A Kinder, Gentler Machine Gun Hand

I originally wrote this article for the site AVfM and it was published on 11/29/2011



How Feminism Capitalizes on Men’s Rights Movement Victories

Exposing feminist extremism helps to spread the MRM message. Large or outrageous acts of misandry will sometimes yank a few of the oblivious masses out of their stupor, causing them to sit up and take notice. We tend to look upon these events as small victories for the MRM as they almost always draw a handful of people to our cause.  It is only natural that we would celebrate our exposing.

We are prone to become so caught up in our taking of a hill that we fall into the trap of thinking that the hill was a victory. I would suggest otherwise.  In the fog of war against the male sex, we fail to see how extremist behavior provides a diversion from equally important issues. In some cases, the hills we charge serve to empower the more mainstream of feminists who are able to look normal in comparison to their extremist sisters. Attention is never drawn to the fact that it is always the MRM that first exposes these radicals. It is rarely stated that ‘moderate’ feminists remain utterly silent about their fringe elements proposals of male genocide until the plots have been exposed to the public eye. Only then do these mainstream feminists step into the spotlight to announce that not all feminists hold those beliefs. Feminists capitalize on misandry by presenting an image of disapproval when their radical sisters are brought to light, giving the world an impression that they themselves are the reasonable voice of feminism. Our skirmishes become victories for mainstream feminists as well.

An Objection To Objectification Theory

Originally posted on my blog SkepTex on 11/20/12

Objectification theory, hitherto referred to as OT, is another linchpin of feminist theory.  Like Patriarchy theory, it is poorly defined by way of its supposed effect, thought the effect is assumed to be a social construct and undesirable.  The most comprehensive explanation of OT I have found is the article Feminist Perspectives of Objectification from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  That author wishes it be known that the link above is an archived fixed edition, and that a Winter 2012  archived edition is scheduled to be available on December 21.  I will explore the most current available edition for the purposes of this paper.

The rough definition of OT is that Objectification is seeing or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object.  There are 10 features of objectification, and it is unclear if more than one feature is needed to demonstrate an example of objectification. It is implied weakly in the article that only 1 of the features need be present, but this application renders the theory  hopelessly vague, easily subject to interpretation and opinion.  If  OT proponents wish to use a single feature to proclaim objectification of an individual, it would be fair to state that their argument falls short of conjecture and enters the realm of ideological opinion.  I would also like to posit that the features which I will list may have explanations other than objectification.

Search For The Elusive Patriarchy

This post was originally published on my blog SkepTex back on 11/14/2012



In order to address the accusations that will follow, I should mention in advance my perspective on this subject, and perhaps more importantly, what angles I am not coming from.

I am a skeptic by nature, and much of what I have encountered of feminism has given me cause to be extremely skeptical of it.  The hostility in which feminist's react to valid criticism, especially when much of that hostility is viscous character assassination and ad hominem, brought my suspicions to the surface years ago.  Since that time, I have taken it upon myself to investigate many of their claims, and have found them to be lacking more often than not.  In my research I have seen others write online articles on many of these topics in a piecemeal fashion. I am of the opinion that a more unified presentation of them together might have more of an impact than scattered refutations.

My assessment of feminism is not founded on religious ideology.  I am an atheist, and do not subscribe to those notions.  Neither is my position based on misogyny.  I hold women in no less, or more, regard than I do men. I am in fact in a committed and mutually fulfilling relationship with a woman.  My opinion is not based on right wing Conservative notions.  My political views do not subscribe to any of the conventional or minor political parties.

I should also point out that I have no desire to turn back the clock and retract female equality.  I believe that the Equality movement was a great step forward and was sorely overdue.  I also believe that women, like men, must be vigilant in preserving their rights and health.

Women have gained numerous rights in America, and they are wise to continue preserving those rights through activism.  But to hear feminists tell it, things remain terribly unequal.  This is where I begin to draw the line.

Feminists Lose Philosophy Football Match 0-10

The National Organization of Women is always a source of mild amusement to me.  I don't pay their website a great deal of attention, but on days when the Onion fails to produce its share of laughs, I sometimes turn to now.org to get a few more chuckles in.  Today was one of those days, so I decided to see what shenanigans the nations largest group of militant feminists were up to.  What I soon found there was Monty Python's Philosophy Football as performed by Special Olympics players.

Philosophy Football: Not a Sport for Feminists

Further Feminist Fun

I love South Park. Creators Parker & Stone gleefully defecate on hundreds of subjects in a deliciously dark, satirical style. While their humor usually carries them far over the top, they have an uncanny ability to hit the nail on the head.

A Feminist Explains BDSM

After decades of searching, I have finally found someone more clueless about BDSM than the weekend ass slappers. I know, it is hard to believe, but it really happened. About the only thing that didn't surprise me was that it came from someone in a group that is just as amusing to me as the WAS' crowd, a feminist.

A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day, or How Skepchick Made Me Anti-Feminist, part 1

Before I can get to the story, indeed before I can even get to the preface, I need to include the back story in order to make things clear. As you may already understand, words alone are never a perfect medium for conveying information. Prior to the invention of writing, and even then when most were illiterate, we communicated verbally. And with verbal communication comes body language from which we consciously or subconsciously send and draw nuances, clues, and affirmation/rejection regarding our verbal conveyance of information. These ingrained and important non verbal communications are lost to us with the written word, making it all the more imperative that we write clearly. This is one of the reasons I have always argued that one cannot redefine words willy-nilly to suit ones whims. Communication is difficult enough with rules and structure; nigh impossible without it. And as we shall eventually see, lack of information because of our inability to read one of the players body language in the eventual story will definitely play a role in the story's development and interpretation.

Schrödinger’s Psycho Bitch: or a girl's guide to seeing feminist sexism and not being a cunt.

This shall be the first of Yoda only knows how many installments I am compelled to write because of a huge argument going on within the Skeptic community. While I had hoped to wrap everything up in one tidy blog post, researching the information has made me realize that the scope of this issue is vastly larger than I had imagined.  The primary focus of this particular piece is to highlight the stupidity of one sides arguments that are based on a 2009 piece titled Schrodinger's Rapist which this side is continually throwing around for justification of their issues and dismissing any objections from the other side with a blanket criticism of "You're not getting it! Read Schrödinger’s Rapist again!". 

Well, I've read it several times, and through this parody hope to point out several of its problems while simultaneously exposing some little known facts that discredit quite a few of the arguments of one side. So far I have remained silent on the skeptic sites, but I suspect that I am about to change that.

And while it will doubtless earn me the accusation of 'mansplaining', it is necessary to explain why the name Schrödinger is being used both in the original and in this parody. Schrödinger was a physicist that showed how some very unusual behavior could be predicted in quantum physics. One of the hypothetical experiments involved a cat placed in a tube or box. Also inside the box is a small amount of radioactive material, a Geiger counter,  a vial of toxic gas, and a mechanism to break the glass. If one of the atoms decays, the Geiger counter senses the burst and causes the mechanism to break the glass, releasing the gas and thus killing the cat.  Basically, thanks to certain mechanics at the quantum level, the hypothetical cat is both alive and dead until an observer looks in. Therefore,  the original story regurgitates the vicious feminist notion that all men are potential rapists. 

Now without further interruption, I present you with Schrödinger’s Psycho Bitch.