Hoes mad.

Iman Hariri-Kia at Elite Daily is outraged in College Men Are Finally Asking For Consent — But Only Because They’re Afraid Of Being “MeToo’d”

But the majority of women and femmes also believe men are actively seeking consent for the wrong reasons. Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed feel men are asking for consent because they’re afraid of being publicly accused of sexual assault.

Yet striking fear in men was the goal from the beginning, as Ezra Klein at Vox.com explained back in 2014 in “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it (emphasis mine):

”No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

From the article it is clear that what really bothers feminists is not that men fear being victimized by the #MeToo witch hunt, but that #MeToo is recognized as victimizing men:

“#MeToo’d” is a phrase that keeps coming up in my conversations with college women and femmes. They claim to have heard college men use it in excess and in a defensive manner when describing the “threat of being accused of sexual assault.” (“You wouldn’t want to get #MeToo’d, make sure you don’t get #MeToo’d.”) It even has its own Urban Dictionary entry, which defines the slang term as “when a woman ruins your life by accusing you of sexual assault or sexual harassment, without any evidence or [past] the time that any evidence could be collected.” This phrase is hugely problematic, as it steers the conversation away from women and their bodies and onto men and their feelings.

This social response to #MeToo is the wholly natural reaction to a process founded on not distinguishing between real and false accusations.  The callousness with which feminists like Hariri-Kia dismiss men’s fears of false accusations is breathtaking, and is what animates the larger #MeToo movement.  They really can’t conceive that men are living, breathing, human beings, or understand why they wouldn’t want to be falsely accused.  The reality is that the vast majority of men don’t rape, so the only logical behavioral change on their part isn’t to stop doing something they already didn’t do, but take necessary measures to prevent being falsely accused.

Still, we are very early on in the response to Yes Means Yes and #MeToo, so the full reaction hasn’t yet occurred.  Over the long term the SJW pogroms will eventually birth a generation of men who eschew both feminism and feminism’s foundation, chivalry.  #MeToo is founded on men’s goodwill towards women, and driven by a very open disdain of men.  Long term something will have to give, but in the meantime the reservoir of men’s goodwill is so deep as to be seemingly inexhaustible.

Note:  If like me you were confused by the term “women and femmes”, here is an explanation.

Posted in #MeToo, Social Justice Warriors, vox.com, Yes Means Yes | 72 Comments

Andi does Melbourne?

From The Sun: I swiped through so many men on Tinder I was told there were NO matches left – and I’m still single

Andi Lew, 46 – a wellness coach from Australia – even started “pin dropping to other places and countries” in her bid to find love.

She explains: “If you reach ‘the end’ of the app a message will pop up saying ‘there’s no-one new in your area’ – at which point you need to widen your area and age range.”

She perfectly captures the female preferred form of promiscuity.  She wants something meaningful (implying commitment), with no strings attached:

Andi says she’s focusing on apps that are “geared toward showcasing yourself to attract more meaningful connections”.

And while she’s not actively pursuing a relationship, she likes knowing that someone might be looking for “something real and kind”, and that things may develop naturally “without expectation”.


H/T Nick M

Posted in Choice Addiction, The Sun | 71 Comments

Feminist charisma

It looks like the following video on Brie Larson made the rounds several months ago, but I only stumbled upon it last week.

The feminist dream has turned into a nightmare.  Here she finally is, one of the guys, but instead of being loved she is unlovable.  She traded her feminine power for masculine power, and now she has neither.  Even worse, she is trapped by her own envy.  Being more likable would mean being less feminist, as a feminist at Reddit/Ask Feminists explains:

First of all, I do see that Brie does seem a bit defensive. But I can’t help but feel her defensiveness is justified. Marvel fanbase is predominantly male and I can’t imagine what kind of bs poor Brie reads on a daily basis about herself. Odds are the reason she always wants to ‘win’ or ‘praise herself’ is because she knows damn well she works hard and she wants to be recognised. CoC argues she should let herself be the butt of the joke every once in a while to look humble, but here’s the thing: women are always the butt of the joke, so it wouldn’t surprise me if she just didn’t want to be the butt of the joke anymore now that she’s repping Captain Marvel. It’s easy for someone like Chris Pratt or Hemsworth to do it because they’re already very praised in general. But Brie Larson allowing herself to be the butt of the joke is basically like the poor school nerd just shoving himself into a locker.

Next on, the whole ‘Brie doesn’t smile thing’. Did anyone catch how all of CoC’s example of when she was charismatic was before her Captain Marvel days? That’s not a coincidence.

Larson and the feminists she represents want more than anything to be taken seriously, but the harder she tries to ape men, and the more she stamps her feet and demands to be taken seriously, the less seriously everyone takes her.  It is painfully obvious in the video above that she is intensely disliked by her colleagues.

If you compare the clips of young Larson vs feminist Larson included in the video, it looks like she has had her personality, her charm, surgically removed.  She looks like a robot, a Stepford feminist.  But this is what feminism teaches women to become, as lesbian feminist Abigail Fenton explains in Brie Larson isn’t unlikable. She’s normal.

I was delighted to find I really like Brie Larson. She had me charmed instantly — laughing at my screen at 4am, thinking, yeah, I could be friends with her, as she lamented, “I’m sorry you had to google that. I feel like the Disney execs are super bummed about that,” in response to the question of who plays Captain Marvel.

In fact, I found her so charismatic and endearing that I resolved to finally get around to checking out her work.

Click through to the post to see the picture of a crazy looking woman at the top of the post, hilariously captioned:

No she’s not “unlikable”, she’s a normal woman

This kind of robotic unlikability is inherent to the feminist secret sauce.  Remove it from the mix, or even dilute it a little, and feminists will shriek that Larson isn’t keeping it real.  She has no choice but to keep it up, and even ramp it up.  Keep in mind that Captain Marvel is being positioned as the new leader of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so the unintentional comedy is really just beginning.

Edit:  I see that the picture of the obviously deranged woman at the top of the second linked article is of Larson in her recent film Unicorn Store.

Posted in Brie Larson, Captain Marvel, Denial, Envy, Ugly Feminists | 118 Comments

Unchivalrous Jesus.

Commenter Opus wrote:

Now, as all who read here are Christians, I need hardly remind y’all that Jesus never slut-shamed. He did however when a woman came to him full of genuine contrition asking for forgiveness say to her that her sins were given and that she should go away and sin no more.

I would urge Opus to not overlook the incident in John 4 with the Samaritan woman, where He slut shamed her by asking her a question He already knew the answer to (John 4:15-18, ESV):

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

This is not the only example in the Gospels of Jesus being strikingly unchivalrous.  Consider the case of the Canaanite woman (Mat 15:22-28, ESV):

22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Consider also the case of the woman with menstrual bleeding who touched his robe and was healed.  The only chivalrous thing to do would have been to leave it at that.  But Jesus wouldn’t let it go until she publicly submitted to Him and declared what her malady was (Luke 8:43-48, ESV):

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians,[f] she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter[g] said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Lastly, see John 2, where Jesus reminds his own mother of her proper place before performing a miracle she requests (John 2:2-5, ESV):

2 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

This last example has the potential to bring out the different perspectives of Protestants and Catholics.  This isn’t my intent, but it is instructive that both groups feel the need to explain why Christ would speak to His mother in such a way.  Protestants see him reminding her of his place as a sharp rebuke.  For from a chivalrous mind frame it is quite jarring.

I don’t know if the RCC has formal doctrine on this specific question, but here is what Joe Heschmeyer at Shameless Popery writes on the topic:

There is another interpretation, however: that Jesus is cautioning her. Mary has come to Christ with an implicit request for a miracle. Jesus responds by addressing her as “Woman.” A lot could be said of that title, and its implications for Mary as the New Eve (it’s the name that Adam first gives to Eve in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 2:23). For now, though, it’s sufficient to recognize that it’s not rude to call Mary “Woman”: Jesus does this again on the Cross (John 19:26-27) and Paul does it in Galatians 4:4, and in both places, it’s unambiguously positive.

I’ll reiterate that my intent here isn’t to poke at the Protestant Catholic divide.  Quite the opposite, my intent is to show that both Protestants and Catholics currently feel the need to explain why Jesus would respond to His mother the way He did in the first place.  Both explain that what seems unchivalrous really isn’t, but using different rationalizations.

See Also:  Call me unchivalrous.

Posted in Chivalry | 198 Comments

Sloots: “Christianity means never having to say I’m sorry.”

Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

–Proverbs 30:20, KJV

Several readers have asked for a post on the recent season of the reality show Bachelorette.  I don’t follow the show, but according to the news accounts Christian bachelorette Hannah B is outraged at being slut shamed by fellow Christian Luke Parker.  The Christian Post characterizes Luke as “polarizing” for suggesting that Christian sexual morality matters.  From Bachelorette slams haters who label her bad Christian: ‘We all fall short of glory of God’

This season of “The Bachelorette” with Hannah B features polarizing Christian contestant Luke Parker, known as Luke P, who is outspoken about his Christian faith which has forced the bachelorette to own up to what she believes about her own faith and some of her actions.

…she declares that “Jesus still loves” her despite her decision to have sexual relations with some of the contestants when questioned about her purity by Luke P.

“I refuse to not stand in the sun. I refuse to feel shame…

In a second article the Christian Post explains the comment by Luke that outraged Hannah:

“Let’s talk about sex and how the marriage bed should be kept pure,” the 24-year-old, who traded his player ways to follow Christ, told Hannah B.

“Let’s say you have had sex with one or multiple of these guys, I would be wanting to go home,”…

Hannah B, also a professing Christian, immediately took offense to Luke P’s comments and confessed that she has had “physical relations” with some of the other contestants but “Jesus stills loves her.”

While Hannah has received what she considers intolerable online rebukes for her lack of repentance, nearly all modern Christians would normally remain silent on the subject, especially if it is a woman who is committing sexual immorality.  For many feminism is the proximate reason for this, as we are now regularly lectured on the evils of “slut shaming”.

But for other modern Christians the reason is perhaps less obvious.  Like feminism, chivalry also teaches that slut shaming is abominable.  This goes back to the very birth of courtly love (what we call chivalry) circa 1177 in Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart.  On his quest to save the adulterous queen Guinevere, Lancelot encounters a sexually liberated noblewoman who proposes a roll in the hay in exchange for information he needs.  The narrator explains that her sluttiness is a wonderful gift (emphasis mine):

Then the damsel said to him: “Sire, my house is prepared for you, if you will accept my hospitality, but you shall find shelter there only on condition that you will lie with me; upon these terms I propose and make the offer.” Not a few there are who would have thanked her five hundred times for such a gift;

Later in the same poem Guinevere is slut shamed after evidence of her adultery with Lancelot is discovered.  This sets up the iconic scene where Lancelot fights for her honor, vanquishing slut shaming.

This is why Hannah is so outraged, and why the Christian Post is careful to call Luke, and not Hannah, polarizing for his view of sexual immorality.  In speaking the truth Luke was terribly unchivalrous, which is the greatest sin of our era.

Posted in Chivalry, Christian Post, Sir Lancelot, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 62 Comments