Category Archives: Gender Politics

Chauvinist Restaurant Shutters Doors

Handsome Her sign.png

A sexist Australian eatery is set to close. Because, of course it is. It’s sexist.

The sign pictured above was posted at Handsome Her, an Australian diner that gathered media attention, and many negative reviews, for its controversial chauvinist stance against men. Except it did a terrible job of riding the wave of controversy, because I didn’t even notice that it existed until it was time for the place to shut down.

Because rule number 3 in the sign above is ideologically incompatible with their first two rules, there’s little reason to suspect that the restaurant owner would possess the clarity of mind to last long in the highly-competitive restaurant business. But the restaurant staff gives us more reason to doubt them:

“We tried to demonstrate ways of doing business more ethically and responsibly by abandoning take-away cups, single use straws and napkins, by shopping locally and supporting woman owned businesses.”

As it turns out, making business choices informed by chauvinism and fad environmentalism doesn’t result in a lasting business. And, to further limit the appeal of their business, it’s also vegan. It’s almost as though Handsome Her is challenging as few people to give a care as possible.

Because the gender-wage gap has been debunked many, many times, there probably isn’t very much I can say about it that hasn’t already been said. But there is another aspect to the matter that doesn’t come up as often. It may very well be that most feminists are ignorant to the true nature of the gender wage myth. But it’s hard to imagine that all of them are so naive that they wouldn’t see past the obvious lie, but they peddle it anyway, recognizing it’s usefulness in cultivating a following. In either case, it looks really bad.

When it comes to a following, quality matters a lot more than quantity. When a lie is used to recruit, it cultivates a following of the gullible. The propagation of the gender wage myth to further the feminist cause has a lot to do with why the typical feminist is an overly-vocal ignoramus.

As I’ve said before, if it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.

You want to know something interesting? If you want to expose someone as being misinformed, just let them keep talking. The more they say, the more inconsistencies you’ll find in their arguments, and the sillier their non-sequiturs. The best part is, they’ll have no idea that, by giving them a platform, you’re really not doing them any favors.

“We strived to bring lesbianism back into fashion. What, you didn’t know it was out of fashion? Well for many of us, it is.”

I know that lesbians can speak for themselves, but I suspect that many of them would agree that it’s not a fashion choice. But considering that we’re talking about restaurant management that actually believes that it can sell chauvinism to a progressive society, it’s hard to put the idea past them.

“The Man Tax blew up the internet – an idea that we didn’t think was all too radical. Yet the way the world responded showed us how fragile masculinity is and solidified the necessity for us to confront and dismantle patriarchy.”

There’s something amusing about the self-centered morality and lack of introspection it takes to perceive a crime and then wonder at the backlash for committing the same crime. Also, hypocrisy. There’s that, too.

“Yes, we are the evil, discriminatory, man-hating dykes who charge men more when didn’t you know the wage gap doesn’t even exist!?”

If you know that the problem isn’t real, then you’re the malicious kind of recruiter. Again, if you have to lie to get people to go along with you, maybe it’s not a worthy cause.

“…While it is a shame to lose the physical space (and we understand how essential it is for women and lesbians to hold space),”

It’s because feminists love having a nexus with which to formulate collective action. For some reason, feminists do almost nothing outside of collective action. You see, if men get upset over something, we act for ourselves, even if it means that we are acting alone. We don’t have any need to run anything by a group, nor do we need to stew over a perceived wrong until a weekly gathering. Could it be that feminists don’t have real confidence?

“Meanwhile gentlemen’s social clubs live on and strong around Melbourne and the world over…”

“Gentlemen’s social clubs” exist because “gentlemen” like women. Natch. It’s a preference that’s apparently shared by the Handsome Her zeitgeist, so one could imagine that the restaurant owners could at least empathize.

It’s been a short ride, Handsome Her. I imagine that you’ll find more swords to fall upon in your quest to make whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

get woke go broke

Is Go from Pokemon secretly a girl?

go from pokemon.png

A long-running tradition in the Pokemon anime is that of the poke-girl, the female traveling companion in Ash’s party. It started with Misty, continued with May, and went up until the seventh gen which gave us a few poke-girls instead of the usual one (Lillie, Lana, and Mallow). It would appear that the newest step in Ash’s journey would take things in a different direction by teaming Ash up with a boy named “Go”, and that a girl might not be traveling with Ash for this part of his journey.

Or is that really the case?

Japanese viewers have noticed that Go has been blushing a lot, which tends to happen often with female characters in anime.

gou blush.png

I could also point out that Go has stylized eyelashes, a feature that is usually only seen in anime girls and women.

gou blush eyelash.png

Is Go’s character a play on gender politics in a similar way to Samus from Metroid? Or is he simply an expressive male?

There is another mystery here, and that’s that Go is blushing at all. Blushing, or turning flush, is a feature of Caucasians. Blushing occurs when there is a sudden rush of blood, which is a physical reaction to awkwardness. With darker-skinned individuals, it’s less apparent that this rush of blood is taking place. When you put Go side-by-side with Ash, it’s plain to see that he’s not Caucasian.

go pokemon.png

As one could easily point out, Brock had darker skin too, and he was a legendary blusher. It would appear as though blushing in Pokemon was a stylistic choice, or perhaps was decided on by a team of Japanese animators who didn’t have access to many non-Japanese people to use as reference.

Also, what is up with those red clips in his hair? And those thin eyebrows? Were the writers of the Pokemon anime trying to pull one over on us?

Model With Unibrow Attempts to Redefine Beauty Standards

sophia hadjipanteli.pngSophia Hadjipanteli (edited for sanity)

A model is attempting to redefine beauty standards with a comically huge unibrow.

Because that sentence alone sets the stage for a long rant, I’ll just link to an article covering this story and accept that as the launchpad for the rant to follow, because it’s sufficient.

Believe it or not, beauty standards were not invented by Chick-fil-A and the patriarchy to try to be mean to women. Throughout the entirety of human history and the class Mammalia, beauty standards have been informed by biological viability. Putting bizarre trends aside, what has held up historically as being “beautiful” was considered a sign that a person was in sufficient health and capability to procreate. As far as this goes, biology and the continuity of humanity don’t really concern themselves with anyone’s objections, and all that usually happens when a person attempts to go against the flow in this regard is that a person makes it far less likely that they’ll be further contributing to humanity’s gene pool. I know that’s hard to ponder for those weaned on the notion of attraction to cartoon ponies, but a lot of things are.

When bringing up this topic, there’s usually someone who will bring up the myth that Renaissance artists depicted obesity as a reflection of cultural standards of beauty existing in their time. That’s not true. The reason why Renaissance artists painted fat women was because that was what many wealthy and affluent women looked like. Their physical condition was what one would expect when a person doesn’t have to work to get by, and has plenty to eat.

The fact is, Renaissance artists viewed lean women as having ideal beauty in the same way most people do today. When a person is attracted to something that is outside that norm, they are considered an outlier, and are usually viewed as a fetishist, like the people who are attracted to feet.

The fact is, the beauty standards that we have today and have had throughout human history exist for a reason, and it’s a very compelling reason. When a person attempts to eschew these standards, the expected outcome is akin to a boxer attempting to defeat the bodybuilding standards of his sport by allowing his muscles to atrophy; he may get some time in the Tumblr limelight, but we know that when he steps into the ring for a professional match, it’s light-out for him.

When a model intentionally takes on an unfavorable characteristic in an attempt to challenge beauty standards, they may get their praise from the usual blue checkmarks on Twitter, but we know that women all over the world are thinking, “Thank you for making yourself easier to compete against.”

Another irony that I want to point out is that the Glamour article dismisses as “trolls” those who criticized Sophia’s new look as ugly. When someone calls someone online a troll for saying something that they don’t like, they’re showing that they have no idea what trolling really is. Online trolling is really about influencing a person, usually to try to get them to do or say something that’s inadvisable. It can take on forms that are really quite subtle, and even someone who has been using social media for a long time might have a hard time recognizing trolling when it’s in front of them.

The irony is, the people encouraging Sophia to continue with the unibrow look are the real trolls, and they are laughing themselves silly at her ridiculous behavior, while those who call her new look ugly are expressing their sincerely-held opinions.

Putting aside the possibility that Sophia may be the victim of trolling, it’s very likely that she is pulling a publicity stunt. The idea would be to do something ridiculous in an effort to bring attention to herself. If that’s the case, then Sophia would actually be trolling people like me who blogged about her.

If that’s what Sophie was going for, then congrats, Sophie, you look ridiculous and got people to laugh at you because of it. But if Sophie really wanted to make a beauty statement, she could try something actually beneficial, like refusing to wear lipstick. Lipstick looks dreadful, and women everywhere would look much better for not wearing it. The reason why I doubt that models like Sophie would attempt to make such a statement is because doing so would mean fewer people buying lipstick, and a model’s job is to encourage more people to buy more things.

But for what it is on the surface, which is an attempt to redefine beauty standards, Sophia’s unibrow stunt pretty much accomplishes nothing.

New Ghostbusters Film May Indicate that the Film Industry is Coming Out of the Intersectional Muck

The teaser for the upcoming Ghostbusters sequel doesn’t tell us a lot about the movie, other than the fact that there will be a new one. It’s pretty a much a minute of zooming up on the Hearse:

So, they’re making a new one. We also learned that it will be directed by Jason Reitman, the son of Ivan Reitman, who directed the original two. Here is what he has to say about it:

I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans. This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ’80s happened in the ’80s, and this is set in the present day.

Fans are thrilled about this, because they’re returning to the story in the continuity of the original two films. They’re also anticipating that this means that the 2016 reboot with the all-female team of Ghostbusters will be rendered non-canon, and strictly ignored.

Not everyone is happy about what’s going on, particularly Leslie Jones, who went on a Twitter rant that somehow brought Trump into this:

leslie jones twidurr.png

I had no idea that the President of the United States could decide what movies were made or who to cast in them. I’d have imagined that it would have been more difficult for a Republican to have pull over the film industry, considering the institution’s history as a left-wing vehicle. In fact, the entertainment industry in general has picked on Trump at every opportunity, so it’s hard to imagine that they’re being sympathetic towards him only just now.

The film industry is a business. Like any business, they make money by making products that people actually want. As the film industry found out the hard way in 2016, people don’t want a movie where the only joke told over and over again is “girls rule, boys drool”. Generally speaking, an on-the-nose political statement doesn’t go over well, but it’s mush worse when an established franchise that had little if anything to do with feminism gets turned into yet another tool on the intersectional workbench.

The film, comic, and the rest of the entertainment industry would do well to remember that they make products in order to sell them. Ham-fisted political statements don’t usually go over very well. Get woke, go broke.

get woke go broke

The upcoming Ghostbusters film might be a sign that the film industry is starting to come up out of the intersectional muck. As they do so, we shouldn’t be surprised to see the usual shills banging on pots and pans as they seek out every opportunity to be offended. But because we already know what their opinions are, why even ask them? And if their opinions drag movies down, why should they even be considered?

The answers seem obvious to the rest of us, but we’ve been waiting for the film industry to catch up and come to the obvious conclusion.

Webcomic Review: Assigned Male

ugly.pngYou’ve just been treated to a new flavor of ugly.

(Notice: This review refers to the author of Assigned Male and its main character with biological pronouns. When dealing with horse-puckey of this magnitude, it helps to keep at least one foot in reality.)

The author of Assigned Male is a self-styled first order left-wing mind who believes that he knows what’s better for us than we do, and he’s on a mission to save us from ourselves. The way he’s going about that is by writing a ridiculous webcomic that furthers his agenda. His whole mission backfired when the people who like his webcomic mainly like it ironically, while the rest of us ridicule it soundly.

Because it’s a given that Assigned Male is such a horrible webcomic, it’s predictable that it’s going to be getting a low score. You probably already know it’s bad, so this is another webcomic review that’s kind-of superfluous and it’s hard to say something about it that hasn’t already been said. Yet, the webcomic is so famous for being bad that it’s kind-of hard to ignore. So it’s like another Sonichu.

Transgenderism is one of the current perversities being propped up by the left-wing establishment, and people pretend to be tolerant of it for fear of backlash from said establishment, even though pretty much everybody is secretly afraid that their children may become one. It’s an issue where people pretend to be “progressive”, yet on a primal level, pretty much every sound-minded individual recognizes something is seriously flipping wrong. When someone pretends to be a homosexual of the opposite gender, it doesn’t tend to result in grandchildren for their parents.

There’s something that I’ve noticed when it comes to webcomics, especially when it comes to the bad ones: there seems to be a disproportionately high representation of transgender themes in webcomics as of late. It might sound like conspiracy theorism, but I personally suspect that there’s an agenda at play, especially considering that the transgender crowd just happens to politically align with a certain movement that believes that there’s getting to be just a few too many human beings running around.

Having said that, the type of transgenderism depicted is the no-op male-to-female variety. That seems to be the more prominent kind, because most doctors inform those considering gender-reassignment surgery that, among other forms of damage, those undergoing the operation permanently lose their reproductive capacity, and they don’t actually gain the capacities of their new gender. Most transgenders are discouraged by this, and settle for wearing a dress and accusing those who use the wrong gender pronouns on them of hate crimes.

If someone does undergo gender reassignment surgery, the usual result is crippling depression, as a body is no longer producing adequate hormones for their biological gender, so a person would end up chemically messed up even without taking a bunch of pills. The suicide rate for post-op transgenders is disproportionately high. Gender reassignment surgery is castration, and it messes a person up in the same ways.

Also, unicorns aren’t real.

It may seem like a sufficient introduction to red pill the trans agenda to death, but there’s something more to what’s going on with Assigned Male. If Sophie Labelle, the author of Assigned Male, were yet another transgender snowflake using the webcomic format to have her characters vicariously win the victories that he does not win in real life, he’d only stand out for how zealous and militant that Assigned Male makes him look. But there’s something more to it.

Sophie Labelle is a known and professed child recruiter.

So, you know about that webcomic that he has which indirectly promotes castration? Its target audience is the most vulnerable members of society. Sophie Labelle is just the kind of guy you should want to keep your children away from, and he’s determined to use his webcomic to get at them.

You know what? A review provides more dignity than this trash pile of a webcomic deserves. Why don’t I straight-up bash it?

Sophie Labelle does not know how to draw, but that doesn’t prevent him from trying. After all, he’s got an agenda to push, and he’s not going to allow something like an inability to properly express himself artistically stand between him and the children he’s trying to prey on.

I went and pulled a random example of Sophie’s art, so I’m not being unfair in presenting this as an accurate representation of how badly this webcomic hurts to look at:

assigned male discussing batman.pngThe characters in Assigned Male discussing media we’d rather be consuming.

When you’re trying to present transgenderism as beautiful, then you want to depict them beautifully. Otherwise, your endeavor is going to be self-defeating. Because as they are, the cast of Assigned Male, the main character in particular, looks like they were stuffed into a potato sack and beat against a jungle gym.

I know that when someone uses webcomics as the vehicle for their agenda, they may say that the quality of their art really isn’t the point, as an excuse to produce art that is sub-par. If that’s the case, why even use a visual medium at all? If your art is something that a reader can make fun of, that would end up being a liability for the overall message.

The art in Assigned Male does improve somewhat, as Sophie eventually decides to shade his characters. They’re still ugly, but in a different kind of way. After the style change, the children in the comic look like middle-aged dwarves.

The self-insert main character of Assigned Male is Stephie, a boy-to-girl no-op transgender child who is pretty much everything you’d be afraid of in a transgender you’d meet: overly-sensitive and hard-rails into throwing temper tantrums at every perceived slight, no matter how unintentional it may have been. While this already makes him rough-him-up-and-dump-this-mess-across-town material, in execution, the comic itself makes him much more unbearable.

stephie sans.pngMain character Stephie, ruining Sans for those who like Undertale.

For example, the comic opens with a short story about Stephie going to the doctor’s office with his parents, but Stephie storms out after he discovers that their records still indicate that he’s a boy. Because the physiological differences between males and females may necessitate differences in medical treatment of patients, one would think that Stephie would be understanding that doctors would want a pass when it comes to his game of gender pretend. But no, Stephie’s delusion is more important to him than his being treated for the illness that he went to the physician for in the first place. Much later in the webcomic, the issue of gender for medical identification comes up again, showing that Sophie still hadn’t learned his lesson.

Most of the conflict in Assigned Male involves Stephie taking on some kind of strawman representing whatever argument that Sophie feels like taking on. If that sounds familiar, it’s like another comic I’ve already reviewed, Vegan Artbook. But the comparisons don’t end there. Like Vegan Artbook, some updates are one-panel atrocities that throw some blurbs out there that sounded clever in the author’s mind. Here’s an example that pretty much sums up what’s wrong with Sophie’s outlook:

stephie delusional.jpg

Until you’ve read a medical encyclopedia, right? No, it turns out that Stephie is more comfortable with kidding himself. What Sophie should understand is that the truth of any matter is never determined by mere belief. That’s the important understanding that separates those in touch with reality from those who are deluded. Again, because this is important: The truth of any matter is never determined by mere belief. Either something is true, or it is not. The only fact that pretending changes is the fact that you’re pretending. Societal distinctions of gender are based on the reality of biological sex, and any perception about it doesn’t change that reality, it merely flavors it.

Now, where can we find something scientific to illustrate the gender differences in a simple and straightforward manner?

Pioneer 1 plaque man and womanThe Voyager plaque says “Hi”.

Another thing to know about Sophie is that he has no problem with attempting to use his webcomic to talk way over your head. Stephie and the rest of the children in the cast talk like English majors in their senior year. And Stephie is supposed to be 11 years old.

you kids following along.jpgYou kids following along at home?

I have my doubts that that’s the way children in Canada talk. And this is supposed to be a webcomic that’s targeting children?

If you’re an adult and don’t like his webcomic, then you’re not the target audience. But if you’re an impressionable child, then Sophie has no qualm with intellectually substantiating his nominal designation. Sophie punches below his weight class, and punches hard.

You probably don’t need to be told that skepticism is a great thing to bring with you if you were to plan on reading Assigned Male for yourself, but the author does use the comic to make numerous claims as though supported by studies. It’s an intellectually dishonest move that preys on the unsuspecting and shifts the onus of verification onto the readers that might not bother to look into the claim being made. It’s hard to expect more from a person who doesn’t just feel entitled to his own opinions, but also feels entitled to his own facts.

Another thing to know about Sophie is that he does get trolled pretty hard. Surprising, right? Some of his comics are specifically-designed to answer critics, such as this one:

ta.jpg

Not really all that funny, especially when you realize that Assigned Male was written to prey on children. If someone points out how badly your webcomic sucks and they are outside your target audience, your webcomic still sucks.

Here’s another example comic:

kids talking.jpg

Talking heads is pretty much what it comes down to. It seems like the assumption is that the suspension of disbelief favors conversations that are highly unrealistic for children to actually have. The dialog is so ham-fisted that it doesn’t seem to go with the faces, which are actually conveying emotion. It’s hard to imagine a pair of robots having a conversation so dull.

By now, you’ve seen a total of 4 different comic formats used by Assigned Male presented in their entirety. In webcomics, there’s less pressure to maintain a consistent format, which frees up webcomic artists to express what they want to with fewer restrictions of the kind that you’d see in a newspaper’s funny pages. However, sometimes it’s obvious that an artist like Sophie is settling for something simple (like the one-panel splash pages) because that’s what he feels like he’s up for making. That’s his choice, but it does take some effort to pull off in a way that doesn’t seem lazy.

But hey, Assigned Male was never about the reader’s satisfaction. It’s about the agenda, and how the author feels about himself for pushing it. If there’s something that bad webcomics like Addanac City and Robot Hugs can do to improve, it’s give a care about the reader’s experience. It’s what a webcomic author can do to keep their comic from being mere participation in the medium like Boss Rush Society, or a self-serving suckfest like Vegan Artbook. Because as it is, Assigned Male is like a crusty lover whose mission is to blow his load then say he’s done.

Now onto the score. I’ve already shown my hand when it comes to my opinion of Sophie Labelle’s agenda, but the fact that he’s targeting the minds of children pisses me off enough to take away any points that his comic might have otherwise gotten.

Assigned Male gets assigned a score of 0 out of 10.

zero.png

Sophie has actually succeeded in having another review taken down because he didn’t like it. I kind of wonder whether he’ll find this review, read it, and blow his stack.

If you can’t identify the real problem, don’t expect a real solution.

love complex

I’ve decided to provide a critical analysis of an article titled “Conservatives will not stop pushing the ‘Pence rule’ as a solution to sexual harassment”. If you want to, you can read the article for yourself. This article mainly picks at the parts that I most feel like arguing against. The article may be a few months old, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still critique it.

For one thing, the title of the article is missing the last word, which, if inserted, would make it closer to correct. If the word “claims” were added to the end, it would come far closer to the heart of the matter.

The author Casey Quinlan opens her article with the following frilly statement:

As stories of powerful men masturbating in front of women, forcibly kissing and groping women, and forcing teenage girls’ heads into their crotch have gained national attention, it’s sparked widespread conversation about how to prevent sexual harassment and assault.

This opening paragraph is almost graphic enough to be a porno. It’s obvious that she’s trying to invoke some pretty strong feelings here. And what better way to spark productive conversation than to drive your audience into an emotional frenzy?

The solution seems obvious: The best way to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault of women and girls is for men not to sexually harass and assault women and girls.

Because we’re not naive, we all know that telling someone not to do something is no guarantee that they won’t do it. After all, telling someone not to murder isn’t stopping murders from occurring. Therefore, the best we can do is criminalize the undesirable behavior and enforce the law when someone steps out of line.

And I do have some good news for you from the current year! Sexual harassment is already illegal! That means that all we need to do is enforce the law when we determine it may have been broken, and mete out punishments when (and only when) a court of law has determined guilt. Yay, progress!

But wait, there’s more. I’m going to let you in on a little secret: Laws against sexual harassment were written, passed, and enforced primarily by men. If there really were some patriarchy that was out to get women (as many feminists claim), this would not have occurred. Looks like men aren’t your enemies, after all.

But conservatives appear to be less interested in finding ways to teach men how to co-exist with women, who comprise 47 percent of the U.S. labor force, than discussing how best to avoid women altogether.

In particular, conservative writers are increasingly focused on the “Mike Pence rule,” pointing out that Vice President Mike Pence does not eat dinner alone with women who are not his wife and does not go to events where alcohol is being served when his wife is not present. Pence first revealed this detail in a Washington Post article published in March.

Now, this is the heart of the matter right here: That men are starting to avoid women like Casey Quinlan, and they feel as though they are being punished. Not only that, more men are adopting the Mike Pence rule, which was obviously designed so that there’d be a witness in the event that yet another obvious false accusation arises, the likes of which we’ve been seeing on the news on a near-daily basis.

In a sense, the Mike Pence rule is a lot like the “stranger danger” that many of us were taught about as children. It’s a terrible thing to teach a child in any case, as it conditions children to distrust people they don’t know, they’ll lose the desire to meet new people, and their interpersonal skills suffer in the long run. And the type of people it was intended to protect them from are actually very rare. Yet, like “stranger danger”, the Mike Pence rule came to be because there are some messed up people out there.

A slander culture has developed that was intended to snipe the careers of men who were successful, so it stands to reason that men, particularly the more successful ones, take measures for their own protection. It’s an unfortunate side effect of the Pence rule that women sometimes feel that they’re being regarded with suspicion, but it’s amusing to see a left-wing writer complain that this is the case, considering that she’s done her fair share to manufacture the conditions of her own plight.

Casey, on the topic of a piece by writer David French, writes:

French argues that people are sometimes attracted to each other in professional settings, regardless of their marital status. He doesn’t explain why those people, regardless of their gender or marital status, can’t be expected to exercise judgement.

It’s not really surprising that Casey would (mis)use David’s article to prop up the idea that men can’t be bothered to exercise self control, but she brings up the main point in the next paragraph, even if with only a dismissive attitude. It’s as though she doesn’t want to admit what the problem really is.

French goes on to write that abiding by such a rule “protects both sides from” reputational harm, suggesting that high-profile men must always worry about women lying about them.

Do you suppose that perhaps these men’s concerns may be justified? After all, there have been copious allegations of sexual harassment against high-profile men in the last year. Just within the last month, Stormy Daniels and Michael Wolff were both found to have lied about claims of infidelity against president Donald Trump.

It’s as though we were in the middle of a false accusation epidemic.

Of course, it also doesn’t help to train people to be oversensitive to dating requests or mere pick-up lines. I suspect that Casey Quinlan would think it sexual harassment to be called “gorgeous”, though she doesn’t have to worry about very many men directing that at her.

 

As part of a 2016 survey, women told Harvard Business Review they were worried about retaliation from their harasser or the organization they work for if they reported. Women have a lot of reasons to ignore or downplay harassment, whether it happens to them or someone else because it seen as the price women have to pay for excelling in a male-dominated workplace, according to HBR.

I’m including this in my criticism because this is the worst citation I’ve seen in my life. The page she links to isn’t a study, it’s an article from Harvard Business Review, and it will be one of three article views you’re permitted on that site before having to sign up to read more. The article she referenced didn’t call harassment “the price women have to pay for excelling in a male-dominated workplace”, they called it “a cost to being attractive”. Apparently, Casey Quinlan doesn’t respect her own sources enough to avoid distorting what they’re saying.

The paragraph she referenced contained two links. One of which lead to a Huffington Post article. Did Huffington Post perform the study? No, they were merely discussing a study performed by Cosmopolitan. Yes, the same Cosmopolitan that sometimes takes a break from talking about sex to discuss celebrity gossip. So I followed the link that Huffington Post provided, and finally found the “study”. Except it wasn’t a study, it was an infographic. No information about methodology such as sample selection, variable consideration, or error control. Just a bunch of numbers on a chart which, for all we know, someone could have just made up.

The second link led to a study (yes, an actual study), but to view the study, you have to make an account or at least purchase short-term access. How unreasonable is it to assume that a college student has tons of money to throw around for citations for their research papers? If they’d have the $25 just to view this study, they’d probably put that money towards a month’s supply of ramen.

How is it that Casey Quinlan became a professional writer? When I did research papers in college, if I didn’t properly cite my sources, the professors would have given me a failing grade. They certainly wouldn’t have accepted me making them follow a maze that would maybe lead them to something of value.

If you’re going to cite a study, LINK TO THE STUDY ITSELF.

In any case, if a victim were concerned with the consequences of coming forward with a sexual harassment complaint, why does it seem easier for them to come to the spotlight of information media, rather than the anonymity of law enforcement? It’s law enforcement that would launch an investigation to determine guilt for the crime that had allegedly taken place. What would be the problem with that?

But French is not alone in his focus on the “Pence rule” in the midst of sexual harassment allegations. In October, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, Sebastian Gorka, tweeted the alleged instances of sexual assault and harassment that dozens of women say Harvey Weinstein committed could have been avoided if Weinstein simply didn’t meet with women one-on-one at all — referring to Pence’s rule.

From this point, Casey provides several examples of the Pence rule being taken too far. As she was cherry-picking, her ability to detect sarcasm was turned off.

sebastian.png

The subtle suggestion that Sebastian made was that those women were making things up, and if there were witnesses, they’d have had a much harder time getting away with it.

john.png

Stating the obvious in an ironic fashion. Of course, you’d have to tell an SJW that John was using his sense of humor. After all, SJWs selectively take things at face value.

timothy.png

It’s over-the-top and obvious why it’s not a practical solution. That’s an ample hint that Timothy was being sarcastic. Most of you could see that. Casey Quinlan did not.

Not only is it absurd, but it is also deeply harmful to the careers of women in the workplace. When men avoid women for fear of looking “improper” or for fear that they can’t control themselves, they deprive women of opportunities to gain sponsors in their careers and to build better working relationships with colleagues and supervisors.

Casey made it to the end of her article and still didn’t figure out that the Pence rule was crafted in response to something. Until she figures out what, she’s not likely to understand that the whole slander culture that she’s working so hard to enable is backfiring in a big way.

When you start making things up about people, don’t be surprised when they act in their own defense. Also, consider the possibility that things might end up with you not getting what you want. In any game of strategy, your opponent gets to make moves, too.

Anyhow, let’s not be too hard on writer Casey Quinlan. After all, if you offer most writers enough money, they’ll write just about anything.

Ladder logic provides the solution to objectionable art

Waterhouse_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_Manchester_Art_Gallery_1896.15

In the last few days, a #MeToo campaigner complained to an art exhibit to have a work removed because the person was triggered by it. Shortly afterwards, the work was reinstated after public outcry. The work in question was the one pictured above, a Victorian era painting titled Hylas and the Nymphs.

Great work guys, you censored a work of art from over a century ago that took inspiration from a fable thousands of years old just to satisfy a blowhard belonging to a fad movement.

If you want feminism to be taken seriously, don’t pull stunts like this. There’s way too much potential for them to backfire, and the result is that people become ashamed to identify as feminists, as indicated nicely by this note left for the curator:

feminist note to curator

If you spend time looking at art, you’re bound to find something that’s objectionable to you. If you don’t want to look at something that you find objectionable, your solution is a simple process: If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

If this process confuses you, I’ve provided a simple ladder logic program to assist you:

ladder logic objectionable art

Here is a short explanation of how it works:

First Rung: If “You like it” is true, then “You look at it for as long as you like”.
Second Rung: If “You like it” is false, then “You stop looking at it”.

If you don’t know how ladder logic works, here is a tutorial. There you go. You just learned ladder logic, and it became immediately relevant in your life. You’re welcome.

That’s about as simple as I can make it. If you don’t get it, then you shouldn’t have been able to operate an automobile all the way to an art exhibit without causing an accident. Learn to drive. And while you’re at it, stop assuming that every artistic expression of nudity and sexuality somehow demeans women. Nudity is the natural state of the human body, and is not inherently evil. Sexuality is one of the most human traits, and is a universal part of the human experience. An expression of either one doesn’t devalue women. Or anyone, for that matter.

And if, after considering all this, you still don’t like a work of art, just don’t look at it. I doubt that you fill the Pictures directory of your computer with images you don’t like, so why go out of your way to personally view a piece that only makes you upset? Just move on. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t give you permission to decide for everyone else what art they have access to. Stop assuming that the rest of us can’t handle what we see.

Feminists have a very negative view of the general population, and this is what guides their attempts to decide for us what media that we have access to. Museum goers did a good job of not letting them. Very well done, keep it up.