Saturday, November 19, 2011

Promise Me You Will Never Let Go: Role Reversal?

Above are two scenes from art.

Art, of course, is where we are free to envision the impossible. Art encapsulates science fiction and alternative historical endings. It argues for the future. It sees the impossible as present.

Yet, it is amazing how utterly... conventional... is the message encapsulated in the above pieces of art.

Feminism tells us that men and women are equal. Women can do anything men can do - only better - and while having babies and being morally superior. Because, while women will never lie about being raped, men will certainly lie about raping.

Yet, in the first scene, Enrique Iglesias gives his life for the woman that he is fleeing with. Eventually, running into a group of gangsters, he makes a willing decision to take his licks and sacrifice himself for the woman that he loves. He singlehandedly stands down a group of armed gangsters in defense of... a woman. The words roll easily from his lips, and the concept is something that we all comprehend and find not to be foreign in the least: "Let me be your hero."

In the second scene, after the breakup and sinking of the Titanic, Jack tells Rose to take a deep breath and trust him while leaping away from the sinking ship and swimming, hopefully, to safety. While all hell is breaking loose, Jack is thinking. While everyone is panicking, Jack is in a lower zone of existence, thinking five steps ahead to what the woman that he loves will need - to escape the undertow of the sinking boat, to reserve a big supply of oxygen, to find an ice floe upon which to await rescue, and to possess the resolve, in the form of a promise, to survive. Promise me, he demands of her, that you will never let go. Because you will survive. You will go on and have a bunch of babies and die an old woman in your warm bed. You won't die like this.

You won't die like I will... tonight.

Now, think with me.

Is it even intellectually possible to perform a role reversal in these two scenes?

Is it even theoretically possible that the woman could be singing to Enrique Iglesias, "Let me be your hero while I sacrifice my life in the midst of these crazed gangsters. Let me fight and die to protect you."

OK, stop chuckling.

Could any sane person conceive of Rose protecting Jack as the Titanic breaks up and sinks? Could any sane person conceive of Rose thinking of the undertow, the oxygen, the ice floe, and the need for resolve? Could any sane person conceive of Rose floating in the water with Jack on the floe, and while sacrificing herself for him, telling him that he would not die this way, on this night?

These pieces of art do not "perpetrate a sexist stereotype." They present the only view of reality that rational people could ever possess.

Because as we know, in history as in art, it was the men who stayed behind when the Titanic ran out of lifeboats, allowing the women and children to escape. It was only a man who could utter the phrase, "That's the end boys. We've done our duty," and be satisfied - because only to men does duty matter more than life. And then, only men could finish their lives, waiting for drowning, by singing "Nearer My God to Thee." To postulate that women would stay behind and respond with such dignity and to imagine that women might show such preference for men is even beyond the bounds of legitimate art, which is built upon imagining the impossible.

The limitation, I suppose, is that the impossible has to be presented credibly to represent good art. And while the human mind can credibly conceive of a giant lizard persecuting Tokyo or a city without roads populated by hovercraft or even such odd ducks as a "Wookie," the human mind could never credibly imagine the above two scenes working out in any way other than the way in which they were presented.

The very idea, whether in either the case of armed thugs or a sinking ship, or in the case of history or of art, is more than the human mind can conceive. To even begin to postulate such a scene stretches the limits of sanity and believability. To try to reverse the roles in the above scenes would immediately turn a heroic music video into a gigglefest. It would turn a somber moment into a moment of comic relief. It is not that the role reversals won't happen - they couldn't happen.

Men and women are far too different. And in any moment of need in which a woman did not have a political axe to grind, like mere moments before perceived trouble or death, we all know that she would be turning to the nearest man for her salvation. To postulate any other denouement would far surpass even what we could conceive in science fiction.

Even in the realm of the imagination, we betray more unintentionally than we can ever muster by mouthing tired old feminist phrasings on purpose. The truth is, we all know that men and women are not the same, not equal, not whatever. And to try to pull off a scene that is heroic, dramatic, sad, or virtuous - even in the realm of art - it is necessary to cast the man as the hero, coming to the rescue of the fair maiden. That is, if one is to avoid having one's art degenerate into the boorish, the campy, the sophomoric, the psychotic, or simply the cartoonish. To try to imagine these two scenes ending consistently with the purported feminist world view would immediately elicit the challenge of, "You're kidding, right?" or a quick call to the nearest mental institution.

Even in the realm of art, where our task is the design of new possibilities and alternate realities, we recognize that every single affirmation of feminism is not just wrong, but inconceivably silly.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Female Radio Personality Describes the Historical Rationale for Feminism, and the Legal Basis for Sexual Harassment, in a Single Concise Rant

Who says chicks can't do philosophy? I was extremely encouraged to hear the following rant by a local radio personality in which she alternately describes the historical basis for the feminist movement, the legal basis for sexual harassment claims, the origin of the Latin language, and the meaning of life (rumored to be, "42"). Next week, catch Carmen's lecture on the relationship between bipolar disorder and the space-time continuum...!

"The feminist movement was started by a bunch of ugly women who wanted special treatment. Feminists do not want equality. They want special treatment. These are a bunch of women who want to be promoted and make their way up the ladder without being qualified.... [Feminism has succeeded] because men are a bunch of wussies, and you [guys] let this happen.... If your [fathers] had not been doormats we wouldn't be in this situation today. Women have no interest in equality, because if they did, we wouldn't see the number of sexual harassment lawsuits that we see."

Carmen Connors, WRDU 106.1's Morning Rush (Raleigh/Knightdale, NC)

Monday, October 31, 2011

I Am the One Percent

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Feminism: Evidence that Women are Weak and Dependent

The feminist movement is the ultimate admission by women that they are wholly dependent upon men. It is the externalization of a neurotic desire to design a world in which women can be cared for by men, and always have men accept responsibility for their weaknesses, while simultaneously asserting their moral and intellectual independence from men.

While maintaining that women are "strong and independent," women insist that government provide for them through the welfare state, that men provide for them through child support and alimony, that the justice system protect them from even imaginary threats (and the most minor of insults) mobilized by the lavish leveling of false allegations, and that both government and business be fully committed to the proposition of the self-worth of the individual woman through compelling that their hiring, promotion, and professionalization be increased via affirmative action, preferential promotion policies, and through divergent sets of rules for men and women.

Thus, the total dependence of women upon men is revealed by feminism's demand that men, and structures erected by men (such as government and business), continue to be responsible for the provision, protection, and even emotional health of women, who appear wholly incapable of standing on their own the more feminist they become.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

BOOK REVIEW: "In Praise of Prejudice" by Theodore Dalrymple

I once heard a man speak about how the essence of wisdom is the ability to make distinctions. He said, "Eskimos have 14 (or some ungodly number - I don't remember the exact number, but you get the idea) different words for snow. In America, we have one: 'snow.' Now, who is wiser about snow?"

Whether he meant to or not, he was making the point that the ability to detect and express distinctions is at the core of wisdom. The book of Proverbs, the Judeo-Christian canon's most well-known book of wisdom, is essentially a list of arguments which encourages discrimination: wisdom is A, foolishness is B; a woman worth marrying is A, a woman worth leaving alone is B; a godly man is A, a heathen is B. So when you look around today and see nothing but fools, you can rest assured that one of the primary reasons that people are so foolish is that they have surrendered, either willingly or consequent to having been browbeaten into it, the ability to make distinctions.

The ability to make distinctions is known as "discrimination." We speak of a man who is a coniessuer of wine or cigars or fine cars as being possessing "discriminating taste." The notions that we carry around in our heads because we know a lot about wine or cigars or fine cars are, of course, called "stereotypes" (Maseratis possess superior cornering ability, Plymouths are unreliable, Cubans consistently make the best cigars, an older wine is - all else being equal - better). The attitude that certain things are to be preferred or rejected based on the knowledge that we already have of it is called "bias" or "prejudice."

Prejudice, in the modern world, gets a bad rap. Socialists in this country have convinced everyone that 1) prejudice is bad because racial prejudice is bad, and 2) that truly intelligent people walk around without preconceived notions of any kind, constantly trying to figure out the truth anew. In politics, we call this type of person a "Moderate." If you work on a construction crew, you call this type of person an "idiot."

Because all of us operate with stereotypes and prejudices, and life would be impossible without them. Your entire childhood, your parents tried to instill certain ideas in you so that you would understand how the world worked and would be able to function in it safely, only to send you off to a public university where some learned professor attempted to strip you of your "prejudices" and revert you to infancy once again.

For instance, every time that I walk into a room and see a switch on the wall, I assume that if I flick that switch, it will turn on a light - somewhere. This stereotype of switches serves me quite well. Rather than wasting a lot of time dialoguing with a switch when I come into a room to try and get to know it in its own right, I boldly, and with astounding regularity, correctly, walk over to the switch, flick it, and a light comes on somewhere!

Have I been wrong? Of course. I once lived in an apartment and within the first week of living there I flicked a switch expecting a light to turn on and instead heard a great roar as the garbage disposal was engaged. On a rare occasion, I have gone over and flicked a switch and nothing happens. Or at least seems to happen. Whenever I experience nothing after flicking the switch, I always envision that scene from a TV program I once saw in which an unidentified switch is clicked over and over to no apparent effect till we learn that the neighbor's garage door is groaning up and down.

But the number of times that I have been wrong has been infinitessimal. And I am clever enough, when I find a switch that does not seem to turn on a light, I quickly learn, "Oh, that switch is for the garbage disposal." Or the electric chair. Or an exploding booby trap in my neighbor's, last name of Grant, driveway (if only!). And the real point is, is it better to carry around the predisposition that those types of switches turn on lights and merely learn the exceptions, or to enter every room with an empty head and wait for the switches to prove themselves to us?

Political correctness would have us to waste our lives investigating light switches when we already know, with 99.99999% accuracy, what life is all about. It is impermissible to note that women are emotional, and not intellectual - though the number of intellectual women that I have met in my life is a small number, hovering around three. And then, there is Ann Coulter, of course, but I have never met her. If you know her, will you put in a good word for me?

It is impermissible to notice that ethnic minorities commit a disproportionate amount of all crimes, though Liberals themselves are more than happy to mention that imprisonment is a huge problem in various ethnic communities, but not because of crime! - Lord no! - but rather because of a lack of economic opportunity, or education, or transistor radios, or Wii's, or something. It is impermissible to notice that Democrats are the most anti-intellectual individuals on earth, though every study not done by Democrats actually finds that Democrats score very low on tests of factual matters related to politics. And so on....

Theodore Dalrymple goes much farther than argue that prejudice should be accepted and left well enough alone (which I am, myself, ready to do), but he actually encourages and praises prejudice. While my theory is that we should not reject knowledge that comes to us, Dalrymple encourages us to actually seek out occasions to exercise prejudice! OK, well, maybe not, but his book *In Praise of Prejudice* is nevertheless worth more than one read (I stopped at two readings).

Dalrymple encourages us to instill our prejudices about such topics as life, philosophy, religion, and politics into our children, on the grounds that, should we fail to do so, "children will always choose the same thing, the thing that most immediately attracts and gratifies them." They will choose to spend, not save. They will choose to lie to keep themselves out of trouble rather than developing moral character by telling the truth and accepting responsibility and consequences for their actions. They will choose to gorge themselves on sugar, and thus become the objects of Michelle Obama's disdain for being "obese." Perhaps Dalrymple is correct on this point.

Dalrymple further argues that some prejudices are true - as my illustration of the light swtiches above - and we risk, by refusing to pass along these prejudices that false prejudices (like the myth of Global Warming and the myth that Men and Women are the Same and the myth of the Entire Democrat Party Platform) coming along and replacing truth, and that ultimately, the failure to instill in others correct stereotypes and prejudices is an act of great cruelty, as it pushes children out into a world unfit to participate in reality. AND it makes them susceptible to snake oil salesmen and liars, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He further argues that prejudice is, after all, inevitable, as the former prejudice against blacks has, in American, been replaced by a prejudice against whites.

He argues, rightly, that neither authority nor custom, frequent instillers of prejudices, are wrong or abusive in and of themselves. In fact, matters that have been around long enough to be custom are more likely to be correct or true than matters which were adopted for the first time in 1968, and matters that can be spoken of authoritatively are far more likely to be true and right than matters that have to be hemmed and hawwed about and spoken of in vague allusions. "Hope and Change," anyone?

Dalrymple asserts that "discrimination" ultimately means "to make a proper judgment." And that Liberals, who never make proper judgments, have taken occasion from the association of the word with racism to dull the thinking faculties of three generations. He notes that, when he was younger, "A person who did not discriminate, or was undiscriminating, was a person without taste, morality, or intellect [and socially] was likely undiscriminating in his behavior." This explains the popularity of rap music.... And sadly, the intellectual life of Americans has become as polluted as its FM radio stations precisely because a lack of discrimination leaves men unfit to discern between truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, or even good and evil. This explains the Springer show.... In American intellectual life, as in American pop culture, kitsch has become the constant substitute for truth.

No less towering intellects than Aristotle, Plato (and Socrates through him), and Adam Smith believed in the irrefutable value of prejudice. Those who reject ten thousand years of intellectual history, philosophy, and religion, in preference for the vacant emotional mewling of the 1968 generation would do well to realize that it is not those of us who recognize that stereotypes sting precisely because those that we held to prior to 1968 were true, but that operating with the ability to discern between good an bad is a moral necessity. Such a realization is not an attempt to force our beliefs on anyone, but the radical notion that every man has the right to determine what is right and wrong, true and false, for himself, is an incomprehensibly self-absorbed and prideful idea. Though men capable of rendering a correct judgment will often be considered "arrogant" or "full of themselves" by the moral pygmies whose intellectual and moral diets are dictated by pop culture, there is no more radical arrogance than the wholesale rejection of 10,000 years of truth and wisdom for the right to design a world all of one's own making.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Feminists Do Not Believe That Women Are Equal to Men

I do believe that equality before the law is, and ought to be, the ideal. This would necessarily imply that all affirmative action principles and other preferences for women (such as the ludicrous presumption that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and molestation) be weeded out of the courts in both principle and practice.

However, such an equality under the law would necessarily result in inequality of results. Men and women, not being the same, necessarily cannot be equal if their ability to secure certain outcomes is the measuring stick for "equality." And what is more, NOBODY - not even feminists - believes that men and women are equal, using that measuring stick.

First, note that the very structure of the law under feminism puts the whole world on notice that feminists consider women to be inferior to men. Feminists structure VAWA in such a way that a woman who makes an allegation is presumed to be a victim, even without the presentation of any evidence. The standard of evidence for obtaining a restraining order under VAWA - which could cost a man (because only men fall into this buzz-saw - that's the way feminists set it up) his home, his children, his marriage, his income, his reputation, and often his freedom - is the "subjective fear of the woman."

Yet if I do so little as proffer an insurance claim which winds up in court, I will be required to produce voluminous evidence to back up may claims or risk, not only losing my claim, but perhaps being charged with insurance fraud. That women are expected to receive the benefit of the doubt when making criminal and quasi-criminal allegations (and, that this is the feminist IDEAL for them to receive said benefit of the doubt) demonstrates clearly that feminists believe that women have a problem with truth-telling, and are thus morally inferior to men.

If feminists really believed that women are as adept at telling the truth as men are, why would they seek to LOWER the standard of evidence for one of the most serious allegations that a man can face to a standard below that required for an insurance claim or a property dispute? Aren't feminists admitting that they doubt the veracity of women (which may not be a bad idea, at least if one asks the Duke Lacrosse team or Dominic Strauss-Kahn or even the Casey Anthony jury) in seeking to have them be believed just because they make claims?

Further, all legal and cultural restrictions/incentives that imply that I should hire/promote merely based on gender is again a backhanded admission that without such restrictions/incentives, women COULD NOT attain such positions or promotions, and again is an implicit admission by feminists that they believe women to be inferior in the workplace. So feminist policy shows clearly that even feminists do not believe women to be equal with men.

But secondly, though feminists will brazenly and obnoxiously proclaim from every housetop that "women can do anything a man can do," I have never been in a personal conversation with someone making that outrageous claim but what the claim has not been immediately followed by a series of caveats....

"... but of course, you can't expect a woman to be able to lift as much as a man...." (this one admission, alone, philosophically destroys the equality argument, in my opinion, since physical strength and stamina necessarily influence, though not necessarily determine, every other ability in life)

"... but of course, social structures have hindered women from attaining fame and fortune as inventors and scientists...." (as if men have not accomplished everything in history against opposition, i.e., talk to Luther, Columbus, Einstein, Churchill, Reagan, or even Johnny Unitas or Joe Namath about how the world just rolled over and encouraged their accomplishments)

"... but of course, the good-old-boy network excludes women from participation...." (as if women, if they were "all that" and twice as bright as men to boot, would not have long ago discovered that the solution to this problem is the establishment of a good-old-girl network to compete against, and ultimately annihilate, the good-old-boy networks)

"... but of course, opportunities have been denied to women...." (because of course, men, at birth, receive a giftwrapped box with opportunity enclosed in it)

But the point should be pretty clear - if you are my equal, you are my equal no matter what. And every caveat that you can attach to your statement of "I am equal to you" is merely an admission that you realize you are NOT equal to me.

For instance, I was recently regaling my wife with stories of what a great basketball player I am, when I said:

"I am every bit the equal of Michael Jordan in every way, but, of course, I have never dunked the ball; and of course, the NBA conspired against me to keep me out of professional basketball; but that is because I am only 6'1, white, and can't jump as high as many NBA players; and so, of course, I never won an NBA championship. But the truth is, I am the equal of Michael Jordan in every way."

I would submit that the nonsensical warblings of feminists about female equality with men are about equally as credible. And the truth is, feminist claims of the equality of women, when it comes to ability, are much more an attempt to convince themselves than they are a justifiable attempt to convince the rest of us.

People who believe in justice will always be committed to genuine equality of men and women before the law. But people who have an intellect more mature than a 12-year old's and who do not fear reality recognize that such equality before the law will necessarily result in a wide practical inequality between the sexes.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Root Cause of "Domestic Violence" is... Women are Wh*res???

So a cop in Florida has developed an iPhone app called "CATE" - Call And Text Eraser. Installed on one's phone, it allows one to carry on adulterous relationships without fear of getting caught by erasing all calls and texts on the phone from certain numbers.

"I had a good friend of mine who went through a divorce because his wife was finding things on his phone. It intercepts call and text messages from people on your lists and stores it within the app."

But then, Immler, the cop who is the inventor of the app, reveals something that says too much by half....

"Immler begs to differ (with those who say his app is an indirect condonation of adultery). He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone."

Now, think about that....

The typical femtard mythology on "domestic violence" (I use quotation marks because, as I have revealed in other posts, the whole concept of domestic violence is fake.) is that men, who are controlled by some evil chemical called "testosterone" and who have been reared to respect violence and non-cooperation as lifestyle choices (after all, men watch football and are competitive... shudder!) and whom society has taught to hate women (because, of course, women are merely nonsentient beings to be controlled and objectified for sexual purposes by the patriarchy!), rise up in all the evolutionary power of their superior strength and beat women senseless for no reason whatsoever.

Now, of course, this mythology doesn't take into account that lawyers who are defending those accused of "domestic violence" across the United States, at least, immediately ask their clients to come up with a list of instances in which the wife (and it is always the wife making the allegation of "domestic violence," isn't it?) was "controlling" or in which the husband/defendant failed to be "controlling," because, as they say in the jurisdictions in which I have knowledge, "All domestic violence proceedings are about 'control,' never about 'violence.'"

But the main point of the mythology, of course, is that women are sainted victims of evil. Evil has been brought about on them by men, the patriarchy, even biology itself (thank God/goddess/Gaia for abortion!). But women are as pure and unsullied as the wind driven snow, and didn't do anything to bring about "domestic violence" (whether that is defined as assault - which it isn't - or merely refusing to give a woman her way - which it is).

But here is an amazing thing. The cop who designed the app says he designed it to deter "domestic violence" (however you define that) because it is prone to happen... when adultery is at issue?

Let's read it again....

"Immler begs to differ (with those who say his app is an indirect condonation of adultery). He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone."

Now waitaminnit... lemme get this straight. Women file 98% of all "domestic violence" (however you define that) claims in the United States. Yet Barney Fife/App Developer here says that "domestic violence" (however you define that) is sparked by the discovery that a spouse is cheating?

So DV (however you define that) is something uniquely complained of by women. DV (however you define that) occurs, according to Mr. Adam 12, when complainants are discovered in adultery. So it must be that women are somehow uniquely related to adultery...?

Ergo, the reason "domestic violence" (however you define that) takes place is: Women are Whores.

Oddly, the story itself dds further fuel to this suspicion when it notes that this app, which is designed to help one cover one's tracks while committing adultery... is primarily downloaded by women!

I think we have stumbled upon a very important solution to the "domestic violence" (however you define that) problem in this country! If women would quit being such irredeemable and committed whores, "domestic violence" (however you define that) would go away!

Let's see if feminists are really interested in wiping out "domestic violence" (however you define that), or if they just want to keep the funding that flows from all the false allegations of "domestic violence" (however you define that).

I think I know how this story ends.


Original story from

by Rochelle Ritchie

It comes in the form of an app on your cell phone that can hide who you've been texting and calling.

The app, called "CATE," hit the Android market last week and is already getting rave reviews. But one divorce attorney says the app may keep your secrets secret, but not for long.

CATE stands for "call and text eraser" which is exactly what it does. The app erases any opportunity for your significant other to find out who you've been in contact with.

Phillip Immler is a cop who is also in law school. He created the app after a friend's phone was hacked by his spouse.

"I had a good friend of mine who went through a divorce because his wife was finding things on his phone. It intercepts call and text messages from people on your lists and stores it within the app," says Immler.

Only the app owner has the passcode to unlock the contacts he or she decides should be hidden from view. There's already buzz over the app online.

Divorce attorney Robin Roshkind says while the app may promise to hide your infidelity, it won't stop a determined woman or man wanting to know the truth.

"If there is going to be an app to stop all this, trust me, we still have our ways, a good old fashioned private investigator. It's a little ironic it was an officer of the law that came up with this app," says Roshkind.

But Immler begs to differ. He says on patrol he is called to a number of domestic violence situations sparked by what is seen on a cell phone.

So far "CATE" has been downloaded more than 20 times in its first week at $2.99 a pop.

Despite the purpose of his app, Immler insists, "I don't condone cheating, no."

Immler says more women have purchased the app than men.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Feminism's Witch Hunt - 2011 Style

Monday, June 13, 2011

Defund Feminism (#DEFUNDFEMINISM)


The House Republican Caucus is requesting the guidance of Americans to help the Republican leadership settle on cuts to make as the House wends its way through the process of proposing a reasonable federal budget. In a program called YouCut, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is asking voters to register their approval of certain already-proposed changes, but also is giving voters the opportunity to "Submit Your Idea." By clicking this button, you can make suggestions of cuts that ought to be made, but may not have been suggested yet.

Several things are necessarily true....

1) Feminism in America could not exist without federal funding. NOBODY cares enough about the serial drivel and prepubescent nonsense engaged in by feminists to actually reach into their wallet and fund it. This is why federal grants - under the rubric of "law enforcement" or "education," for instance - are absolutely vital for keeping feminism alive and viable in the United States.

2) Feminism contributes absolutely nothing positive to the American culture or economy.

3) In fact, feminism actively undermines both the American culture and the economy. Its pro-abortion dogma has eliminated the greatest part of two generations of taxpayers, leaving programs such as Social Security and Medicare in the lurch. Its false allegations industry serves only to tie up courts and law enforcement with meaningless political charges, while actively undermining the one thing that has been proven to protect women and children - the family. Its academic endeavors [sic] are widely recognized as being a pablum only slightly more complex than the normal fare of the retarded. Its legal theories, besides encouraging false allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, serve only to destroy business, culture, the military, the professions, and the public good by making irrelevancies out to be real issues ("diversity," "sexual harassment," "women's perspective") and by placing, en masse, unqualified people into positions of responsibility based merely upon their gender.

And yet, billions of dollars per year flow from both the federal and state governments to sustain feminist political programs that serve no recognizable public good other than funding lawyers and further feminist programs.

These are the undeniable facts. Feminism helps nothing, hurts everything, and would simply cease to exist if taxpayers were not strongarmed into keeping feminism alive through the distribution of taxes to feminist organizations by governments.

This being the case, it is time for those who stand with unborn children, the family, business, the culture, legitimate education, justice, and legitimate law enforcement to strike while the iron is hot. For the next few years, Congress will (theoretically) be seeking to make all kinds of cuts just to keep the American ship afloat.

It is thus time for the most malignant tumor in the history of the American experiment to be excised.

It is time to totally, completely, and finally DEFUND FEMINISM.

Please surf over to YouCut, and after voting for the various items for which your vote is solicited, find the "SUBMIT YOUR IDEAS" button at the bottom of the page. Then, fill in the dialog box with your request that ALL feminism in the United States be defunded at the federal level.

I wrote the following in my request:

"I would like to request that ALL feminist political organizations and activities, from Planned Parenthood to women's shelters to feminist studies and women's studies programs in universities, be completely defunded by the federal government.

These are wholly destructive organizations which exist only to consume the hard-earned resources of working Americans while undermining the values and culture that is respected by the American majority.

Further, these are political organizations, and cannot and should not be funded by the taxes of those who disagree with their political policies."

Feel free to swipe my note, modify it, or write your own. Or, if you have a flair for the pithy and dramatic, perhaps you will simply write...


It is time to draw a line in the sand, and excise the most destructive political movement in the history of the United States. Join me in asking Congress to DEFUND FEMINISM, and please send your friends to this page to join the fight.

So You Think You Know What Feminism Is About?

You are delusional or stupid or dishonest if you maintain that feminism is about:

1) Equality.
2) The protection of women.
3) Proper care for children.
4) A stronger, more vibrant society.

Rather, feminism is about:

1) Socialism.
2) The destruction of marriage.
3) The wholesale slaughter of children.
4) The hatred of men.
5) Covetousness.
6) Placing women, children, men, and all of society at risk.

Read the quotes below. Enjoy.

Oh, and I truly AM sorry that nobody has told you the truth prior to now.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Women Want It Every Which Way

So, let me get this straight....

If Daddy DOESN'T hug and kiss his little femtard as a child, then his little femtard grows up psychotic, histrionic and depressed because he was "a stranger" and "emotionally distant."

If Daddy DOES hug and kiss his little femtard as a child, then he has "sexualized" his relationship with her.

So Dads, write this down! Hug and kiss your little femtard, but DON'T!

Got it?

You perv....

Monday, June 6, 2011

Weiner Dicks Around - Anthony's Sexual Harassment Escapades

So Anthony Weiner is a bit of a prick. A dick. A... wiener. That much is obvious.

What may not be so obvious is that he is also guilty of sexual harassment.

What is even less obvious is why femtards will be ignoring this fact.

"Sexual Harassment," which Susan Brownmiller admits was a made-up offense designed to make femtard protest posters pithy, witty, and memorable, is nevertheless a fake offense (like "domestic violence") that can cost a man just about everything.

I will never forget living through the Clinton impeachment and speaking to a woman who took great offense at the stories of Clinton semi-boinking the interns while biting the lips of more mature visitors and fathering multiracial children thither and yon. When I asked, "What is it that makes you so upset about this?", she replied, "You can't tell me that if this were the CEO of General Electric the feminists would be all over him screaming 'sexual harassment!' 'Sexual harassment!' 'Sexual harassment!'"

And of course, she was right about that. But we have all known forever that hypocrisy and irrationality are the only two things that feminism has in abundant supply. Oh, and grievance. But anyway....

So I have thought about that conversation with that woman a lot over the years, and I think she was right in a way. Feminism is ultimately not about the rights of women - it is about the extension of socialism. When it is convenient to parade for the extension of socialism under the faux banner of "women's rights" or "equality" or "pro-choice" or whatever 2-3 syllables can be taught to the pressing mob of femtards on a particular day, then feminists will do so. When to insist on their principles will hinder the cause of socialism, however, femtards will back off. Because socialism is their ultimate goal. Not "the rights of women."

This, of course, explains why Bill Clinton, who was alleged to have been a rapist, was the exception to the rule of "women never lie about rape." Because if feminists had insisted that "women never lie about rape" during the Clinton impeachment, it would have hindered the cause of socialism. It also explains why Anthony Weiner is getting a pass....

What exactly has Weiner done that ought to have femtards in a tizzy? Glad you asked.

Now let me first clarify a couple of points - I would NEVER deny that femtards are in a tizzy. Somewhere, you can bet your life on it, feminists ARE IN FACT in a tizzy. In fact, the only strategy of feminism is "tizzy." Like Charlie Sheen, feminists have "only one gear" (unless you count lesbian as a gear, then they have two!), and that gear is "tizzy." Bet your boots on it, feminists are, as we speak, in tizzys the world over.

However, they are not, and will not be, in a tizzy over the antics of Anthony Weiner [unless some heinous crime is revealed, at which point he will have forced their hand, no pun intended]. And I honestly do not think that they should be. But the point is, there are certain things that if the average guy (and only guys, because there are, in fact, two sets of rules) had done JUST AS ANTHONY WEINER had done them, he would currently be experiencing the full wrath of the femtard masses.

Let's postulate for a moment that the CEO of General Electric had done exactly what Weiner has done: "flirted" with random chicks on facebook and twitter, emailed them pics of his erect penis, and engaged in phone sex and dirty hotchat on GE's phones and on GE's time.

"Sexual Harassment" is described as "coercion of a sexual nature... includ[ing] a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse.... [It is] a form of sexual and psychological abuse and bullying."

Click the above graphic to see a list of the types of situations in which sexual harassment may occur [let me once again remind the reader that I fully recognize that sexual harassment is a fake offense - all that I write about it in this article is merely "for the sake of argument"] and the various personality types of sexual harassers.

First note the following:

  • Where a person is in a position of authority or power over another, due to social status, political power, or age, sexual harassment may occur.
  • Even "friends" and "strangers" can commit sexual harassment.
  • "Adverse affects on the target are common."
  • The harasser may be "totally unaware that his behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment."
  • "Private harassers carefully cultivate a restrained and respectable image on the surface, but when alone their behavior changes.
  • "Dominant harassers... engage in harassing behavior as an ego boost."
Now, let's examine the facts of Weiner's case and see how they stack up against the above.

  • One of Weiner's cyberbabes is now being mocked as having been headed for tabloid scandal since her teen years. Other of his cyberchicks have experienced anxiety, nervousness, and discomfort due to the situation that Weiner put them in.
  • Several of the "targets" claim that they are only online friends or that they have, in fact, never met Weiner.
  • Weiner, a Congressman of some political power and influence, was dealing with women aged 21 and 26 and a single mother who is studying in nursing school (as known now), and with another woman who worked full-time as a blackjack dealer in a Las Vegas casino.
  • Weiner's communication with the women was disrespectful, at one point suggesting that he would have sex with one doggy-style while watching TV and classifying her as a mere "distraction," and self-focused, with constant references to his "fat c*ck" or "ridiculous bulge" with requests to show it off.


It doesn't take long to ruminate and determine that Weiner, in fact, has fulfilled ALL of the aspects of sexual harassment (again, a fake concept) that I have reproduced above. He used his political, social, and age "superiority" to fish for the young or otherwise vulnerable, and the fact that he was merely a "friend" or "stranger" to the women and never actually met them is irrelevant. His gutter flirtations had numerous adverse effects upon the women - from immediate embarrassment to propelling them to get out in front of the story to tell their side first to anxiety to nervousness. Likely, Weiner never intended such adverse circumstances to occur to the women, and may be unaware of their discomfort. Yet his treating them as if they were just holes to be filled for his pleasure while he enjoyed TV or mere "distractions" certainly indicate that it is true, as one of the women said of him, that he "has issues." And apparently, one of the issues is that he considers the female to exist primarily for his enjoyment and pleasure - attitudes that in anyone other than a Democrat politician, feminists would be flooding the airwaves with cries of "SEXISM" about even as we speak.

At least he refrained from the Clintonian cigar trick....

His constant focus on the length and girth of his meat, his desire to expose it, and his need for total strangers to pleasure him certainly indicates that his ego was the primary thing in his own mind. How often, relative to the braggadocio about himself, does he compliment the beauty of the women he is flirting with? And certainly, prior to the infamous mis-tweet, Weiner had cultivated the image of a clean, if raucous, man of the people - even a man who was consumed with advancing feminist issues and making the internet safe from sexual predators.

And darlin,' don't worry - if I can't have you, just a few pics I can "jerk off" to. The very thought of a Jewish girl who can give good head just makes me.... OK, enough of that.


Can you see the same fact pattern applied to the CEO of General Electric?

If you can, I ask you, what would feminists be saying and doing, right now???

Monday, May 30, 2011

WINNING! Over the Feminist False Allegations Industry.

Click above picture to enlarge.

People all over the world turn to Objectify Chicks! for information about fake domestic violence claims more than anyone other than Yahoo! and According to, the web's authoritative analytics company, the search query "fake domestic violence," more than 8% of the time, leads the searcher to peruse the pages of Objectify Chicks!

The worldwide reach of Objectify Chicks!, while generally exposing all of the mental disorder known as feminism, seems to specifically serve mankind by providing information about the false allegations industry that is powered by modern feminism. For instance, a quarter of all traffic to Objectify Chicks! has been driven by search terms such as "Crystal Gail Mangum," "false allegations," and "fake domestic violence."

Key articles to peruse on the issue of false allegations include:

U.S. Air Force study finds that up to 40% of rape claims are false.

Domestic Violence is the biggest feminist lie.

Women are more abusive than men.

Vanilla Ice falsely accused of DV.

Cops admit that women use false allegations of DV.

How "Women's Shelters" coach and coax false allegations of DV and rape (linked to the first of a four-part series - be sure to read all four parts, based on research and personal interviews with women who have been inside shelters).

Statistical Evidence that DV is a feminist hysteria.

David Letterman falsely accused of DV.

Tucker Carlson falsely accused of rape.

National Organization of Women President lies about being raped.

Chick makes up rape to get a day off from work.

How feminists dissemble about what the term "Domestic Violence" means.

Why Mike Nifong is a feminist hero.

Professorette, DV "expert," admits that the feminist-conjured Domestic Violence Hysteria is politically motivated.

Rick Pitino falsely accused of rape.

Child lies about rape to avoid being grounded.

Jealousy + Booze + Tila Tequila = false allegations of Domestic Violence.

Summary of previous articles: Be Aware of the Truth about Domestic Violence during Domestic Violence Awareness Month!

Tim Cole Dies in Prison, an innocent victim of false rape allegations, revealed nine years after his death.

Oprah Winfrey lied about rape.

Why Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon.

Guest Column by Jill G.: How defining rape down ensures that all men are rapists.

And, of course, scouring the website will turn up dozens of other articles on the topic as well. See if you can find the one in which a female member of the Democrat Governor of North Carolina's office admits that women do, in fact, commonly lodge false allegations - contrary to feminist dogma.

Everything that you need to know to get a firm grasp of how the Feminist False Allegations Industry works - and why - can be gathered by reading the links on this page. So the next time you hear about a neighbor who was married for 10 or 15 years who has suddenly been arrested for raping his wife or for domestic violence (funny how these things occur during custody and alimony disputes, isn't it?), take it with a grain of salt.

Or, if you are wise, with a TON of salt....

Sunday, May 29, 2011

You Never Know Who is Watching

LinkClick above picture to enlarge.

Sniveling, emptyheaded feminists - also known as femtards - love to engage in "dialogue," which is to say, "cheerleading," in which they surround themselves with people (i.e., womyn) who view the world in essentially the same way that they themselves do, then sit around and say the same things about the same issues, and then walk away feeling quite justified and bright because all these other bright women... errrrr, womyn, agree with them, and therefore they must be right.

If you can get your own series doing this, you call it "To the Contrary" and air it on PBS.

I always thought that was the strangest name for a show in which everyone approaches every problem from a leftard feminist viewpoint, but I suppose stranger things have been done by the mainstream media to preserve the illusion of objectivity, and I have also always thought that the name was an intentional play on a well-known female character trait: the willingness and ability to take ANY position in ANY argument just for the sake of keeping the argument going.

This is a character trait that my grandmother, for instance, used to call "being contrary," or "being contrary for contrary's sake."

But anyway, Wikipedia describes this PBS series as devoted to "news analysis" (in the same sense in which "Naked News" or Newsweek is devoted to journalism, I suppose), but notes that it is an "all-women" program. Of course, because we all know that women have a special perspective, right?

But note that the perspective seems to be, by Wikipedia's "analysis," oddly... predictable. "Each show features four female panelists from various backgrounds... discuss[ing] various issues in the news, mainly affecting women, children, families, and communities of color."

"Communities of color?"

Translation: Libtard psychobabble.

Let me remind the gentle reader that I have gloried in the fact that online feminist publications have been running my articles for weeks in their online summaries.

But imagine how surprised I was to wake up and find that now, "Objectify Chicks" is being followed by "To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe"?

Truth, to the femtard, is like a bad accident. It may not deter you from your foolishness, but you can't resist slowing down to gaze as you pass it by.

Friday, May 27, 2011

The Role of Women

Thursday, May 26, 2011

No Means... Yes... Maybe... Come Get Me?

Feminists need to do a better job of brainwashing other WOMEN, about the whole "no means no" issue. Women always say what they mean... except when they don't. Which is often. Or always. Or never. Or something.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Guest Column: Feminist Redefining of "Consent" Encourages False Rape Allegations

Originally posted February 19, 2011


Blog: Don't Buy The Abortion Lie!

Over the years I've been involved in the prolife movement, I've encountered quite a few radical feminists. Even more so, now that I'm also engaged in online activism. Every single radical feminist I've run across claims to be a victim of rape. Every. Single. One. Yes, I've heard the 1 in 3 statistics about women and sexual assault. But seriously, every single one of them? This phenomenon seems woefully underrepported by MSM, doesn't it? given all the recent attacks on John Boehner by the lefty feminists on Twitter regarding his 'redefinition of rape,' I thought it was time for a closer look at how feminists themselves have redefined rape in order to play the victim card and victimize others, namely men and their own unborn babies via abortion.

No one disputes that certain plants thrive in dim light and moist conditions. Can any objective observer dispute that false rape claims likewise thrive in a culture that erupted in the past forty years as a backlash against a perceived oppressive "patriarchy" that regards even certain garden variety sexual relations as a form of tyranny against women? It is no stretch to assert that this culture actively encourages young women to manufacture rape out of whole cloth by teaching them to equate consensual intercourse with vile sexual assault.

Misinformation is the engine that drives this culture (as we know from the baby-as-a-blob-of-cells abortion rhetoric), and rape hysteria and false rape claims are its noxious emissions. Outright lies are passed off as facts by what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry, sexual assault advocates and radical feminist writers who insist women do not lie about rape despite overwhelming evidence that a significant percentage do. The myths engendered by this toxic culture are repeated so often that they have crept into our popular culture -- including the assertion that only two percent of rape claims are false and that one-out-of-four college women are raped. The "truth" these stats seek to "prove" -- that women are routinely and brutally attacked by men -- is not supported by objective facts so it suffices to make up statistics as needed to support the "truth" being peddled.

Despite all the radical feminists' twisting, pounding, contorting and screeching, American women are not being sexually tyrannized by American men -- some women are tyrannized by some men, just as innocent people are tyrannized by criminals all the time. (Note that men and children are also victims of rape but never merit so much as a mention by feminists.) But rape is not rampant in the United States, on campus, in taxis, in wooded areas, or any of the other places where women claim they've been raped and it often turns out they haven't. The one exception may be prisons where young men with typically no experience in the prison system are routinely brutally raped and typically don't report it for fear of even worse brutalization. In fact, men may be victimized by rape more than women because of prison rape. Nevertheless, although the rape of females is treated with all the solemnity of a national crisis, the rape of men in prison is a punchline.

By demonstrating that the culture that engenders these two percent and one-in-four lies is invalid and, therefore, unacceptable, and by teaching young women to assume responsibility for their actions instead of being assured they are "victims" of some amorphous male oppression when they experience after-the-fact regret about having intercourse, we can reduce certain of the more vile kinds of false "acquaintance rape" claims.

But first it is necessary to expose this gender-divisive rape culture that encourages young women to cry "rape" even when rape has not occurred:


Young women are being wrongly taught that sex induced by a male's verbal cajoling without physical threat is rape.

They are being wrongly taught that rape occurs in the absence of a woman's "enthusiastic" consent, as if "enthusiasm" can be measured in any objective sense, and as if otherwise perfectly lawful but not necessarily "enthusiastic" consent is somehow legally inoperative.

They are being wrongly taught that sex after a woman takes any alcohol or drugs invariably negates the woman's ability to validly consent.

And they are being wrongly taught that statutory definitions of rape must yield to a woman's own experience -- thus, men somehow must mold their conduct to fit an amorphous, free-floating, moving target of a subjective and secret whim of a woman's "experience," including, presumably, her after-the-fact, ex-post facto, false and belated hissy fits of regret about having engaged in intercourse. The fact that such a standard, with all it Star Chamber ramifications, furnishes no guidance to the male as to what constitutes "rape" prior to the act, is not at all troubling to the enlightened feminists proffering this standard. Due process be damned. Rape occurs when they say it occurs, regardless of whether it actually did.

Such a standard is especially pernicious given that it has now been proven by objective evidence that women experience greater after-the-fact remorse than men about one-night stands. They encourage a slut culture, then rail at the inevitable results.

If feminists wanted to assist young women -- instead of feeding them misinformation in an attempt to have them invent rape from whole cloth, they would teach them that after-the-fact regret about one-night stands is a common, indeed natural, feeling for women. This would encourage young women to think twice before engaging in such encounters and about falsely crying rape afterwards. But, of course, the feminists accuse anyone of making suggestions that might hold young women responsible for their actions as "victim blaming" -- a magic incantation they blithely toss off in an attempt to keep young women in a state of perpetual infancy, freed of any responsibility for their actions when it comes to sex.

With such gross misinformation floating about it is little wonder that some young women have a terribly inaccurate understanding of rape. The test to determine if valid consent was given in the context of rape is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would have believed that the woman consented, based on the totality of the circumstances, including her words and actions. If a woman willingly assents to sex, it is not rape. Whether she secretly "wanted" to have sex, or did not "want" to have sex, is completely beside the point. The inquiry focuses solely on her outward manifestations of assent.

Beyond this, it is strikingly naive to attach rigid rules as to what constitutes "consent," including, for example, any insistence that consent must be "enthusiastic." Persons in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and sometimes, perhaps often, without all that much enthusiasm. Some people rarely express "enthusiasm" about anything. When a woman is trying to get pregnant, her partner often has sex out of obligation even when it's not especially convenient and often when he is not especially "enthusiastic." Has he been raped since he gave into her verbal desires without being "enthusiastic"? No sane person would suggest that, but by this inane feminist standard that is the only logical conclusion.

And women sometimes fake both "enthusiasm" and orgasms, often because a couple's sex drives are not in sync and because she's more interested in fostering a long-term relationship than having a momentary sexual experience. In such circumstances, if the guy knew the truth, he may or may not want to have sex. Is a woman's faked enthusiasm that induces sex a kind of rape of the man? The feminist standard, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests it must be. How utterly silly.

Another fallacy is that "no" always precludes valid consent for whatever happens after. To ignore what happens after "no" is uttered is naive in the extreme and blinks at nuance and the complexities of interpersonal relations. Again, no such rigid rule is appropriate. First, a look, a nod, an embrace inviting sex are often clearer than a teasing "no." Second, should we declare as a matter of law that valid consent is a legal impossibility after an accuser says "no" -- regardless of what occurs afterwards? Her subsequent words and actions over the next minutes or hours be damned?

"Consent" does not lend itself to a rigid definition, because human relationships in the area of romance and sexuality are often complex with literally a limitless number of possible scenarios that defy tying everything up in a nice, neat feminist package. To insist that consent must be "enthusiastic" and that "no" cuts off any possibility for romance for the entire evening are concepts unworkable in the extreme and were concocted to vilify male sexuality. Again the only valid test is that a person in the position of the male must reasonably understand that there was consent. When a woman embraces her partner and prepares for intercourse in the absence of threat of physical force, consent is present, regardless of whether every radical feminist stomps her foot and insists it isn't.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Why They Are Called Femtards....

So recently, I was interacting with a buddy on twitter and was accosted by a couple of prochoice femtards who exhibited all of the normal (lack of) debate skills shown by the left generally, and by feminists especially, and who gladly donned the mantle of fascist barbarians if that was what was necessary to change the spelling to womyn. The actual tweets, with the actual twitter screen names, followed by my highly enlightening comments, follow....

Note: I have adopted "twitter" style to identify the speaker - the speaker, the one tweeting, is identified by the @ symbol. I.e., when you see @objectifychicks, I am the speaker. Also note that I have, for ease of reading, occasionally converted twitter abbreviations to their English signifier (i.e, "2" to "to," "shd" to "should," etc.), and have added punctuation and capitalization throughout for ease of reading.


@Auragasmic I never see pro-lifers tweeting about capital punishment or war. #duh #prochoice

You will notice that nothing that a femtard ever says shows any insight or evidence of an ability to think independently. This is actually true of ALL of the left, but it is particularly evident in feminists. If they haven't heard someone else say it, and if it is not a political slogan which can essentially fit on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, they are incapable of expressing it. So tell ya what, let's trot out the old "pro-lifers don't care about capital punishment" argument, shall we? Nobody's ever brought that one up before!!! Hint to all femtards: the reason why some people who are pro-life support capital punishment and war, but do NOT support abortion, has everything to do with the twin issues of helplessness and innocence. I do not expect you to be able to morally reflect on these two concepts, so get someone who is more morally advanced than you are to explain it to you - like the nearest second grader.

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting about false allegations of domestic violence or rape. #prochoice #duh #fail.

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting about a CHILD'S right to choose-to be born. #prochoice #duh #fail

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting about why, if they are as capable as a man, they have to have standards lowered to do what he is already doing.

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting anything other than political slogans. Wonder if they are capable of thinking? #stopwondering

Notice that I have exposed the tender underbelly of feminism with this series of tweets. Though femtards maintain that if a woman's feelings are not taken into account, she is being abused, they do not see false allegations of domestic violence and rape - which put innocent men in jail for years and separate them from their kids and assets - as anything to particularly worry about. Some exalted sense of "justice" femtards have. And while femtards warble on and on about a woman's choice to either kill her unborn or let it live, they never seem to care about the "choice" of the father of the unborn or of the child itself. And while femtards warble on about how they are equal to men and are capable of doing everything that men can do, they immediately begin to lobby for new legislation and affirmative action lowering standards so that women can do what men are already doing under existing standards. Notice that my femtard prey will only opt to attempt to deal with what she considers to be the low-hanging fruit, and notice how it traps her....

@Auragasmic uh... that would insinuate that it possessed the ability to choose. #lolduh #logicfail #prochoice

Note the deep and abiding ignorance of the femtard. First, she does not understand the very words that she is using. A statement which plainly states something doesn't "insinuate" anything. But a femtard believes that using any word with more than two syllables justifies them spending two years earning that M.A. in Women's Studies. Secondly, note the utter daftness of the self-absorbed retard that is the feminist - she believes that the "choice" of the powerful trumps the rights of the weak. Keep this in mind, because our femtards will wholly adopt that philosophy in just a bit....

@objectifychicks I never see #femtards tweeting for retarded kids to be slaughtered because they are incapable of choice. #prochoice #logicfail

Now, to a femtard, all killing is equal. And notice that our femtard's comparison of abortion to capital punishment and war (see above) is a tacit admission - or INSINUATION - that abortion is, in fact, killing. So if a pro-lifer believes in capital punishment for the protection of society or war for the protection of the nation, that is the moral equivalent to the amoral feminist of killing an innocent baby for the femtard's own personal convenience. Again, our prey(s) will admit this before the night is over. YET, note that though all killing is equal, our semi-retarded prey cannot quite catch that there IS a real equivalence between her principle that, if an unborn lacks choice and can therefore be killed, then retarded kids who also lack meaningful choice can be killed under the same principle.

@Auragasmic O.o a change of topic because you are incapable of proving your case. Perhaps you should ask one [a femtard??? - ed.] because I am not one. Cheers.

Is it an inability to see the correlation between the retarded kid and the unborn, or is it an unwillingness?

@objectifychicks I am asking YOU. Or did you run out of political slogans to spout? Better get that boob job, chickie, or life will be hard!

@Auragasmic I am all for protecting the rights of the mentally retarded. Take it home, yo!

Note that the sloganeering, at this point, has even devolved lower than the normal low ebb of leftard "discourse." Because she can't think of another political slogan, she slips into some sort of urban grunt-expression. Perhaps I caught her in the middle of her Snoop Dogg marathon. Note how smoothly I transition back to the question at hand, which she hopes that she has deflected with her deviation into "Gin and Juice."

@objectifychicks On what logical, moral, or philosophical principle is a retarded kid more entitled to life than the unborn? #femtard #fail

@Auragasmic Well, the simplest one would be that the retarded kid isn't LIVING INSIDE SOMEONE ELSE. #areyoudaft #prochoice

@objectifychicks So your principle is that the more dependent a person is, the more brutally they may be slaughtered? Very barbaric of you. #fail

This is the part of the discussion that femtards, because they are innately morally blind, because the initial choice to live in the unreality in which men and women are equal in every way is an immoral choice to live in flaky fantasy rather than truth, do not want to have. As long as abortion is about "choice," it is not about murder - and that, the murder of people far more helpless and innocent than any other mass killing in history, which they would roundly condemn.

@Auragasmic It's quite simple and if you would use the head on your shoulders rather than the one in your pants this wouldn't be difficult.

Of course, "you don't understand anything because you are a man and have a penis." Having lost the battle, she attempts to salvage the war by appealing to the unique nature of chicks. And note again the implicit idea that men only ever interpret reality through their own sexual desire. Yawn. I think the technical term for this type of non-argument is the ad hominem attack. By the way, chickster - every single instance of "women's intuition" that I have had the opportunity to observe in my entire life has proven to be false. Better start reading and learning rather than relying on your unique knowledge as a woman... errrrrr, womyn.

@Auragasmic No one ON EARTH has the RIGHT to use someone's BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL. Not even a fetus. #prochoice

Yes, chickie, if you don't make any sense, just TALK/TWEET LOUDER and you will be more persuasive. Notice how I now reveal the problem with her principle-made-on-the-fly....

@objectifychicks But I take it the pregnant woman can use the unborn's body in any way they see fit without consent-including disposing of it as trash? #specialpleadingforchicks

@Auragasmic No, my principle is that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER'S BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL. #prochoice

OK, just keep repeating it rather than engaging the question, since you know the question exposes you.... Now I will draw the net.

@objectifychicks But a pregnant woman can use the body of an unborn as they will-as trash to be disposed of? #logicfail #barbarian

@Auragasmic She has the right to decide if she wants to donate her uterus/body and possibly life to something using her body. #prochoice

@objectifychicks It's not the body of the woman at issue. It's the body of "another." You know how you said that nobody may use the body of another?

@Auragasmic That other BODY is violating the woman's by using her uterus as a home. Develop another means of removing the fetus, then.

@objectifychicks BTW, being a #femtard and #barbarian #prochoice #monster I know etymology eludes you. But you realize "fetus" is Latin for "baby?"

So her argument is shown to be: 1) Special pleading for chicks - a baby cannot "use" the body of its mother, but a woman can "use" the body of the baby. 2) Inconsistent - whereas she SAID that nobody can use the body of another without the other's permission, what she MEANT was that nobody but a woman can use the body of another without the other's permission. And by the way, this sort of double standard applies to men as well. A woman may choose to "use" the body and labor of a man when she chooses to get pregnant without the consent of a man, making him an indentured servant and forcing child support payments for 18 years. But a man who is the willing father of a child cannot keep a woman from aborting it, not even if he denies his consent. The truth is that to a feminist, only women have rights. EVERYONE else - men, children, the government, society itself, had better hop to and obey the random will of the emotional cripples who populate the National Organization of Women. 3) Dishonest - attempting to hide behind a quasi-clinical term such as "fetus" doesn't change the fact (and we all know that it is a fact, including femtards) that the "fetus" is a "baby."

@Auragasmic It could be a leprechaun ya daffy prole. It doesn't have the right to use SOMEONE'S BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL #prochoice

Notice what we learn from this hyperemotionalism: 1) Femtards don't really care about children, though they make a lot of noise about children. A child has no more right to life, to care, to the respect of its mother, than does the mythical leprechaun in the mind of the femtard barbarian. Children are really just pawns that feminists use to persecute men and to fashion a socialistic society for themselves (Have you ever noticed how EVERYTHING that is a goal of the left is "for the children?").

@objectifychicks Oh, so there is an exception to your moral rule that NOBODY has a right to use ANOTHER'S body against their will? #specialpleadingforchicks #nottoobright

Making the point, again, and it will not be the final time that I make it before the light clicks for her, that though she uses the language of equality (NOBODY can use ANYBODY'S body), she actually argues for a double standard that favors women simply because they are women-as all of feminism does.

@Auragasmic The fetus' existence is VIOLATING the woman's right to bodily autonomy. #thinkwiththerighthead #prochoice

Life doesn't matter. Cruelty doesn't matter. Suffering doesn't matter. The expectation of the weak that the strong will protect them doesn't matter. The expectation of society that a mother will protect her children doesn't matter. The rights of men or children do not matter. Society doesn't matter. Survival doesn't matter. Justice doesn't matter. What matters? Whatever notion has entered the mind of the nearest neurotic holding a NOW sign. Only what a woman considers to be her "right" matters to the femtard.

@objectifychicks So NOBODY has a right to use ANYBODY'S body without consent, unless the NOBODY is a woman and the ANYBODY is unborn. Am I getting it right? #barbarian

@Auragasmic If U have another method of removing the fetus and placing it somewhere to develop for nine months, we're all ears.

Note the assumptions: Women are not responsible for their own decisions. If a woman makes a mistake or finds herself in a bind,, society owes it to her to let her have the easy way out. This, of course, does NOT apply equally, because, as noted before, if a woman does not decide to have an abortion, the man who had sex with her will, in fact, be held responsible for his decision to have sex with her by ponying up 18 years of child support payments. Note also that the problem is everyone else's, not women's. Women get pregnant. They don't like it. Therefore they abort. Because they can't be held responsible. If you don't like abortion, it is EVERYONE ELSE'S responsibility to come up with a solution for women ("If U have another method... we're all ears!"). The femtard utopia is not only a world in which women are not responsible for their actions (though everyone else is responsible for theirs!), but is rather a world in which everyone else is responsible for the choices that women themselves make! If YOU don't like abortion, then YOU come up with a plan, don't expect women to come up with an alternative - the ball is in YOUR court! And note that even nature itself does not escape the condemnation of the feminist. Even BIOLOGY and ANATOMY must be modified if the femtard is to be placated! And you think you are gonna marry one of these Hitlers in High Heels and somehow please and satisfy her? You think the demands are EVER going to stop???

@objectifychicks The unborn was invited into the uterus by the woman when she chose to have sex. How #barbaric would it be if I invited you into my house and then killed you for entering?

@Auragasmic Birth control fails and condoms break. Are you saying no one should have sex unless they want to have kids? #lol #prochoice

Note how the femtard eludes the real question of her own brutality, and her own desire to live a life in which her irresponsibility is subsidized by millions of slaughtered children, millions of exploited men, the corruption of government and justice on her behalf, and the eternal pain of the children left to live with her when feminism has trained her to be a neurotic, self-absorbed barbarian - forever forsaking the tender sentiments needed to be a devoted mother. To the femtard, all issues come down to self-gratification - for which sex is a convenient stand-in - because all femtards are self-absorbed, and have no love or tender feeling toward any person on earth - obviously including (and perhaps, least of all) her own children.

@objectifychicks Here's a thought. Maybe YOU should be responsible for once? Maybe YOU should find a means of sexual gratification that doesn't place other lives at risk?

@objectifychicks When I drive, I take certain risks. If I cause damage, why should the people I have hurt pay for it? If YOU screw up, why should another pay for YOUR screw up? [no pun intended, ed.]

@objectifychicks Trust me, I know the answer. WOMEN cannot be held to the same level of RESPONSIBILITY as, say, TEENAGE drivers! #specialpleadingforchicks

@Auragasmic Using your logic, we should let accident victims die because they chose to drive and knew the risks. #lol #prochoice

Of course, this is quite a logical leap by our emotionally-charged, neurotic, and intellectually vacuous femtard. My statements require no such conclusion. While I would certainly agree that a person who drives without adequate insurance and knows the risks and has an accident should be left to pay the cost of the damage he has caused, even his own medical care, I have said nothing that demands that accident victims die simply because they drove. Perhaps her illogical leap is dishonesty on her part, or perhaps it is because the pro-abortion femtard just has death on the brain. The reader will note, though, that in fact, I specifically use the word PAY, not DIE. But she is on the ropes, grasping at straws, because she is a moron and it has been revealed to be so on twitter for all to see. So she manufactures an argument that she feels she can win. This is the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. Femtards, as I have stated, are not capable of insight and intellectual activity. They are capable of rote memorization of bumper sticker slogans and... logical fallacy.

@objectifychicks Thanks for proving that chicks are not as logical as men. That's YOUR (il)logic, not mine. #godgaveyouboobsbecauseyoucantthink

At this point, @Auragasmic essentially dropped out and a couple of her friends joined the fray. This is a common tactic among those who realize that 1) they are wrong, and 2) they are not intellectually equipped enough to continue to argue their wrong position; they summon friends to come and pelt the one showing up the fooltard/femtard with meaningless insults and questions until a level of frustration sets in which allows the femtard to depart thinking that at least a truce was preserved. In fact, one of the femtards actually admitted...

@Auragasmic ... I wonder if he realizes he's being trolled?

Followed a discussion on whether I had stopped beating my wife, whether or not I had ever been in the presence of a vagina, whether or not the domain name was registered to an a$$hole, numerous uses of the term #sexist and #misogynist, typical femtard henhouse prattle. If you can't win the argument, you can always insult your much wiser opponent. But there was at least one significant exchange that ought to be preserved. Reverting back to my indisputable assertion that the baby had been invited into the womb when the woman decided to seek sexual gratification with a fertile man, another woman, whom we shall dub femtard #2 entered with this groaner....

@sophiadaniels the police would still enter and remove me by force even if you invited me in. #lol #prochoice

Now, see what has just transpired. We have previously had @Auragasmic admit that she really doesn't mind killing that much, when she admits that, in her mind, abortion, war, and capital punishment all share the same moral ground. We now have a second femtard admitting that she believes in the use of FORCE, the same level of force authorized to the police, against the unborn!

@objectifychicks Thanks for the admission that you believe in using force & violence against the helpless. #feminazi #barbarian #femtard

@sophiadaniels No problem. Thanks for demonstrating that all #prolifers are #sexist #misogynists.

Note that I thanked @sophiadaniels for admitting that she believes in using force and violence against the helpless. Note that rather than denying it, she responded "No problem," fully accepting my evaluation of her admission.


What have we learned?

1) Feminists are called femtards for a reason. They simply are not very bright. We instinctively recognize that only children live in fantasy worlds (and children aren't very bright either, which is why we make them go to school for 12 years), but if your fantasy is that men and women are equally-abled in all areas of life and that women are gentle, cooperative, and peaceful, we call your neurosis "feminism" and grant you a Ph.D. But at the end of the day, you can't assemble enough degrees to make this nonsense sound like anything other than the crazed, amoral ravings of a UFO abductee who REALLY sees a pink elephant in the corner.

2) Feminists are, indeed, filled with hatred. Their hatred extends to the fruit of their own womb, and to everyone around them. Their hatred spurs them to approve and utilize violence and force against anyone who stands in their way, including a husband, lover, or the child in their own womb.

3) Feminists are the living proof that women don't always make good parents. How ridiculous is it to argue that women innately possess a nurturing, gentle nature when they willingly admit to favoring killing of innocents and violence against the helpless to the tune of 4,000 abortions a day since 1973?

4) Feminists are NOT filled with self-loathing, but are rather filled with a self-absorption and self-worship so intense that they are not even aware that there are other people in the room - much less a man that they are married to or a child in their womb. They care nothing about the rights or suffering of others, if those rights or that suffering stands in the way of their temporary self-gratification in the least. Never forget - @Auragasmic admitted that a single night of sexual gratification was more important to her than the 70 years +/- that the baby in her womb was entitled to.

5) The intellectual shallowness of femtards is exceeded only by their willful immorality. Again, what kind of monster complains of "Domestic Violence" against themselves because someone hurt their feelings or didn't give them money, but justifies the burning of the skin off of a living creature or the crushing of its skull and consequent vacuuming out of its brains or the dicing of it, limb from limb, helpless in the womb, for her own continued personal self-absorption? What kind of morality is it that complains of hurt feelings, but will commit genocide against two generations?

Thanks to everyone for playing!