To The #womensmarch and The Anti-Trump Left

To The #womensmarch and The Anti-Trump Left

Today thousands of women (and likely a few cucked men) will march in protest of a democratic election, an act that clearly demonstrates they do not “accept” the results of the election, which was something that was so important when they thought they were going to win. They will stand in unison, chanting the same shit they’ve been chanting for 2 years, which is boilerplate text for any Republican that could’ve won, it just so happens to be Donald Trump. They’ll hold professionally printed signs and sing pre-written famous songs, and they’ll revel in their unoriginal uninspired and uninformed nonsense with very little to say and no new ideas. It will all boil down to “My mass murdering psychopath war-hawk with a vagina didn’t win and I’m mad about it”

None of them are educated on the power of the President. I know this because I’ve seen what they argue. He’s going to “overturn Roe vs. Wade.” He’s going to “Overturn gay marriage.” He’s going to “deport all my Muslim and Hispanic friends.” “He’s going to get us into World War 3!” He’s going to do all the things I don’t like, so I need to make sure I say what I’ve been saying for two years again before he’s even had a chance to do anything.

See that’s the thing with these bullshit marches. Irrespective of the fact that most of the people who would march today are utterly clueless about the office of the President, the deeper problem is that they’re uneducated on the issues.

They worry that Donald Trump is going to turn this country into a police state, but they ignore the fact that he can only do it due to powers held and enhanced by the prior President, in their eyes, the greatest man ever to hold the office.

They worry that Donald Trump is going to end all funding for all health care, not even realizing that Barack Obama didn’t provide that in the first place, and that the 30,000,000 number includes people who were added to Medicare and Medicaid, not the people who are getting subsidies. They won’t quibble over details like that.

They worry that Donald Trump is going to deport all their friends, while they ignore the fact that Obama presided over more deportations than any President in history.

They talk about how Donald Trump is going to tank the economy, not recognizing that for the past 16 years we’ve seen no signs that the economy is anything but tanked already. Barack Obama presided over eight years of anemic growth, an unemployment rate that declined by moving people into part time work and service jobs, and the lowest labor force participation rate in the past 20 years, and that doesn’t even begin to address the trillions of dollars in debt Obama racked up.

They talk about how Donald Trump is going to remove educational opportunity by cutting into public school funding, all while ignoring the fact that our public schools have turned into mediocrity mills regularly churning out high-schoolers who graduate unable to read.

They talk about how gay rights will be under assault while Donald Trump is the most pro-LGBT President in our lifetime and probably in history, and is the first president ever to walk into office believing both in gay rights and gay marriage, unlike his predecessor who started believing it right around the time the Supreme Court said it was legal, or his heir apparent who told everyone on numerous occasions that she didn’t believe in gay marriage at all and only supported civil unions, again, up until the Supreme Court made it safe to support.

They talk about how it’s going to be a field day for gun owners, ignoring the fact that in Chicago, where guns are outlawed, dozens of people die every week in gun-related violence.

They talk about an uptick in hate crimes when nearly every hate crime that has been presented with specificity of any kind has turned out to be a hoax, and the ones that haven’t been determined to be a hoax are so vague they’re un-verifiable.
They talk about how “his mouth” is going to “get us into a war” ignoring the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies our Nobel Peace Prize winning former President left in his wake, and the economy that those wars cratered, all the while he and his war-hawk cronies were trying to find new bomb targets.

It’s disturbing watching people melt down over the President, but it demonstrates something profound as well: there’s a gross amount of uninformed and dishonest arguing being done against Donald Trump. I’m not seeing a lot of talk about his terrible ideas on trade, his idiotic belief that the military is teetering on death because of lack of money, or that putting a gun to a company owner’s head and forcing them to stay in the United States is bad policy.

Instead, I see the same people with hollow vapid slogans, signs, and chants, saying the same thing they have been saying for the past two years. Why? Because they literally have nothing to say. They have nothing to add. They have nothing to bring to the table.

The anti-Trump crowd may be strong, and they’ll have their feel good moment today, but if they want to truly change hearts and minds and bring them around to their side they might want to do one thing: vote on issues not on parties. Barack Obama was an eight year extension of George W. Bush’s terrible management of the economy, awful foreign policy, and horrendous violations of the fourth amendment. It would be nice to see people talking about that rather than how much money Planned Parenthood is entitled to, how many marriages the state needs to get behind, and whether Black Lives or Blue Lives matter more.

Enjoy the march, but when you all get back into your buses today and head back home, satisfied that you’ve done your job and made your voice heard, start working, and not just on making a stronger case for those who identify as women. Educate yourself on the issues (all of them, not just ones related to vaginas) and then vote on issues. Then work with people who agree with you on real issues of importance and build coalitions. You know why that’s important?

Because when you go to bed tonight, Donald Trump will still be President. And when you wake up tomorrow Donald Trump will still be President. And every day for the next four years Donald Trump will be President.

Recognize the fact that people heard you and your message sucks. Then change it.

Why We Need a Men’s Rights Movement, Like It Or Not

Why We Need a Men’s Rights Movement, Like It Or Not

Left-wing progressive social justice warriors will always argue that men, particularly of the caucasian variety, do not need a “rights movement.”  In fact, they often mock the idea as being the product of the demented minds of a bunch of knuckle-draggers who have nothing better to do than keep brilliant smart talented women down.  At the same time as women complain about things that don’t exist (like the favorite lie of getting paid $0.70 for every dollar a man makes) there is something even more startling going on in this country that’s getting very little play: men are actually demonstrably being treated differently by the government and its systems, and we’re A O K with it.

Let’s start at the beginning.  In spite of the argument by feminists that they simply want equality, they are making no effort to be equal in certain areas.

tumblr_n6sc47yacz1s8seg1o1_1280The chart above represents every service offered by the government that can be denied to males 18 or over for not registering with Selective Service.  At age 26, they lose all opportunity to register and cannot ever receive these benefits.  Women, however, are never kept from any of these things, nor are they ever required to register for the draft.  One attorney (one who, admittedly, I find annoying but who I agree with here) is trying to change that but can’t find any of the equality crowd to try and get in on the suit.  Surprised?  Of course you’re not.  I’m not, either.  The equality crowd would never stand for equality in this case, would they?  So instead, men must become wards of the state at the state’s whim in order to avail themselves of the benefits provided to taxpayers while women can simply receive the benefits solely by benefit of existing and, I might add, while they continually argue for “equality” and being allowed to hold front-line positions in the military; the same military they’re not required to submit to should there ever be a draft.

It wouldn’t be so bad, however, if this was the extent of the inequality, but there are examples of it being far worse than this and more systemic.

In case after case, women are given lighter sentences for crimes where male offenders would have the proverbial book thrown at them.  Time and time again, in case after case, women will commit an act of sexual assault, then serve little to no time.

Take, for instance, the case of Andrea Mears.  Suspecting Austin Haughwout was trying to film people on a beach in Connecticut with his drone, she assaulted him.  She pinned him to the ground, stuck her fingers in his mouth, groped him, and took some big swings with the arm that wasn’t holding him down.  When the police came, they were set to take her word on the story until Haughwout produced video that clearly showed that Mears was the aggressor.  Her punishment for this assault?  Probation.

Or maybe you’d prefer to hear about a Lancaster lunch lady who was convicted of having sex with two boys, both 17 years old, and both special needs children.  Her sentence was a possible 180 days.  She got 3.

Or maybe you think there’s a chance that Hachat, the woman from the story above, actually didn’t do anything wrong and it was consensual, so let me introduce you to Charlotte Parker, a teacher from the UK.  She had a two-year affair with a 14 year old student, an age well below the age of consent in every civilized country in the world.  She plead guilty to sexual contact with a child, but copped a “depression” plea.  Her penalty?  10 years on the sex offender list, a lifetime ban on teaching, and a suspended sentence.  No jail time whatsoever.

Maybe you would like a really obvious and disgusting example of bias when it comes to female offenders.  How about a married couple who got a 15 year old babysitter high, then had sex with her?  That surely couldn’t be more cut and dried, right?  In fact, in this case, the husband of the couple only watched.  The wife had actual intercourse with the babysitter.  The sentences?  3 years for her, 4.5 for him.  It isn’t even like they’re different cases in similar circumstances: this is the same case, the most vile part of it done by the woman, and she still gets a lighter sentence.

Or maybe you would like to hear about a coach abusing players on a basketball team.  Oh, but don’t worry: this is a female coach and a male student.  Megan Mahoney is alleged to have committed criminal sexual conduct with a 16 year old student and faces 30 counts of Statutory Rape.  She was released without bail pending trial.  She goes to court again on December 2nd, but notice how you barely heard about that story and how there’s next to no outrage over it?

Not a bad collection of stories, is it?  It’s ironic that we’re still talking about “equality” like it’s some high-minded goal we’re all seeking, and yet I don’t see one single feminist arguing that any of these women should be sentenced more harshly.  Not. A. Single. One.  And if you need proof that these stories are treated differently, check out the wording when the teacher is a man.


He didn’t “have a relationship that was inappropriate,” my friends.  He molested those boys.

But it’s worse than just some incidences of inappropriate touching and the crappy punishments and idiotic reporting of them.

A while ago I wrote about a piece of trash on the internet named Frogman.  Frogman made big waves when he came out a few months ago, after the Berkeley shooting, said that the idea that men dared defend themselves and not accept their summary judgment, was crazy, telling men that they should imagine the situation if a bowl of M&M’s had 10% of their number poisoned, then take a handful.  The idea, in his mind, is that if you think men aren’t all dangerous predators, you should still have to be judged because some others might be, like it or not.  I demolished that argument here, but I’m bringing it up again because Frog Man is out and about, yet again, being a hypocrite.

In a thread on his blog about victims, watch as he turns sexual harassment and assault into victim blaming with such ease it would make the happiest spinsters in Washington DC Blush:



This is the guy who’s so pro-women that he thinks no men are to be trusted, and yet here he is clearly victim blaming, but this is nothing new, and male victims of this sort of thing are often blamed, belittled, or minimized by a society that simply doesn’t give a damn enough about men to even offer services to them should this kind of thing.

Before I go any further with this, it’s important to note that I don’t necessarily think governments should be providing these services at all to anyone, however if they are going to provide them, they should provide them to everyone. That isn’t showing any sign of happening any time soon, either.  In fact, according to a recently-released NIH study, not only is that not happening, but the exact opposite seems to be happening and men are getting the short end of the victim services stick.

The study sought to examine how men who were victims of IPV (intimate partner violence) felt with regards to the services offered to male victims and how they were treated throughout the process.  Some eye-grabbing facts were made apparent in the study, which is the largest ever done of its kind (302 samples of male victims of IPV).  Here are some of the highlights (if you can call them that).

  • Statistics show that men are as often the victims of IPV as women, but because of societal and systemic biases the help is often hard if not impossible to find.
  • Men who called domestic violence help lines were often told that they could not receive assistance, that it was only available for women, or they outright accused the men of being the aggressors.  Some men seeking help were referred to batterer’s programs (programs designed to help batterers stop).
  • Male victims who were fathers lost custody of their children to the battering mother even when evidence corroborated their story.
  • “In 54.9% of cases, the partner was determined to be the primary aggressor. Among those 62 men, 41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left. The coding of the qualitative accounts found that 25.4% of the men told stories of the police doing nothing and ignoring or dismissing them.”

You can read the study here.

What’s shocking about this, to me, is that we continue to see a push for more services for female victims, while it’s increasingly clear that men are not only regular victims of the same violence, but that because of societal norms, they are not treated equally when it comes to seeking help.

I guess that shouldn’t surprise me, however, because as soon as you bring up the topic, people get hyper defensive.

A few months ago a bunch of celebrities got together to make a video decrying domestic violence, only instead of decrying domestic violence, they turned it into a PSA about violence against women.  It’s normal to see those two things (domestic violence and violence against women) used interchangeably, which essentially erases any male victimization whatsoever and frames the issue as men assaulting women.  I wrote about it then and called it a missed opportunity to shed light on all victims of domestic violence, male or female.  When a relative posted the video on Facebook, I chimed in because I felt that while the video was good, it was a missed opportunity.  I was immediately shouted down.

Dustin Hausner - All women deserve respect and to be treated with... (1)

Notice the tone and the inherent biases in what she says?  “The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are man against women,” in spite of the article linked right above her comment saying that not only is that not true, but the numbers are almost equal.  Once I pointed out that the video would’ve been more meaningful had it been more inclusive, she turned to mockery and straw-men, proving that in the end, she had no argument and her position was not backed by meaningful research or facts.  She chose, like most others do, to take the tack that if you’re arguing that we have a problem in the lack of support systems in place for men, you’re clearly saying women have it easy and benefit from being assaulted.

I don’t know if she truly believes that or if she was being hyperbolic to make her weak emotional argument stronger, but in the end, her attitude is the pervasive one, and the difference is only a matter of degree.  I would love say she’s the only one that feels this way, but I’m not able to.  In fact, not only am I not able to, but I can find an even more egregious example.

Ray Rice, running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was roundly attacked in the media for assaulting his fiancee (at the time) Janay Palmer.  His actions, along with other cases that came to light at the time, caused a major uproar in the sports journalism game where it was alleged that this was a deep problem covered up by teams and leagues and that professional athletes shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this just because they’re famous, a point I find valid.

However, it’s clear that the people calling for “no special treatment” for professional athletes didn’t really mean it.  At the same time this story was percolating around the water cooler, another story started making the rounds.  In a cut-and-dried case of domestic violence, US Women’s Soccer player Hope Solo was arrested for a domestic violence incident involving her nephew and sister.  She has suffered no ill-treatment for her actions.  She has not lost an endorsement deal, not been suspended, and if you merely mention her name in a conversation about domestic violence, something she will stand trial for, you’re persona non-grata, something Roland Martin learned very quickly.  According to Mediaite:

Citing ESPN “lauding” Solo during a women’s soccer highlight reel, Martin asked, “Domestic violence is a national issue, should we not be questioning why Hope Solo is still playing on the women’s soccer team, and Nike — who dropped Adrian Peterson — has said nothing about Hope Solo?”

“Whoa,” panelist Katty Kay interjected. “I’m a little skeptical of that. Look, that’s one example of one woman beating another woman, with countless examples of men beating women.” She added that Solo should face the same “retribution” as her male counterparts, “but let’s not try and use that as an example to suggest that women are as guilty of domestic violence as men are.”

Ms. Kay, we don’t need that as an example.  We already have statistics to prove it.

What’s ironic is that for the whole conversation, Kay and others were rampantly vigorously against domestic violence, but that was when the aggressor was a man.  Make the aggressor a woman and, well, you see the result.

All of the collected research, double standards, and abuse stories I posted can only draw one conclusion as far as I’m concerned: we need a men’s rights movement.  Not because men don’t have enough power in society or because women need to be kept down from the advances their making.  Simply because the double standard in treatment that created the feminist movement to begin with has now swung so far into the over-compensating end on the other side of the spectrum that it should give us pause.

When I hear feminists argue that they want equality, I have hope.  I’ve met a lot of feminists (real ones, not the social justice warriors who get all the attention) who recognize that being the oppressor isn’t the same as victory or equality.  The problem is that the discussion on men’s rights and equality has been taken over by radfems on one side who think all men are scum (particularly “white cishet males”) and a compliant and terrified media that cowers every time they hear the name Gloria Steinem.  We’re told time and time again that men control the “power structures” and that women are “systematically discriminated against” and yet, when we step outside the “everyone knows” idea of what that means, we often find that the grass is greener crowd simply isn’t taking a fair look at both lawns.

We need a men’s rights movement as much as women need real honest feminism.  The two do not, by default, conflict, and equality is a great goal.  Maybe one day we’ll stop discussing issues in terms of “everybody knows” and start discussing them in terms of the reality on the ground so that we can really achieve equality that’s thorough and benefits everyone.

Dear Liberty Movement: Purity Tests Suck

Sometimes, people flip flop.  It’s important to note that flip flopping isn’t the same as “changing your mind.”  Flip flopping usually involves just outright ignoring the fact that you’ve ever had a prior position, while changing your mind means you acknowledge that you once held one view and now hold another.  One is what adults do, while one is what scumbag politicians generally do.  John Kerry was a rabid flip flopper, not because he “changed his mind,” but because he never once acknowledged that he held another position on an issue.  As much crap as I give Barack Obama on a regular basis, his “evolution” on gay marriage is much more along the lines of what adults do: they acknowledge that they once held a different belief but, when presented with new information, changed their point of view.

But sometimes, those “evolutions” are the kind of thing that cause partisans, or people who look at things way too simply, to accuse the person of not being pure enough in their views.  Apparently, if you didn’t always believe what you believe (or claim to) you are flawed or dangerous, or unworthy of anything but scorn.

There’s a major problem with this thinking in the libertarian community, though, and it might actually be damaging the movement.

I’ve seen any number of libertarian activists over the past few years tear into people whose views aren’t pure enough for their liking.  Often, these people are called things like “authoritarians” or “closet statists,” etc.  Sometimes their objections are to a person’s current lack of purity, and sometimes it’s their lack of historical purity.

I could argue until the cows come home about how ridiculous it is to keep foregoing progress for the sake of purity, but it’s been said many times.  We all do it; we’re so set on waiting for perfect that we forget to accept what’s good.  Libertarians are particularly bad in this regard because they’ll forego someone who isn’t a perfect anti-statist libertarian as a candidate because somewhere out there there’s someone better.  Allegedly.

No, this is more about the belief that a person can evolve in their beliefs, something that seems to be unheard of these days.  Doing so is portrayed as having no conviction in your beliefs because, as we all know, conviction and adherence to views, no matter how outdated and no matter how much new information is presented to you, is truly a sign of intelligence.

Yeah, sure.

Here’s the thing that libertarians have to understand.  Most people, for whatever reason, don’t agree with us.  I know that’s shocking, but it’s true.  Most of the average citizenry is perfectly happy living under the thumb of government and handing over their tributes to “build the roads” and “educate the children.”  They truly believe that and it will take years of deprogramming for people to understand, not why this is wrong, but why it’s not the only way.  How you don’t have to live under a coercive state in order to be a productive society.  All of those things are great, admirable, and in my mind it’s our calling as a movement and as a collection of libertarians, anti-statists, and anarchists.  This is what we’re here for.

The problem comes when we try to isolate those that haven’t been in that camp since day one.  Now we’re treading on dangerous waters and potentially destroying the movement and the potential it has to make real change happen.

One of the reasons that the liberty movement has grown so much in the past few years is that eloquent, passionate, and informed people are making arguments that are engaging the minds of people who long held beliefs like these but had to keep them quiet or didn’t know that there were others out there like them.  The movement is succeeding and growing because there is engagement by its advocates to people who aren’t identifying as part of that movement right off the bat.

That’s where we need to spend our focus, but that doesn’t seem to be where many have focused.  Instead, in their rush to find the purest of the pure and the most self-congratulatory back-slapping high-fiving groups, they find the converted and preach to them because those are the guys they agree with.

The rut of preaching to the converted is hurting the movement big time and I see many inside the movement doing it more and more while questioning the ideological purity of those who would like to come to the table, but my question is this: why bother talking at all if you’re not trying to convince people to join your side?  And if you’re not trying to convince people to join your side, why bother with the movement at all?  And if you don’t believe people can change, what the hell are you expecting?  That people will be born libertarian and then join the movement?

That doesn’t seem like a great long-term strategy if you ask me.

I understand the idea of preaching to the choir, and sometimes you need to rally the base and excite the converted, but if you don’t really believe that anyone can change their mind or join the movement, you’re selling the movement, and potential adherents, way short.

We have to accept that people will change their mind and take them on their word that they’re on-board with the movement now.  Now is important.  People can change.  We have to stop shunning people whose ideological purity level isn’t as high as we would like it to be.

Header Image by Moyerphotos on flickr