A One Sided Conversation With A Red Pilled Feminist

I’m going to seem very harsh here, but that’s because I’m a dick. Her piece is actually very good.

Are women so smothered by the blanket of victimhood that we can’t concede that men face issues too?

Yes. Women smother each other all the time. Lesbian domestic violence is among the highest per capita. But I digress…

Isn’t the hallmark of intersectionality finding victimhood everywhere?

LOL No. Intersectionalality is the interest of finding victimhood in only specific demographics which help activists empower themselves.

Feminist boosterism can make us feel empowered.

Feel good. Not empowered. It makes you feel good. You can only empower yourself and that’s done by taking action. It’s a tough thing, really: you are only empowered by powering through things, which requires “empowerment.” The trick is that the power was always there; most people just don’t perceive it.

This is good; I too love when I am told I am special and powerful. Women do indeed face many problems in society.

Not as many as women, the most privileged class by all objective measures, actually face.

However, at my women’s college in particular,  feminist ideology renders students blind to the injustices that disproportionately affect men, like homelessness, harsh prison sentencing, and gang violence.

This doesn’t just happen at colleges. It happens everywhere, including places of legislation, the White House, the Twitters, in the streets, hell, even Facebook groups filled with harpies.

Thus, colleges need to actively incorporate men’s issues into their curriculum.

Why? Men generally don’t bother trying to think of problems as systemic, largely because they aren’t. Social norms of behavior which hurt a demographic or another aren’t systems. Systems have to be especially designed with purpose. People’s behavior, while they can be affected by systems, generally are self-generating. You can build a system to affect consumer behavior, for example, but the human behavior was always the same. The conditions that the human behavior interfaces with changes. If you are averse to risk and a government policy increases the risk of an activity, your aversion to risk may reform your actions. Your behavior is unchanged. That’s why the concept of “systems of oppression” are ridiculous: people feeling they have no power (thus the need for “empowerment”) need to be reminded they have agency and blame” systems of oppression” for their perceived lack of agency and power. It’s delusional.

Men generally don’t bother fighting “systems of oppression” that oppress them because men aren’t being told that personal failures are to be blamed on something other than themselves. Society tells men they are responsible for this and that and men agree – usually because they are. If you don’t get up and move, it’s not necessarily because you’re being kept from doing so. It’s your responsibility to do it. Women, on the other hand, are being told someone else needs to do it for them. Men don’t get told that. Hence men KNOW they have agency while women need to be reminded they have it as well.

And who tells women they have no agency in the modern era? Other women do. Women activists who need money, so they create the illusion that women still have no agency despite having it.

To actively avoid talking about men’s issues is to create a citizenry deprived of important knowledge about how the world works for men and shields students from socio-economic realities. This must end.

When I started taking Women’s Studies classes 4 years ago, I was seduced by feminist ideology.

I’m so sorry.

Mentally tabulating my oppression cards became a hobby.

This is the latest craze among the blissfully ignorant youth. Go on.

Unfortunately, being steeped in feminism didn’t just make me blind to the truth about men—it made me actively resist learning about it.

Is it like an allergy? Does feminism make people testosterone intolerant? Is that why the men who get involved in feminist circles seem like walking, talking, stinking manginas?

Thankfully, while feminism taught me that women were on the losing side of everything—real life taught me that disadvantage is more nuanced than that.

Yes, the world is very complex. Gender relations are incredibly complex. So complex that you need science to understand it.

So why do we ask feminists, who are the antithesis of science, anything about gender relations at all?

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.

Conor Friedersdorf:

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

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.

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.