Tracer’s Pose & Blizzard’s PR Failure

When it comes to public relations, Blizzard dun goofed.

Earlier today, Blizzard game director Jeff Kaplan responded to a single complaint about Tracer’s pose in its upcoming game, Overwatch. The developer promised the poster that Blizzard as a studio was committed to making sure no one felt “uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented” by removing the pose.

It doesn’t matter whether anyone at Blizzard and the Overwatch development team had previously decided they were going to make the change to Tracer’s pose. When it comes to public relations, the optics are all that matter and the optics provide a single narrative, which has been repeated in perpetuity throughout the Internet: Blizzard caved to a misogynist who posted in the guise of a well-intentioned person.

Let’s be clear here: the original complaint was a misogynist complaint. It wasn’t a pro-women complaint. It was purely and simply a misogynist, sexist complaint. It doesn’t matter whether the complainant was a feminist (very likely) or a fundamentalist Christian person; they are both of the same ilk: religious fundamentalists who believe the entire world must bend to their will or be forever branded a heretic.

For all the talk about modern feminists being pro-women, most modern 3rd wave feminists are sex-negative simply because one half (male) of this dimorphic species (homosapien) almost universally has the biological imperative to seek and impregnate the other half (female) and one of the behaviors exhibited by that male half gauges some of the genetic and maternal value of the female based on physical traits and characteristics. This is not simply a human behavior, it is a universal behavior among dimorphic species.

But thanks to the progress of civilization, particularly technological progress, this has become anathema to a very tiny, yet very vocal, narcissistic cohort, comprised mostly of women. Both intellectual and technological progress have provided most of the basic human needs for people living in Western societies. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, both men and women have their physiological, safety, love/belonging, and esteem needs taken care of (outside of specific circumstances that tend to plague certain demographics). Men and women can breathe, have plenty of food, water, time to sleep, can poop almost whenever they want, and have sex. Even the people in the lowest rung of sexual attraction *can* get busy once in awhile, even if it requires money. Most people feel safe from bodily harm, employment is far better than it has been historically, people aren’t as afraid of losing their property than they were historically, and we are living in a near post-scarcity society where resources are so plentiful, we may as well forget about the concept of property all together. We have more access to kinship and friendship than ever before; we can get sexual intimacy and feel a sense of belonging (even if we have to pay for it). We have built self-esteem up to the point Narcissus would cringe at the realization the last two generations are narcissistic to a point almost all of us should be locked up in a looney bin.

So now people in the West are primarily concerned with self-actualization. Morality is not inalienable from religion, but they are almost always tied together (Haidt, J. (2007) Moral psychology and the misunderstanding of religion. Edge.org). A deep sense of morality and a desire to solve perceived societal problems leads to an attempt at problem solving through either persuasion or coercion. The complainant of Tracer’s pose was exhibiting typical religious fundamentalist behavior we more commonly recognize as conservatively Christian traditionalism and moralism.

[R]eligiosity is an enormously important fact about our species. There must be some combination of evolutionary, developmental, neuropsychological, and anthropological theories that can explain why human religious practices take the various forms that they do, many of which are so similar across cultures and eras. I will also take it for granted that religious fundamentalists, and most of those who argue for the existence of God, illustrate the first three principles of moral psychology (intuitive primacy, post-hoc reasoning guided by utility, and a strong sense of belonging to a group bound together by shared moral commitments (Haidt).

It’s not a coincidence that the more morally intuitive half would create a new religion out of agnosticism and atheism (again, spiritual belief is not a prerequisite of religion); and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the moralist behaviors of both feminists and religious fundamentalists look so similar. If some behaviors exhibited by religious fundamentalists (e.g., all women must cover up, otherwise they are being indecent) are misogynist, then the same behaviors being exhibited by other people must, as a rule, be misogynistic. If it is immoral for a woman to display sexual behaviors (it has been argued by a minority that Tracer’s pose was sexual) and they must not do so, for whatever ultimate goal the religious fundamentalist has, then it is a rule against the woman’s civic rights to express herself and dress herself in whatever way she wishes. Tracer’s pose was argued to be improper behavior in front of the boys; as a matter of fact, it was deemed immoral. This is why the argument against Tracer’s pose was crafted as a concern about the impressionability of women and girls.

The contractual approach takes the individual as the fundamental unit of value. The fundamental problem of social life is that individuals often hurt each other, and so we create implicit social contracts and explicit laws to foster a fair, free, and safe society in which individuals can pursue their interests and develop themselves and their relationships as they choose.

Morality is about happiness and suffering (as Harris says, and as John Stuart Mill said before him), and so contractualists are endlessly trying to fine-tune laws, reinvent institutions, and extend new rights as circumstances change in order to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. To build a contractual morality, all you need are the two individualizing foundations: harm/care, and fairness/reciprocity. The other three foundations, and any religion that builds on them, run afoul of the prime directive: let people make their own choices, as long as they harm nobody else (Haidt).
Letting people make their own choices “runs afoul of the prime directive,” meaning that, ultimately, “feminism is not about choice,” as neither is religious fundamentalism about choice. Women, under this new religious fundamentalism, do not get a choice. They must conform to specific behavior which does not run afoul of any of the prime directives – one which includes demolition of The Patriarchy (the modern Original Sin). When Tracer chooses to make a sexy pose, she is running afoul of the prime directive; she is making her own choice. Blizzard aided and abetted in the removal of that choice.

Yes, it sounds silly: Blizzard put her into that pose, therefore removing that pose is not the same as removing her liberty to make that pose. She’s a piece of digital art, not a human being with her own intelligence.

Yet the fact still remains that Blizzard sent a message to women and girls: you do not have the agency to be a woman. In fact, the message was that women and girls are not allowed to be human. Sometimes human beings feel bloated and slothful, and just not all that excited about anything. And in other times (sometimes the same exact day), human beings feel differently. Nobody, unless they are catatonic, acts and behaves the same exact way all the time. This argument that the pose was not in line with Tracer’s personality is a questionable argument. Is there a woman, regardless of what her story has been, who feels and behaves the same way all the time? Are women simply automatons who act and behave just one way? Or do women, and men for that matter, sometimes feel depressed, sometimes angry, sometimes cynical, and sometimes (perhaps, once in a blue moon), flirtatious?

Blizzard sent the message that women must behave one way all the time. And cover up. It’s indecent to go around nearly bare-chested (see the garrison follower Croman). It’s disgusting that women can sometimes turn around and give the enemy they just bested a mischievous look. It’s immoral that young, teenage girls, would get the impression that they can dare pose the same way as men do. They do not have that agency, do they, PR-failures that is Blizzard?

Advertisements

Democratic Socialism is Worse Than Any Other

My friends keep asking why I wouldn’t vote for Bernie Sanders.

“Democratic Socialism” is a funny political philosophy. It’s only marginally different than Marxist-Leninist socialism, and it’s just a very thin margin.
Because when you get down to it, it’s still socialism. It’s the end of capitalism entirely. You will own nothing. You will own no property. It is not yours unless the government says you can use it, and then it’s still social property.

And the idea there’s a difference between Marxist-Leninist socialism and “Democratic Socialism” is ludicrous and ignorant of how governments work. There’s no “democratic” socialism, there’s just socialism. The government body will still decide what you can use and have just like in Marxist-Leninist socialism. It’s the very exact same thing.

As a matter of fact, Democratic Socialism is no different than a National Socialist system. Whether you have a national union or a general election with parties, someone above you will decide which subsidies you are afforded. This is left-wing authoritarianism and Bernie Sanders, as much a nice guy as he is, is still the same left-wing authoritarian as previous left-wing authoritarians. He just doesn’t have a desire for genocide.

People keep forgetting that we aren’t a democracy. We are a constitutional representative republic because we don’t want mob rule. Maybe we do, in many ways, but our country has prospered because we don’t practice mob rule. Democracy creates mob rule and, as a result, endangers the rights of the minority. When the minority is kept down on the ground and their rights are trampled, you’re not a free people anymore. You’re in a Marxist-Leninist socialist world, no different than a “democratic” socialist world.

In a society where we are even more connected and people on social media are already using mob rule to destroy people’s lives with unprovable allegations of rape, sexual assault, harassment, and all other kinds of transgressions, the last thing we need is government backing of that mob rule. Jesse Singal, a writer for New York magazine, recently wrote an over 10,000 word report on the lies by transgender activists that ruined a seasoned gender identity and psychology veteran’s life, and he has been mired in an embarrassingly terrifying battle for his career and sanity ever since because the “Social Justice” mob has decided his fact-filled article was transphobic. We’ve seen what the “Social Justice” mob can do; it’s led to attempted suicide, careers destroyed, people almost being imprisoned, and lives ruined. Gregory Allen almost went to prison in Canada for disagreeing with two women. Jian Ghomeshi may be facing prison for having sexual relations with women whose testimony may have been false from the beginning. Tim Hunt, a Nobel Prize winning scientist and scholar who made major discoveries in cancer research and has been working hard to get more women into the STEM fields had his entire life’s work put to question after being falsely accused of making a sexist joke. Bernie Sanders may not have a desire to bully people, but the social justice mob sure does.

Democracy is mob rule and mob rule doesn’t work. It’s disgusting and oppressive. It is the antithesis of what a society should be run as. Socialism is a disaster. It has been tried. It ended up with gulags, more deaths than Hitler managed, and a big fat no thanks from me. Democratic socialism is the worst of both worlds.

Sometimes A Sissy Boy Is Just A Sissy Boy, Not A Trans Girl

A friend responded to my previous post on Jesse Singal’s article and said, in part, “This issue primarily is an assault on genetic women and seeks to undermine the female populace.”

It’s not as simple as that. There are two primary views on gender dysphoria (apart from believing it’s simply a mental illness and people always are what they were born as biologically): that gender identity is a socially developed profile vs gender identity is an innate part of the self (you’re born this way).
The science demonstrates that gender identity IS different than biological identity. Gender identity is a purely psychological state of mind and the solid science demonstrates that it is largely formed from a combination of innate and affected (socially) factors – that is, your biology forms a part of your psyche and, depending on your life experiences (domestic environment, social interactions, etc.), it interprets social stimuli in ways that help form your identity.
So if you’re a natal boy (born with biologically male characteristics) and are psychologically inclined to like more feminine things (playing with baby dolls, playing with girls), you might feel like you’re more a “girl” than you are a boy when you look at the things your parents and other boys and girls are expecting you to be interested in. That can cause confusion and gender dysphoria may develop. You may feel that you identify as a girl because of how you feel (more attracted to playing with girls and dolls, therefore you’re a girl) and were born with the wrong body parts.
Those who argue that gender is a socially developed gender profile say that, since 3/4 of kids with gender dysphoria end up reverting back to their natal identity (that is, boys who think they’re girls end up identifying as boys in the end), depending on the specifics of the clinical case, the most likely treatment is to either A) ween the kid off of the gender identifying triggers that cause their dysphoria in order to limit the dysphoria or, B) take a sit-and-wait approach for those who aren’t that strongly affected by gender identifying and confusing triggers until they “desist,” or their gender dysphoria resolves itself. In cases where the kid has already “come out” socially and have begun transitioning socially toward that trans gender, different courses of action are necessary to either help them transition toward their gender identity or socially transition back if they are likely to desist.
Those who argue that gender identity is an innate part of the self (this is what gender activists argue) and is unchangeable and only deniable, say that the main course of action is to encourage the kid to “come out” socially, including self-identifying as that gender, dressing up as that gender, and actively working toward making their new gender an all-encompassing part of their life. This is where you see 6, 8 , 12 year old kids being dressed up as the opposite gender, including extravagantly painted nails and makeup in excess and being encouraged by their parents to come out socially in a big way even in social media.
When you see examples of these, it’s not simply that parents are trying to use their kids for attention (though there is that possibility), it’s that there’s a growing trend within gender dysphoria clinical therapy to reinforce the gender dysphoria instead of trying to wean the child off of their gender confusion. They deny the solid statistical evidence that 3/4 of gender dysphoric kids end up desisting, arguing that it’s cherry picked data (when the evidence is varied and resolutely against them).
Those of the former view, that gender is a socially developed identity profile and kids with gender dysphoria should not necessarily be encouraged to become trans, believe that socially coming out and outwardly expressing their dysphoric identity will end up generating a reinforcing cycle because:

When kids socially transition, she explained, their parents not only become their champions to teachers and other parents, but also often start engaging in trans advocacy that comes to define them in important ways. If the child starts to sense that their dysphoria is desisting, they’re faced with either sticking with a gender identity that no longer feels like it fits or telling their parents, as the clinician put it, “This whole life that you’ve created for yourself as an advocate, I don’t want to be part of that anymore.” There’s also, of course, the fact that schools and family members are part of the process too, so de-transitioning requires notifying them as well. In this view, a too-early transition really might limit a child’s future options because of the social or familial costs of transitioning back. And eventually, as a kid gets older, the prospect of nontrivial medical procedures to help them physically transition enters the picture.

I don’t really entertain the idea that there is no such thing as trans. It does exist, but it’s not a biological thing like activists want to argue, nor is gender a “socially constructed” concept as they argue (which is contradictory, by the way). Sex and gender may be different things, but they are very much tied and, in the end, most people who are trans and end up regretting their choice to transition (and sadly, often kill themselves) are victims of not undergoing the right treatment at a young enough age to properly find a comfortable gender identity.
And as for “this issue primarily is an assault on genetic women and seeks to undermine the female populous,” consider that the transgender activists are trying to encourage men to transition to becoming women, not the other way around. You might be able to argue that it’s an assault on natal women who identify as women, but it’s mostly an assault on natal boys and men who simply don’t fit the behavioral characteristics boys and men demonstrate. Sometimes a sissy boy is just a sissy boy, not a trans girl.

The Power Behind Affirmative Consent

Ashe Schow writes about yet another example of a college man getting his day of justice after a school is forced to settle a lawsuit after the student was expelled, unjustly, for alleged sexual assault.
Washington and Lee University has settled with a former student who filed a lawsuit alleging gender bias as the motivation for his expulsion over a sexual assault accusation.

The student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit he filed in late 2014, was expelled after an investigation in which he was not allowed legal representation or cross examination, and which was conducted by an administrator who allegedly told his accuser that “regret equals rape.”

John and the university have “compromised and settled all matters in controversy,” according to new documents filed in the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Typically, accused students win very little in settlements; they might get their record cleared and a small amount of money that doesn’t even cover their legal fees.

Here’s the reality, though.
Here is what Klein believes:

– The number of sexual assault victims is “far too high,” so high as to justify “sweeping” and “intrusive” legal measures–specifically, California’s new law.

– This law is “sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent.”

– The law could define as rape “two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex.”

– The law intrudes on “the most private and intimate of adult acts.”

– The law’s “overreach is precisely its value.”

– The law “will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt.”

– The law will create “a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent.”

– If successful, the law will cause all or most college men “to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.”

– If the law succeeds, “colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations.”

– The existence of cases “that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair” are especially necessary for the law to succeed.

– “The Yes Means Yes laws creates an equilibrium where too much counts as sexual assault. Bad as it is, that’s a necessary change.”

When you look at the activities feminists activists perform, you don’t see them working to help individual women and individual victims. What you see from feminist activists is an advantageous power play, a power play that some would argue (with strong evidence to back up their assertions) was always the intent of feminism from the beginning.

Conor states that “[m]any proponents of affirmative-consent laws would dispute the way Klein characterizes them, and favor them with the expectation that they won’t result in injustice.”

Feminists have never been all that great at following the evidence and coming to a conclusion, but evidence doesn’t matter as long as they can still get what they want. And all of these legal wins we can keep celebrating are for naught as long as the damage has already been done. The intent isn’t to help individual women who may be victims of sexual assault. It’s to damage the psyche of men who are seeking to succeed in life because feminists are very close to eviscerating “Patriarchy.”

Now that women have economic and academic power, they are making another power play. Women always had the power of creation and the access to the pleasure to partake in the activities the create that life. Now that they have even more power to create and end life, they are even freer to govern their lives. This may be a good thing, but, as a consequence, it has also shifted the monopsony of romance and domestic partnership even more in women’s favor, and with government standing behind them all the way, even as far as often providing them with financial support in place of a domestic partner, women are needing men less and less.

What better position can women be than in this modern age in the west, the first time in history where women can go their entire life without a single man in it – whether they’re poor mothers who are supported by government subsidies or middle and upper class educated women who, unless they decide to become mothers, make more money than men (“Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds”)?

But that’s not enough. Because feminists are not egalitarians, they want to make sure that the “Patriarchy,” whatever they decide to define it in [current year], is finished. They want to make sure that men are fearful of entering sexual relationships with women. Any day now, any man could be a victim of sexual assault without any physical contact ever occurring. He can be charged with sexually assaulting a woman and, without recorded proof (a felony in some states) of consent, he would have little to no chance of proving consent was given.

There’s no better way to ruin a man’s life than to make them forfeit their future by labeling them a rapist, especially with the power to spread this knowledge with the permanence of Google and social media, and by ruining their chance to get an education and make a living? There’s no better way to instill fear in a man than to place a risk far too great for them to take.

A reminder from Conor: “If successful, the law will cause all or most college men ‘to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.'” Those who want to fundamentally reform society will silence and instill fear in those they believe have social and economic power and, in doing so, proving they are the ones truly in power.

Transgender Activists Are Playing With the Lives of Children

Transgender activists are playing with the very lives of millions of children suffering from gender dysphoria, “that is, the feeling that the body they were born with doesn’t fit their true gender identity.”
 
Social activists have destroyed the career of a world-renowned gender identity psychologist who championed the most scientifically accurate clinical knowledge about gender dysphoria and gender identity, all to wage an all-adult social and political war with children suffering from a treatable mental disorder.
Jesse Singal, via New York Magazine, has the story in How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired:
 
And if you look closely at what really happened — if you read the review (which CAMH has now pulled off of its website), speak with the activists who effectively wrote large swaths of it, examine the scientific evidence, and talk to former GIC clinicians and the parents of patients they worked with, it’s hard not to come to an uncomfortable, politically incorrect conclusion: Zucker’s defenders are right. This was a show trial.
 
Progressive activism has been driving much of psychological and sociological study, with social and political intent instead of scientific intent, in order to rewrite the knowledge base within these fields and rewrite how society functions and how we treat psychological illness. The intent isn’t to help people, but to wage a war against what they consider to be, for political reasons, a conservative bias in science (there isn’t one). Anything that isn’t puritanically progressive, which is an ideology that is ever-shifting every single week, is conservative and, by definition, on the “wrong side of history” and must be taken out unceremoniously.
 
Then, Zucker got to a truly bizarre allegation: A former patient, at the time an adolescent transitioning from female to male who was seeking a sex-reassignment surgery referral, said that Zucker had asked him to take his shirt off, laughed when he had done so, and then told him, “You’re a hairy little vermin!” The incident had never happened. Zucker looked at Bartha and, in disbelief, said something like, “So, you are going to post this on the website?” Yes, Bartha responded. Meaning that in a few hours, Zucker’s many detractors would read about how he had cruelly mocked the body of a young trans person.
Most people don’t know a trans person, and probably never will. But if you do, do not steer them toward progressive activist-approved psychological propaganda about gender dysphoria. It is not scientific and experimenting with the lives of pre-teen and teenage kids who need professional help with their psychological confusion and problems is unethical and irresponsible.

Rotherham, Rape Culture, and A Dearth of Mental Health

I’ve had a very difficult time reading this article, “A Rotherham abuse survivor speaks out. It’s taken me as long as the article has been online to read it because it’s such a horrible story and I don’t deal well with this kind of stuff. I could never be a counselor to help girls who have gone through such ordeals because I’d become too emotionally affected.

Speaking of counseling, it is absolutely atrocious that this woman has not been provided the necessary counseling she needs and most definitely deserves.

Even when she says she’d like to tell her apathetic police officers to “drop dead”, she then breaks into a laugh. The most emotion she shows is when discussing Laura’s death. Sarah bends her head as she talks about her sister’s murder and picks repeatedly at the label on her water bottle, ripping off the paper in short shreds.

Sarah hasn’t had any therapy to help cope with her trauma. She was offered bereavement counselling when her sister died but after the first session, the therapist said she could have a second appointment in two months time. “I told her not to bother,” says Sarah.

Sarah says she hasn’t heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, though she seems to show the classic symptoms, and doesn’t understand depression. “Some days I just sit there all day and cry, and some days I can laugh about it all,” she says.

She has flashbacks and nightmares, periods of insomnia and intense anger. “I sit there and think, I just need to go out and batter someone. But then I think, where’s that going to get me?” Sarah also suffers panic attacks, which can be triggered by anything from a spider on the wall to a fly buzzing near. “I get right stressed and then I just hide away for a couple of days,” says Sarah. “I won’t leave the house.”

It’s beyond obvious that she is in need of counseling, serious and empathetic counseling with someone who respects her and takes her seriously instead of simply brushing her away as the police had repeatedly. I don’t know if she’s likely to hurt herself, though. She seems very strong and defiant despite the terrifying experience she’s had.

Photographs © Copyright by Julian Andrews. Eye R8 Productions Ltd. 2015. 29/06/15. Victoria, London, England. Commission May0063541 Portraits of Sarah Wilson who has waived her anonymity and written a book about her experiences at the hands of the abusers in Rotherham
Photographs © Copyright by Julian Andrews. Eye R8 Productions Ltd. 2015.
29/06/15. Victoria, London, England.
Commission May0063541
Portraits of Sarah Wilson who has waived her anonymity and written a book about her experiences at the hands of the abusers in Rotherham

Sarah is currently working with the police to help them recognise signs of grooming, and has begun to compile evidence to build a case against her attackers. She has recently given birth to her 14-week-old son, Myles, and plans to raise him in Rotherham. When I ask why she doesn’t move away, she’s quick to respond: “My sister’s buried there,” she says.

“Rotherham’s my town, why should I be run out of my town because of what they did?,” says Sarah. “If it was up to me, I’d be living next door to the b******s to intimidate them. Rotherham’s where I was born and grew up. It’s my home.”

It requires a tough as nails person to be willing to face her abusers like that.

But she needs therapy to cope better with the trauma she’s endured –  not for her safety but to help her move on with a healthy life without the obvious symptoms of PTSD she’s not been treated for. When uneducated and helpless, people with PTSD can fall prey to dangerous substance abuse to cope with their anxiety and depression. She’s already had enough to deal with due to drug abuse; she doesn’t need any more drug abuse in her life, whether it’s a dependency on legal drugs such as alcohol, or harder drugs.

The fact that she is a victim of such horror and hasn’t been provided the necessary help she should be getting (a two month wait is pure negligence) is evidence the UK does not do a good job taking care of its victims of assault despite their perceived progressive health care system. Perhaps if they had a more capitalist health care system, they’d have counselors who were more eager to provide good counseling and actually give a damn about providing a good service instead of being more interested in clocking out.

She’s similarly disgusted by her two social workers, who used to moan about their caseload and treated both Sarah and her mother with disdain. “I f*ing hate them. They’re crap, they’re crap, they’re just crap,” she says. The social workers, she claims, never showed any concern for Sarah, and acted as though they couldn’t wait for the workday to end so they wouldn’t have to think about Sarah any more.

Perhaps she’s projecting a bit here, but I haven’t seen any good evidence about the UK health care system being that good as it is. The American mental health system is a travesty even with the monetary incentive to provide decent service (too often, mediocre service is provided to milk people instead of truly setting them on a healthy path [see “F*ck Feelings: One Shrink’s Practical Advice for Managing All Life’s Impossible Problems” by Michael Bennett, M.D.), so I can only imagine a socialist health care system like the UK’s system would be this terrible.

My wife decided to get the autobiography mentioned in the article. I could never finish it if I picked it up and tried to read it. I’m far too sensitive to this subject despite the strong stomach I have for almost everything else in life. I’m fine looking at gore, both fantasy and from closed-circuit footage, I’m fine with details of violence and assault, I’m even fine with tales of people mistaking a fantasy story for a science fiction story (I shudder at the thought, though), but when it comes to rape, I have problems. It’s why, when I hear of people minimizing rape by redefining rape as every innocuous slight or transgression toward a woman, I get especially pissed off. Rape is almost as serious as murder, but we as a society do not trivialize murder as much as some have been trying to trivialize rape in an attempt to make it seem like it’s happening everywhere.

Yes, Rape Culture does exist. It exists in the Middle East and parts of Africa. It exists in Rotherham. It exists in parts of South Asia. But based on some people’s telling of it, Rape Culture exists in Antarctica of all places, too, simply because a man has stepped on that plot of earth.

1l899s1
Everything is rape, y’all

Both men and women need help with cases of rape and sexual assault. It’s serious business and not something to trivialize, either by police, counselors, or activists trying to use victims of sexual assault to gain social control and power.

Don’t neglect stories of rape simply because talking about pockets of rape culture requires acknowledgment that certain cultures are not civilized and equal in moral value relative to modern western mores. It’s not fair to the victims and it’s what these monsters want you to do.


Violated’ by Sarah Wilson can be purchased for  $5.99 on Kindle or less on paperback. (The link is not an affiliate link.)

Read about another account of grooming and rape here, “They like us naive’: How teenage girls are groomed for a life of prostitution by UK gangs.” Emma Jackson’s story can be read in-depth via her autobiographical telling in Exploited’ for $9.99 on Kindle.

#OregonUnderAttack Or Something I Don’t Really Care About

It’s incredibly stupid that a bunch of dumb people with guns decided to take over a federal building in the middle of nowhere in Oregon, where the only people in danger from violence are those very people and the federal officials who might bother to give a shit about that takeover, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

I’ve seen people try to make comparisons to a bunch of black people in an inner city taking over a building and how, if that happened, the police would have already raided the building and killed all of the black people.

A bunch of dumb people with guns in the middle of nowhere aren’t a danger to the greater public. They’re a danger to themselves.

A bunch of people in the middle of a city pointing their guns out into the city is a completely different matter. That’s a danger to not just themselves, but the general public.

The best solution for this “standoff” in The Middle of Nowhere, Oregon is not a bunch of tear gas, a bunch of guns blazing, a bunch of drone strikes, hell, not even a fuck to be given. Literally fence them in out of the range of their guns, turn off their electricity, water, and sewage, and build a prison around them. If they’re so set on staying in that summer home cottage called a “federal building” in The Middle of Nowhere, Oregon, let them. They’ve committed felonies; build their prison around them.

But don’t be that dickhead that makes a bigger deal about it than it is. Because nobody gave a fuck about that first dead person from a homicide in 2016 that happened in Chicago. Nobody will give a fuck about the first person to be shot and killed by a police officer in the United States, most likely because that person is statistically likely to be a white person (despite the fact you’re more likely to be shot while being black, far more white people are shot by police, but nobody cares because nobody should care all that much).

Don’t be that dickhead that pretends to be up in arms about a bunch of idiots being idiots in the middle of the forest. If nobody’s there to give a fuck, no fucks would be given.