They organised a flooding of the #AskELJames tag with abuse, and when it is pointed out, simply deflect by claiming they are asking 'questions' along the line of "when did you stop beating your wife?"
I noticed most of the people tweeting at her had no idea what was actually
in the books except it was muh soggy knee...
Feminism. Harassing middle aged women online as a part of their campaign to stop the harassment of women online.
About the only way I can imagine her books resulting in a death is if they fell on top of someone...
Here's Mundane Matt's perspective - he also finds it funny that they scream about harassment - then get together and do it themselves. Apparently the activity is called "brigading"? Huh.
Victorian sperm donors are to have their privacy violated under new retrospective laws, despite assurances, years beforehand, that they would be protected.
I presume this will now be followed by retrospective child support payment demands.
"Victorian fertility clinics look overseas as sperm donors wane "
Yep. There's no sane reason for an aussie male to donate sperm now. At least African sperm merchants won't find their clients subjected to child support payments.
"When I was a university student there was a slogan chanted by the more militant feminists: All men are rapists."
And when this is brought up, feminists routinely deny ever having said that, claiming it is a strawman by their enemies - so it's nice to finally see you admit it was standard.
"Their suggested solution to this problem was to “Cheese wire all sexist bastards."
And our suggested response was "just try it, bitches, and we'll cut yer bloody heads off".
I've noticed feminists talked a lot about killing all men, but apart from Valerie Solanas, they were too bloody gutless to try it. They know we'd obliterate them if they tried.
"It was a provocative response but revealed how many women* perceived the world as a hostile place"
*correction: feminists, most women are not feminists
And so what? So do white supremacists. Perception is not reality. Whipping up fear against an enemy group is the standard MO of all hate movements.
"Today figures were released by the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK that show a record number of prosecutions in England and Wales for violence against women and girls."
So what AGAIN? The number of prosecutions is NOT proof of anything but the rise in prosecutions - not the rise in violent crime. In fact, violence has been on a consistent downward trend for decades.
"The figures include cases of rape, domestic violence and honor killing"
In other words you conflate different crimes together to feed your victim narrative - which is especially egregious as the honour killings are a result of immigrant not accepting the culture of the land they have moved to, and domestic violence is often reciprocal, female initiated AND done by women against children.
A feminist will look at a woman bashing her kiddies to death and use that as proof THAT MEN DESERVE TO BE CASTRATED.
"figures released by the University of Michigan"
Gee, I wonder if they turn out to be anything like this? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-of-chicago-acknowledges-severe-limitations-of-campus-sexual-assault-survey/article/2567028 "University of Chicago acknowledges severe limitations of campus sexual assault survey"
"more than 20% of female students experienced “some sort of nonconsensual sexual behavior in the past year,” with around 12% experiencing “nonconsensual sexual penetration.”"
No mention of whether that was from males or what % males had the same experience or whether they felt traumatised or annoyed or indifferent to it.
I've experienced both, by that standard, and I can't say it gives me nightmares. Some chick kissed me without asking? Good heavens, where is my fainting couch? And you do realise THAT EVERY WOMAN WHO HAS GONE DOWN ON A PARTNER WITHOUT ASKING IS A RAPIST BY YOUR STANDARD?
Oh silly me - only men can be rapists, i keep forgetting!
"It’s dispiriting reading to think for all the progressive politics, feminism and political correct agendas, little has really changed in the relationship between men and women."
So feminism has been a total failure and the only solution you can imagine is MOAAAAAR FEMINISMS.
You know what we call someone who keeps repeating the same ineffective behaviour?
Stupid.
If you actually believed any of your own hateful propaganda, you would separate. You do not, because you know better - but the victim narrative is profitable, and who are you to say no to easy money?
" the photographer objectifies women but is disgusted by their bodily functions (farting)"
Ok. You think it's wrong to be disgusted by farting? You do realise it's a gaseous mixture of faecal matter? If you don't find shit disgusting, go work in sewage, but try not to be surprised if the rest of us won't go near you without a peg on our noses.
Feminism: the ability to be offended that men don't like the stink of women's shit.
"The Heart Foundation thinks there's a dangerous perception that heart attacks mostly affect men."
Which they will now refute with facts... no? No facts today? Tomorrow maybe?
"Julie-Anne Mitchell is the health director of the Heart Foundation."
Well, I'm sure she will treat men and women equally - and not be completely sexist. I mean, that would be terrible if something supported by the government were only interested in the needs of people based on their sex, right?
That would be, by definition, sexual discrimination. There's no chance of the government paying our taxes to sexist bastards, now, is there?
" three times as many women will die of heart disease as they will of breast cancer."
They are really focussed on whether or not you are dying IN HOSPITAL - surely it's the DYING part which is the problem?
"The Heart Foundation says 21 per cent of Australian women are dying in hospital of heart disease, compared to 14 per cent of men."
Nope, they really are obsessed. If you are dying as a homeless man, unable to get a hospital bed, well, stuff you, we have to worry about these women in their nice hospital beds! We can't spare the love for you, mate!
"There are a range of reasons as to why women are not doing as well when it comes to heart disease as men. "
Are there? Yet so far, all that's been talked about is hospital deaths, not overall mortality rates.
Gosh. When we look at real figures, suddenly it's men dying, not women. Huh.
"But doctors aren't exactly sure why the cardiovascular surgery rates for women are lower."
Maybe because they aren't in need of it as much? Because more men are dying of it? Despite there being fewer men overall?
"BRIDGET BRENNAN: If they do survive in hospital, women are more likely to go on to have a second heart attack."
Yes, compared to the men who just have their funeral to look forward to.
"We do find that women's outcomes after being discharged from hospital are not as great as men"
As someone who is far more likely to be dead as an outcome as a result of my gender I am not quite sure how they come to that conclusion. A fate worse than death? Daytime television, perhaps?
" I do believe that women have most of it. "
Most of what? The ABC's support? The public tax expenditure? Endless amounts of gynocentric propaganda from the ABC - how incredibly shocking.
It's is a nice bit of irony to see "ABC Fact Check" right next to this article - when they haven't done any.
Remember folks! Feminism is Equality(TM), but some are more equal than others...
This is the most dishonest thing I have ever read. As others have said, Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
"LGBT rights are women’s and men’s rights"
Feminist have been no friend to gay and transexual men. Sorry, I watched them applaud as gay men were arrested here in Australia. Seriously, do you know nothing of the history of feminism?? Transmen and women have been vilified as gender traitors and psuedo-women. They were banned from meetings.
I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.
"When feminist groups changed the norms of sexual behavior"
In some parallel universe? In this one, medical scientists working on the pill and hippies who had nothing to do with feminism were responsible. Meanwhile, feminists argue that women who have sex with men are gender traitors, and have done since the 1960s. c.f. "The Feminist Initiative" for an example, or anything by Dworkin et al.
"Feminism has fought against sexual violence, including sexual violence against men."
Oh yes, Mary P. Koss fought very hard to make sure women who raped men could be prosecuted... what's that? She did the opposite? Deliberately? How shocking! And feminists fought for immunity to rape charges in Israel and India? No! How can it be? It's not like the Duluth Model defines violence as masculine!
"Feminism fought for an end to gendered segregation at work and in school... boys and girls have equal access to education."
Absolute nonsense; it's fought hard to deny men the ability to teach at schools on the grounds they are all secret pedophiles (all the while ignoring the torrent of female teachers diddling their pupils).
Men used to teach school everywhere. Feminists pushed them out and now male teachers are becoming as rare as hen's teeth.
And feminists constantly call for quotas for women and scholarships for women, and male education plummets. Fewer and fewer men can get a degree now.
Feminists want men to do jobs, of course - the dirty, dangerous jobs - but nothing else. You'll never see a quota for women working in sewage, up power lines, down mine pits or clearing mine fields.
Men are *useful* apes to them - nothing more.
" VAWA protects male victims of domestic violence."
"Feminists have long fought for economic justice for both women and men."
Rubbish. The Feminist Initiative fights for special male-only taxes, Feminists fight for tax exemptions to female only goods, they fight for scholarships for women and claim men are overpaid by as much as 30 cents in the dollar - despite the repeated testimony from economists to the contrary.
“ four out of ten (42%) would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant”
Once preggers, they can count on child support and half of the man’s assets if ina de facto or marriage. That’s a huge incentive!
They don’t even need to share custody; all they have to do is threaten the man with a charge of DV or even rape - no evidence is required.
Meanwhile, feminists argue that men who lie about themselves in order to have sex - by saying they have a better job, for example - should be imprisoned as rapists.
“An alarming 31% of all women say they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease. This rises for 65% for single women.”
" it will be 80 years before fathers and mothers share the burden of parenting equally"
Nothing like starting up with a made-up number to give your article the appearance of credibility.
Men work longer hours at riskier jobs; that is contributing. And when things go pear-shaped, we have no custody rights and a massive child support bill - which in the US, for example, can lead to prison terms if we are unable to pay. All for children we will never see.
"there is the glass ceiling"
Women, by law, are seen as the primary caregivers. Simple biology makes that more likely in the early years. If you say men can bottle feed babies, then you are also saying there's no need to have women breast feeding in public.
"Globally, women’s income is 24 per cent less than men"
Which is irrelevant as we aren't in control of the globe - and in the West, women's income is often exactly the same as men's - FOR THE SAME WORK AND HOURS - BECAUSE THAT'S THE LAW.
"Women are over-represented in part-time workers "
There's no quota! You can't point to a group of people and decide their decisions are wrong, and they should have chosen the way you wanted them to - and if they didn't, it's because some bogeyman Patriarchy used mind-control rays on them.
"One study across more than 30 countries found an average increase of six hours per week in men’s caregiving from 1965-2003"
Yeah, I wonder what the difference could be - lessee - WE AIN'T AT WAR.
Next major war, all the men will be sent off, and the women will be safe at home unless they volunteer to fight. And I'm not going to hear SocJus whining about under-representation then!
"men spend about 40 per cent of the time on caregiving and domestic work"
Conflating two different types of work to get the result you want - also, did I mention men work longer hours and harder jobs? Pretty sure I mentioned it.
"In low and middle income countries"
Which are irrelevant because we don't live in those countries! Those people aren't reading your article, they are busy dying of diptheria or being burn alive by Boko Haram or suffocating in mines without safety protocols.
"why aren’t men doing their share?"
THEY ARE. You just refuse to value their contribution - like the rest of SocJus, your loathing of malekind means they could never satisfy you in the first place, so the only sane thing is not to try.
You think women should have kids without men? Go for it. We'd sell the necessary item but experience has shown men can still be sued for child support even when they are told they are safe as sperm donors.
"Maternity leave of some kind is offered in nearly every country in the world. But only about 92 countries offer any leave for fathers "
Yes. Women leave men who aren't making money. It's the number one way to decrease your attractiveness to a partner. You can say that's biology or whatever - fact is, over and over, it's been shown to be relationship suicide for men to take a downgrade in career prospects, and to have no effect on women. Heck, women can be utterly broke and get partners.
"men think they will be perceived negatively if they take the time off"
NO, if he's not able to pay, he's gone. If he can't earn, it's over - and he may even find himself in jail in the US, as I said. Who cares about how cuddly and nice he is WHEN HE'S IN JAIL?
"encourage boys from early on to see themselves as co-caregivers"
Despite the fact they have no such right - making this a dangerous delusion. You might as well teach them that meth is a good way to spend their pay.
" universal access to subsidised, high quality day-care. "
And gold plated yachts for everyone!
Seriously, where's the money going to come from for this? SocJus really just is Communism 2.0; it promises the world because it knows it will never have to deliver. You can always blame The Patriarchy if you get into power and still can't afford the damn thing. Then have a purge and kill lots of people. It's fun!
"61 to 77 per cent of men say they would work less if they could spend more time with their children"
Pity you haven't provided any means for them to do it; if they work less, they (gasp) earn less, which - as I pointed out - means they are more likely to find themselves suddenly single with childcare payments and no custody rights. Bummer!
"Men who do more of the caregiving live longer"
Cite reference. I'm going to guess that such men are richer, and don't have to work the nasty jobs many other men are doing - the sort that kill us at ten times the rate of women's workplace fatalities. They are going to live longer *anyway*.
" changing centuries of beliefs that women and girls are supposed to the care work while men do the paid work"
Oh yes, biology, it's just some weird social construct and you can just erase it with a wave of the SocJus wand.
Women... get... pregnant. Shock, horror! They then can't do the same work. Then they are breastfeeding etc. So it makes perfect sense for the men to be doing the paid work at that time. However, outside of it, men and women have done paid work for as long as it existed. You just don't know squat about history.
"employers and workplaces that put short-term efficiency and profit ahead of human capital"
THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS TO MAKE MONEY.
That's it. It's not there to make bunnies and rainbows, and give you hugs.
We live in a capitalist society. The other sort - the one you want - well, there's one of them still going. North Korea would be delighted to have you, I'm sure!
There are lots of ways to exploit social media. Scientology was infamous for it, until they were outdone by 4chan et al. Now SocJus is taking the lead.
If writing letters with a crank theory was annoying - but legally acceptable - why would sending tweets be considered differently? The recipient is addressed individually, not in bulk. And it's trivial to mute, or block, or even create a block list if need be.
Instead, they want to silence people's voices.
I have to wonder what would happen if Charles Darwin had announced his crazy theories nowadays.
Take a Dyson's sphere (empty) as a hypothetical example. Make it 10 light seconds across. (i.e. 5 light second radius). The sphere has surface features which change with time - like solar flares do. Machinery is dedicated to repairing asteroid strikes.
Ok, think about a 'mountain' - a surface feature jutting out of the sphere large enough to be seen from orbit.
Beta and Gamma have watches synchronised. Ignore gravitational effects on time (we cannot guess what the sphere weighs).
The both travel to different sections on it's 'equator' from the centre and up inside the mountains. These are placed the furthest apart you can be and still be in the field of vision of an observer in space - i think that is about 5 light seconds, but I might be misunderstanding the issue and it might be about 7. ( Right angle triangle, a, b 5 light seconds in length (from the radius), so hypotenuse is square root of a^2 +b^2 = root 50 = 7)
Call the mountain Beta goes out MBeta and Gamma's mountain MGamma.
An equally damaging explosion - that will take equal time to repair- has occurred at each mountain, recorded to have occurred at the same time from the PoV of the centre - perhaps enemies are responsible for such precision.
Beta and Gamma initiate repairs then leave their mountains and travel perpendicularly to observe it taking place.
My understanding is that Beta will see Gamma as being 5 seconds (or 7?) behind schedule, and Gamma will see Beta as the same time behind schedule. Whereas if Newton had been right and light had been instantaneous, then the time lag between furthest and nearest parts would be the same. Beta and Gamma would then both see each other's progress as equally on time.
They travel back to the exact centre when their work is complete. Comparing watches, they find each was synchronised, they arrived at the centre at the same time, and yet recordings from the surface clearly show the other as being behind time.
Is this correct? If so I'd like to consider what would happen if a signal pulse, switching on and off, sent from the centre were to inform the surface to light up in colour briefly. How would that look like? I think that under Newton, the whole globe would wink on and off simultaneously - but Einstein means it would appear to someone at a reasonable distance to have concentric rings of light on it's surface? If so, would they appear to move in towards the centre - or out?
I used to know physics but only at high school level and a little bit at uni. So I am rather out of my depth.
I was reading this explanation of tidal bulges.
@DoctorKarl there is no centrifugal force - the only force in the system is gravity, which points from the earth to the moon.
A copy of the Earth orbits a copy of the Sun, but one safely compressed into a Black Hole.
Would Earth equivalent orbiting a black hole would have extreme tides compared to Earth? In other words, does the diameter of what is orbited make any difference?
Even though the Sun is 391 times as far away from the Earth as the Moon, its force on the Earth is about 175 times as large. Yet its tidal effect is smaller than that of the Moon because tides are caused by the difference in gravity field across the Earth.
The Earth's diameter is such a small fraction of the Sun-Earth distance that the gravity field changes by only a factor of 1.00017 across the Earth.
The actual force differential across the Earth is 0.00017 x 174.5 = 0.03 times the Moon's force, compared to 0.068 difference across the Earth for the Moon's force.
The actual tidal influence then is then 44% of that of the Moon.
Moon as Dominant Tidal Source
The Moon is the dominant tidal influence because the fractional difference in its force across the Earth is greater than the fractional difference seen from the Sun. This difference in force follows the inverse square law.
Then gave up. If I weren't perpetually muddled by sleep deprivation, perhaps I could figure it out, I cannot for the life of me remember if the sun is treated as a point source or if the density of it makes a difference. The part of the sun that is nearest to us and that part farthest away is still close to being irrelevant compared to the distance of our orbit, surely?
Unless you are talking about something like the future of our sun, where it's radius will swell enormously. The effect of the furthest part has to travel at the speed of light, and will pull in a slightly different direction to the nearest part....I think. Ugh.
"One consequence of the initial changes is that the Sun is becoming brighter, hotter and larger. " Yes, you have to ignore the fact the oceans will boil off - in any case, tidal effects work on magma and rock. It's easiest to see them with water, however.
"As the Sun expands it also loses mass in the form of a wind of particles. "
So we have to ignore that as well, as we are simply changing the radius (and hence density) of the Sun while leaving other factors equal. Assume the parallel Sun swells to a significant percentage of the para-Earth's orbit.
What about the Moon? Were it compressed to a black hole, or expanded into a larger less dense object (by being converted into a Death Star for example!), would there be different tides? (ignoring light pressure effects et al)
I had a shower pondering all this and realised part of the problem is that relativity is downright weird.
Consider the case of a hollow sphere, like a Dyson's Sphere, 10 light second across (for simplicity's sake; yes, you have to ignore material stresses). You are in orbit at 10 light second's distance.
(1 light second = 3*108 m = 3*105 km, so the object we are considering is considerably smaller than the illustration). (Later we will consider an orbit, but the distance required depends on the mass of the object, which is impossible to even estimate as far as I can see).
If Newton had been right, and light was instantaneous, it would look like a ball still. But he was wrong! The furthest side is 1 second further in the past than the nearest. If that ball changed colour, had Newton been right , the colour change would be even.
However, instead, a pulse of colour change will radiate in a wave from the nearest point. One second after it starts, the farthest section will be that colour, from your perspective.
The person at the centre sees a change from green to blue to red in all directions.
Looking down the page at the illustration is to see a simplified approximation of the perspective of the viewer at a distance. Imagine the distance between each 'slice' to be 1 light second more from the viewer. The slices would really be arcs, curved rather than straight, but I can't easily create that graphic.
The compass bearings are symbolic and for orientation only - they are not a part of the structure.
It the object is translucent, or a mesh, the colour green would interact visually with the intermediary hues and intensities of blue and red; it would be a stunningly beautiful phenomenon.
If you were sitting at the exact centre, it would appear that all parts were changing colour evenly. Green, to Blue, then Red.
Now consider being in orbit. Your angular velocity will sheer the object's appearance. It won't look like a ball! From your orbit, as far as I can tell (and please feel free to correct me!), the further parts will be shifted in the direction of travel.
Imagine your orbit is clockwise around this ball. Take the time you are at the apex - our 'North'. The green 'slice' is shifted compared to the red 'slice'. Why? Because you are looking back in time. The yellow-green slice is 1 second in time behind the green slice second from bottom, and seven behind the red slice.
I can't show the view properly, but if you can imagine looking 'down' from the north, hopefully you will get the picture.
Diagram C: Here is an example of concentric rings - too many for our purposes, we would see four at most from a sufficiently high orbit. (You can only ever see a hemisphere at best.)
I expect 1 lightsecond's distance from the surface is far too close!
The outermost rings would be blue, the innermost green and red.
R +G=Y
So if the rings are aligned, then it would be a yellow ring appearing towards the centre.
I presume Diagram A approximately reflects the Point of View of travelling to the surface at a constant rate.
Does Diagram A or B reflect the PoV of someone in orbit more accurately, assuming the orbit is no significant fraction of lightspeed?
What if it were a significant fraction of lightspeed you were travelling at? Would this mean the curved light 'plates' in the direction you were travelling would be shifted to the 'east'?
If so, how fast would you have to be travelling for the appearance to be this distorted?
Have I even illustrated this correctly? I think not, but i really cannot sort this one out - yet it nags at me.
The BBC claims" Sir Tim Hunt suggested 'girls' should stay out of the laboratory because they distract men. Strangely, they seem to ignore the fact that he said that both the sexes were distracted by each other.
"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. ... I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science."
Despair: Sir Tim's wife Professor Mary Collins (pictured), one of Britain's most senior immunologists, said the couple cried and held each other in the aftermath of the public backlash.
It had emerged earlier that Sir Tim was speaking from personal experience when he suggested same-sex laboratories would be a good idea to stop colleagues falling in love.
Sir Tim Hunt reveals he was forced to resign from University College London without being given the chance to explain himself
However, as a result of the furore, Hunt was told by UCL that he would have to resign his honorary post at the college. “At no point did they ask me for an explanation for what I said or to put it in context,” he told the Observer. “They just said I had to go. There has been an enormous rush to judgment in dealing with me.”
Note that SocJus is spinning this as a resignation out of shame for his evil deeds, not that he was pushed. It's funny how clear they are that consent is invalid under duress - when it suits them, of course.
I'm staggered at how dishonest this article is. It never addresses his points, and merely responds to a strawman.
So what did he say? It's difficult to be precise as no-one seems to have the original transcript (the youtube video I had linked seems to have been taken down).
He says he has no dispute with these quotes.
“let me tell you about my trouble with girls.”
He is establishing his lived experience. Should we listen to people's "lived experience"? If we listen to others, just not his, because "hey! old white men, amiright?" then that is bigotry.
1)"3 things happen when they are in the lab; you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you
2) "when you criticize them (women), they cry”
3) "I’m in favour of single-sex labs”
4) he “doesn’t want to stand in the way of women.”
1) Office relationships are bad.
Hmm. You know who else says that? MOST COMPANIES HR DEPARTMENTS. You can be sacked in some places for them.
And who runs the HR departments?
Take a guess.
Young women - who often identify AS FEMINISTS.
So feminists say they are bad - and when they say that, that's terrific! That's the natural wisdom of a Sister!
But when he says it? It's just a stupid old white man talking. Vilify him!
People who can't cope with stress are a big problem. At my old workplace, which was a call centre, thousands of people managed to cope with criticism every day - it was mandatory for our performance evaluations.
We seemed to have done so without crying.
If the women are crying in his workplace, I'd say that the likely reason is not distress but because it's effective at manipulating people.
" if an employee cries because of an action by management or disciplinary action, in retaliation they might complain of sexual harassment.... Not to be cold, but there can be legal exposure when you get involved in your employees’ personal lives."
Now, you don't provide counter evidence - indeed, the main argument I have heard is that crying is good and men not doing it is why they kill themselves in ever increasing numbers (and it couldn't have anything to do with the fact men are now vilified for being men, like he is).
So the science seems to agree with common sense; women, generally, cry when criticised. Men don't. But SocJus doesn't give a damn about Truth - and if they control Science, Truth will be shown the door.
If he is a chauvinist for arguing for it in one tiny part of the workplace, then what does that make feminists when they argue for an entirely separate existence? A gender Apartheid?
4) he “doesn’t want to stand in the way of women.”
Feminists, of course, ignore that bit and claim he despises all women everywhere. This is called projection.
They hate men so much that they cannot imagine men do not hate women in the same way.
Women do cry. Feminist role-model Sheryl Sandberg herself said, "I've cried at work." But it was Mr. Hunt who was Bunsen-burned at the stake.
By contrast, the Globe and Mail newspaper recently published an essay espousing the "Male Idiot Theory," stating that men are more likely than women to risk life and limb. No men cried as a result, to my knowledge, nor did they call for the female author's head.
As the full story of Nobel laureate Tim Hunt’s allegedly sexist remarks begins to see the light of day, it becomes more and more clear that his “chauvinist monster” bit was actually a self-deprecating satire aimed not at women but at men.
Image: A boy brainwashed to embrace his own destruction.
“They gather around a large table, doing their best to ignore the girl power posters”
Which makes you wonder why the posters are there, except to remind the boys of their place in feminist society.
“Their participants instead talk about weighty issues like masculinity and the hyper-sexualized portrayal of women in media.”
In other words, they are indoctrinated into feminist ideology using a trojan horse of sex education.
There’s no proof sexuality in media is harmful. It’s simply a belief of feminist doctrine. We don’t treat people the beliefs of Scientology in science classes. Why should we teach Feminist dogma as sex education?
Why does feminism get the privilege of being the State religion of supposedly secular societies?
“ how to have a healthy relationship”
Nobody knows the answer to that. And the feminist idea that it has mystical insight has zero evidence behind in, especially as lesbian separatism is a key plank of feminist belief and has been since the 1960s. Should the boys really be taught that the only healthy relationship is a homosexual one?
“Boys, research revealed, were more likely to engage in high-risk behavior"
Yes, boys and men take risks. This surprises you? We climb mountains. A lot of us die in the attempt. Some succeed and get rewarded. Feminists look at those few and demand that outcome for all women, without any of the risks.
They want to be flown to the top, without all that messy competition.
Men can go to hell, however.
“ less likely to protect themselves”
Since they are having sex with girls, how does that statement make sense? Do the girls wear half a condom and the boys not wear their half?
“Encourage boys to consider everything they’ve been taught about what it means to be a man, deconstruct it, and then think about how to become a good one.”
The same technique as used in every cult. Break down individuality! Tell them to think of everything, not according to their own beliefs, but according to groupthink.
“Women in relationships of unequal power are more likely to have STIs”
How can that be the fault of the men in those relationships? How does that possibly work? Are the wicked men getting contaminated blood and injecting them? If the men in these relationships are uninfected, then where is your vector?
“Women in relationships of unequal power are more …more likely to be experiencing intimate partner violence.”
“In other words, addressing gender inequality will likely affect sexual health.”
In the same way the planetary alignments control the fates. Not at all.
“Talking about using the word ‘gay’ and casually making fun of it.” Now, he would never use that word. “I watch myself,” he said.
Congratulations. You taught him to self-censor according to the rules of your ideology. Now he will stifle his free expression and police that of others.
Meanwhile, other gay people use the word, in exactly the way he used to, and don’t have a problem with it.
But you are using the authority of the classroom as a platform for your ideology. How corrupt is that! You might as well have history classes being taught by ISIS.
“A recent 12-page analysis notes that “the program has had a significant positive influence on teen boys’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs with respect to sexual health, masculinity, and homosexuality.”
So a feminist examines whether or not the outcome is that the children are indoctrinated, and if they salivate when a bell is rung, they get a gold star?
That’s your idea of a positive outcome?
“I was definitely very sexist. And now, you know, I view women as people and not, like, an object.”
Unless he was a sociopath, he never viewed women as objects - I can snap off a piece of an object and throw it away, and only the owner will care. If I assault a woman, I will be treated far more seriously than if I assault a man. Who, then, is more of an object?
This feminist indoctrination process is designed to turn young men into self loathing white knights, eager to throw other men under the bus in order to assuage their guilt at simply being born.
The suicide rate of the male population continues to climb as feminist principles take hold? Here we have the school being used as their pulpit. Everyone must believe to pass the class.
Take heed. Resistance is growing. You are brainwashing young men to be your drones, your cannon fodder, to live for you and die for you, HeForShe?
.. and I am sure you will get them to kill many free men, oh yes.
But at some point your self-hating slaves will be looking at their weapons and wondering why, if men are so worthless, they are the ones who have to do all the dirty work?
If men are so useless, why are they essential? Feminists need men to grab a gun and kill for them and be maimed for them and die, oh god, to die for them, all the while being spat on from the day they are born?
Why should those men you have given those guns die for you?
Even the best indoctrination can be shaken.
I have to wonder, what will happen, when those men you despise decide ENOUGH… and turn their guns on you?
Is masculinity really 'toxic', as feminists would have you believe?
And just like that, New Scientist jumped the shark. It showed it was more interested in gender politics than facts or reason.
I expect it'll start producing articles claiming 4 out of every 5 badgers was raped by Old White Straight Men - the current hate target of the authoritarian left.
"Let's look at the mitigating circumstances. Hunt is 72."
Hmm. so he has a lot of 'lived' experience? Do we disregard the 'lived' experience of people now? What are the rules of this game? Do we just move the goalposts when it looks like the opposition might score?
Lots of scientists have done good work at his age. In fact, it's rather AGE-IST to focus on it... hmm, that's not very nice!
"It was once OK to make remarks belittling racial.. groups"
You mean, like white people? Yeah, it's a good thing Feminists never belittle racial groups!
" if we take Hunt's argument to its logical conclusion – and we might expect a Nobel laureate to have applied some logical rules – it rapidly hits the rocks"
Hmm. His argument is that males and females work better when segregated sexually. Your counter evidence is .... not presented.
Ok, so where else have we heard this idea? Some sort of political group back in the 60s? It's very famous, but ... I know it's starts with Fem.... just can't think of what it's called...
"Three things happen when they are in the lab.... You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry."
There are two claims there. One is that workplace romances happen. It takes an impressive amount of doublethink for you to be blind to it, but you've managed it somehow.
The other is that when women are criticised, they cry. Now this is a matter of opinion; it's certainly false that all women cry when criticised, but equally it's clearly false to say that women cry as infrequently as men - in fact, the idea of men crying is seen as absurd and pathetic, which is why feminists invented the meme of "male tears", and vow to drink them at every opportunity.
" Girls do better in science in all-girl classes"
So... follow this through... women work better in single sex labs. You just agreed with him, you moron.
Yes, feminists are so good at doublethink they can spout vitriol at someone for being obviously 'wrong' - then repeat it as divine truth.
"What about gay scientists"?
What about them? If men and women are performing better in single sex environments, the few who have same sex romances are not substantial enough to have a negative impact. Overall, the fact remains. YOU MADE HIS CASE FOR HIM.
"Maybe lesbians can work with straight males."
Maybe, but some lesbians have sex with men, some even decide they are bisexual, and many straight men fancy lesbians. There's also no evidence of mixed sex classes working better if the females are same-sex attracted - as you know - as you already pointed out - so you are aware this is an incredibly dishonest argument.
"people are always falling in love"
Rubbish. Anyone with any scientific discipline knows this is utter bullshit.
Overall, far fewer people will fall in love with the same sex. This isn't in dispute outside of the echo chambers of the Feminist establishment, and if you call yourself a scientist yet still manage to ignore the data to the contrary of an emotionally appealing position, then you are not worthy of the name.
" and crying, come to that. "
No, you don't get it both ways. Feminists have argued for decades that men are inferior because they cry less - and now you want to claim they cry all the time?
What a liar you are.
"He can't actually be against women scientists"
Good thing he never said he was. But you want to smear him with that libel - it suits your politics.
"What this really demonstrates is how far from gender equality science is"
Yes, it demonstrates that the feminist ideology is incredibly far from any fact-based approach. And the feminist response? Is to remove anyone who speaks up, who doesn't toe the party line. Exactly as the Nazis did with 'Jewish' science and the Soviets did with science that contradicted the Party.
"we need to start understanding this emotional response in otherwise intelligent men."
Or we could try examining the truth of what he said? Rather than, as the author and other feminists have done, placing the weight upon Feelz rather than Facts.
"anyone looking at this psychological impact of social evolution should do it in a co-ed lab"
Under supervision of a member of the Sisterhood, to make sure the 'correct' conclusions are always reached?
"Debora MacKenzie is a consultant for New Scientist"
The New Scientist has a Political Officer now?
Jesus H. Christ.
Y'know, I've read, subscribed and purchased this magazine my whole life. I'm sorry to see it's gone rotten.
Goodbye. When you were good, you were very, very good, but now you are just bloody awful.
