/GYN and fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told me via email that this method is both safe and was especially common before the introduction of “extended cycle” birth-control pills like Seasonalle, Seasonique, and Quartette... “Having a monthly period is reassuring but it is certainly not necessary,” says [James Segars, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins University’s department of gynecology and obstetrics]""
James Segar is male, so the feminists are going to mock him for "mansplaining"
‘We don’t need to bleed’: why many women are giving up on periods - ""Dr Anne Connolly, the clinical lead for Women’s Health for the Royal College of GPs, says there is no health benefit to them: “Ninety-nine per cent of women don’t need to bleed.” Judith Stephenson, the Margaret Pyke professor of sexual and reproductive health at University College London, says the same... In January, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) updated its guidelines to make it clear there were no health benefits to taking the break... [Dr Jane Thomas, a consultant gynaecologist at Homerton university hospital in London] says doctors have known for years that the combined pill could be taken without a break"
Is Menstrual Leave Sexist? How Paid Absence For Periods Affects Workplace Dynamics - "Several arguments offered against the policy are:
1. Loss to businesses: In an interview with Fast Company, the founder of Thinx (a U.S company that manufactures 'period-proof underwear'), Miki Agrawal said: “Women go through their cycle every single month. We are not going to be, like, you can work from home whenever. We are a company, we are building a business.” She also added women should not allow menstruation interfere with their productivity.
2. Increases gender pay gap: In a Forbes article, finance writer Tim Worstall puts forth the arguments that giving extra paid days off to women as menstrual leave could increase the gender pay gap. He says as the companies have to bear the cost of these paid leaves, the wages of the women taking the days off as menstrual leaves would fall in comparison to those that do not. He says the wages of women who take period leaves would decrease by1/22 or 1/23 in comparison to those that do not (men and post-menopausal women).
3. Benefits only a small section of women: In countries like India where a large number of women work in the unorganized sector, there is also the argument that such a policy could never be applied to those jobs.
4. It is sexist and prying: Some people are of the view the policy renders girls and women less capable than men. A research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Carla Pascoe, writes in an article for the Conversation: “Enshrining menstrual leave as a normal part of organizational policy creates the impression that all women experience period pain so crippling that ordinary work functioning is impossible.” The article also argues the period leave policy should not be mandated. According to another article in Slate, women do not need the “extra slack” that period leaves offer."
Some people were claiming that there shouldn't be menstrual leave - it should just be paid time off/sick leave. Naturally, if women are paid less than men because they take more paid time off/sick leave than men, these same people will also be outraged since they believe in "equity"
Doctors Have Finally Ruled Menstrual Cramps As Painful As Heart Attacks - "Menstrual cramps, or Dysmenorrhea as it's technically called, has finally been ruled as painful as having a heart attack. Professor of reproductive health at University College London, John Guillebaud, told Quartz that patients have described the cramping pain as 'almost as bad as having a heart attack.'... John, you've made our good list." Clearly if someone misses many days of work due to a heart attack or otherwise cannot perform due to the pain, it is discrimination to pay him less or not promote him. I like how even a professor of reproductive health gets dismissed as a "dude" and is only "good" if he agrees with her. So much for trusting the experts. Liberals only like the experts they agree with
Taylor Swift condemns ‘lazy’ joke in Netflix’s Ginny and Georgia: ‘2010 wants its deeply sexist joke back’ - "Taylor Swift has issued a withering condemnation of a sexist joke about her in Netflix’s new series, Ginny and Georgia.The artist’s fans reacted with fury this week after realising that the final episode of the show includes a line of dialogue referring to Swift’s dating history... “What do you care? You go through men faster than Taylor Swift.”"
Criticising a woman = sexism
Americans Against The Republican Party - Posts | Facebook - ""[Trump] changes wives like most people change underwear."
There're feminists who claim everyone is sexist towards Taylor Swift because men don't get made fun of for dating multiple people
NY Daily News Photos on Twitter - "Clooney changes girlfriends like the rest of us change socks! Meet the women of George Clooney"
Celebrity Serial Daters: 10 Stars Who Can't Find True Love - "Colin Farrell
Bradley Cooper
Gerard Butler
Leonardo Dicaprio
John Mayer"
Probably some feminists will claim that calling someone a "serial dater" isn't the same thing, but we can take it from none other than... Taylor Swift:
"I'm only allowed to date if it's for a lasting, multiple-year relationship. Otherwise I'm a, quote, 'serial dater.'" (Taylor Swift Is Tired Of Being 'Shamed' Over Her Love Life)
Not to mention how males are always mocked for being incels - but never females. So since feminists are fine with that (or even indulge in that themselves), they shouldn't be upset even if it were the case that only women were "shamed" for having many partners
Ginny & Georgia Taylor Swift “sexism”: The singer’s latest accusations are almost as dumb as the Netflix series. - "Swift proves that she didn’t form a reputation as the biggest grudge holder in pop music for nothing... Calling this joke “deeply sexist” is verging on ludicrous. Deeply sexist? To say that Swift famously had a lot of boyfriends? It’s a strange hill for her to die on—especially given how Swift herself has made her personal life a major theme in her music throughout her career. In fact, she made essentially the same joke Ginny & Georgia made herself years ago: Does the line “Got a long list of ex-lovers” from “Blank Space” ring any bells?... What happened to the mature, baby-present-sending, new-and-improved Taylor?"
Do the math: rape stats don't add up - "According to the FBI "[t]he rate of forcible rapes in 2012 was estimated at 52.9 per 100,000 female inhabitants." Assuming that all American women are uniformly at risk, this means the average American woman has a 0.0529 percent chance of being raped each year, or a 99.9471 percent chance of not being raped each year. That means the probability the average American woman is never raped over a 50-year period is 97.4 percent (0.999471 raised to the power 50). Over 4 years of college, it is 99.8 percent. Thus the probability that an American woman is raped in her lifetime is 2.6 percent and in college 0.2 percent — 5 to 100 times less than the estimates broadcast by the media and public officials. Of course, the rape-statistic apologists will say that rape is massively underreported. Only 5 percent of the rapes or attempted rapes in a U.S. Department of Justice paper were reported to the police. But why is that? Scholars Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes say that 17.7 percent of the women who did not file a report thought the rape was a "[m]inor incident; not a crime or police matter."... Where does the "one in four" statistic come from? The organization One in Four USA cites a study by Ms. Tjaden and Ms. Thoennes, "Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey." If one looks at the 2006 report those authors published under the auspices of the Department of Justice, one finds that their results are based on a 1995-1996 telephone survey of 8,000 men and 8,000 women and that "only 24 women and 8 men reported during their interviews that they had been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey." That's an annual risk of 0.3 percent each year. This yields a 50-year risk of 13.9 percent, which is still significantly less than 25 percent. The Ms. Magazine report, I Never Called It Rape, cites a survey of 930 women and concludes that 44 percent of them said they were victims of rape or attempted rape. In defense of Ms., the actual study said that only 22 percent of the 930 respondents "disclosed experiences of completed and/or attempted rape in answer to the one question that used the word rape." The researcher, Diana Russell, doubled the figure. The woman supervising the Ms. Magazine survey, Ellen Sweet, conceded that "1 in 4 or 5 women are the victims of rape or attempted rape, according to the legal definition, but only 1 in 4 of those women identifies her experience as rape." In other words, the real rape/attempted rape statistic is one-in-sixteen or one-in-20 — 5 percent. Further exacerbating the confusion over rape statistics, the Department of Justice counts "verbal threats" as "sexual violence." The Department of Justice report, "The Sexual Victimization of College Women" — which includes as victimization "general sexist remarks [made] in front of you" (grow a thick skin, girls) — says that 48.8 percent of the women who were raped said that what happened to them was not rape, with another 4.7 percent saying they didn't know if it was rape or not. In other words, the rape researchers, and not the police, were the ones telling the purported victims, "I don't believe you." To underscore this, I Never Called It Rape states in Chapter 4 that 42 percent of rape victims had sex again with their rapists. The National Violence against Women study says that the average female victim was raped 2.9 times in the preceding year. One infers that the "rape" victims were using a different definition of "rape" than the researchers."
Silencing victims to push your agenda is the feminist way
One author is a collee professor of maths. Luckily for him this was written in 2014. But it'll be dug up and he'll be cancelled any day now
