Feminist Jessica Valenti wants schools to stop sexualizing young girls, but also wants young girls to dress like hookers

Basically a bunch of young girls who like dressing like sluts are taking up the noble cause of feminism. A writer for The Guardian, Miss Jessica Valenti, writes that it’s horrible the way girls aren’t being allowed to show their butt cheeks in super short shorts or expose their cleavage. It is an underage girl’s choice to dress inappropriately at school, she argues.

Kind of weird how in her own book, she complains about schools sexualizing young women.

The high school girls of Tottenville high school call the school dress code sexist because 90% of the people being punished are female. Considering a large majority of the people being punished are punished because they wore short shorts, that seems pretty reasonable. When’s the last time you saw a boy wearing short shorts?

The school dress code applies to both girls and guys. It’s not the males’ fault they choose to adhere to the dress code while the girls decide they are above the law and rules.

 

Advertisements

Feminist Melody Hensley threatens war veteran heroes

The great feminist Melody Hensley thinks she has it worse than veterans of war because twitter gives her PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). You can read her moving, emotional tale of woe, titled by the DailyMail as “‘Twitter gave me PTSD’: Woman claims mean comments and ‘cyberstalking’ gave her an illness usually suffered by WAR VETERANS

Yes, receiving nasty name calling on twitter due to your misandry and ignorance is equal to the horrors that soldiers go through when at war.

Of course, David Futrelle from WeHuntedTheMammoth thinks SHE is the victim, as usual. You know, of all the feminists in the world, none are as deluded as David Futrelle. Considering we have people like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valent, it’s actually really hard to be the craziest feminist in the world, but hats off to you David.

Are feminists and David Futrelle advocating threatening soldiers who fight and defend our country? These real heroes who go through terrible things come home and find feminists attacking them? Is this their just reward?

Of course, maybe this is why feminists don’t ask for war time drafts to include women. I mean, I’m all for equality and equality means equal in everything, including being forced to go to war.

Celebrity Feminist: Jennifer Aniston

*You can click on the image to zoom in since the text is too small.

Jennifer Aniston the great feminist who rubs shoulders with feminist Gloria Steinem (who had cosmetic surgery…..) thinks it’s wrong that the media and the public puts so much emphasis on women having children or getting married.

You know what? Jennifer Aniston is right! Getting married or whether you want kids or not is nobody’s business since it is a personal matter.

However, as a celebrity who sells her personal life in interviews with magazines and late night talk show hosts, Jennifer Aniston has willingly given up on some of her privacy.

ie: I consider asking her if she’s had an abortion, how often she’s having sex, if she has any health problems, etc. to be uncalled for

I do consider comments like “Do you want kids” or “Are you dating Mr. Celebrity A” to be fair questions since she’s already sold that stuff when promoting her movies.

Also, considering Jennifer Aniston has forcefully said many times over how much she wants children, it’s completely fair play to ask her about it and also ask why she hasn’t had children yet at age 45, when it’s getting a lot harder to have kids.

For Rachel Green to suddenly turn around and claim it’s sexist of the media to ask her that question is astounding hypocrisy.

For people who read her 2005 Vanity Fair Interview (their highest selling issue of all time) titled “The Unsinkable Jennifer Aniston“, Jennifer skillfully manipulated public opinion of her divorce from Brad Pitt as well as lied throughout and painted a nasty picture of untruths.

As you see in the image, Brad Pitt was the one who had wanted kids but somehow in her 2005 Vanity Fair interview, suddenly it was poor Jennifer who wanted kids and Brad was the one preventing her from becoming a mother?

Brad Pitt acquired 6 kids in 3 years (between 2005 and 2008) whereas Jennifer Aniston, despite being the one to pressure Brad Pitt about children, has 0 kids from 2000 (when she married Brad Pitt) to 2014.

She had 14 years to have kids, something pretty easy to do when you’re a multi-millionaire and even easier when you were married for 5 years. Of course, this is assuming she was truthful.

Bad statistics and feminism anyone?

Do we expect feminists to be truthful, ever?

Feminist Shanley Kane too stupid to take her own advice.

So basically the strong, independent woman that is Shanley Kane, who writes about how she is oppressed by the patriarchy and misogynistic men, decided to take to task the egalitarian feminist Christina Hoff Sommers.

Shanley’s problem with Christina is that Christina recognizes the hypocrisy, misandry, and stupidity of modern day feminism. Apparently if you rightfully criticize your own movement, in an effort to improve it, that’s seen as hating on women.

Shanley wanted to graciously educate the ignorant Christina Hoff Sommers and teach her that there’s nothing wrong with feminism and Christina needs to look at the horrible patriarchy that is enslaving them all.

Once Christina points out that Shanley’s own attitude seems to be the problem, instead of responding like a professional, mature, adult, Shanley becomes a raging, angry, violent feminist and starts swearing and verbally abusing and harassing Christina.

Christina stays calm and mentions Shanley just proved her point and like the petulant elementary school kid she is, Shanley makes an ad hominem personal attack on Christina’s appearance.

Isn’t feminism about raising women up and not attacking them, much less on their personal appearance?

Oh yeah, here Shanley and her friends mention how you shouldn’t get into arguments on twitter.

Hypocrisy again?

Or just a strong, smart, independent, beautiful feminist?

Feminist hypocrisy – Zoe Quinn & the NFL: Personal life is separate from private life.

I’ll definitely do a post on Zoe Quinn and the Gamer Gate scandal when I have time, but for now……

Feminists claim the immoral behavior of Zoe Quinn, who cheated on her boyfriend with allegedly 5 guys (1 admitted and the boyfriend has facebook posts of her admitting to 3 total) is not important and has no bearing on her professional life.

Here’s a nice little quote from male feminist David Rhinehart.

What Qualifies Zoe Quinn’s Personal Life as Gaming News?

“So why is this news? Why are people freaking out that someone may or may not have been an adulterer? Isn’t this none of my god damn business unless I want to romantically pursue said person, and even then, it’s said person’s responsibility or choice to reveal certain aspects of their past to me, not some dude on the Internet? Allow me to answer that writing from the assumption that the accusation that Zoe Quinn is an adulterer is true, as most of why this would be news revolves around that. If it isn’t true it is just another example of someone harassing a prominent female figure for reasons that are unbeknownst to us. This story would be the same one you keep hearing and some of you keep trying to tune out, that women are being harassed for simply being female at a staggering rate that is not only difficult to comprehend, is almost impossible to understand without also being a victim. If this is true, however, it presents a much larger problem and poses a serious question that consumers have to ask themselves. Quinn stands, supportive of and supported by, side by side with fellow feminist gamers such as Feminist Frequency’s Anita Sarkeesian in the raging fight against sexism in the video game industry. Say what you want about their methods, their hearts are in the right place and their intentions are good. The fight against sexism is far from over. That is not the issue here. The issue comes from a figurehead going against what they preach.”

Disclaimer: I can’t find any mention of David Rhinehart professing to be a feminist, but considering how he uses disreputable sources like Feminist Frequency and sounds entirely supportive of anything and everything they say, I’m pretty sure he’d identify as a feminist.

 

Most male feminists have been tricked by feminist propaganda such as “All feminism means is believing men and women should have equal rights”. I bet David Rhinehart would use that false definition.

I’d like to mention according to some feminists, cheating on your partner and then having consensual sex with them is rape because they consented only to sex where they are aware of STD risks. Thus because they did not know a person was sleeping with someone else they could not have consented to sex.

No consent or inability to consent = rape

Ultimately, what feminists are trying to say with regards to this scandal is that  a person’s private life should not affect how they are evaluated in their professional life.

I agree to a certain extent, but feminists recently pushed for the NFL to suspend/expel football players who domestically abuse their wives.

Here’s what a women’s rights advocate, Judy Harris Kluger, who is executive director of Sanctuary for Families has to say:

“The first time with marijuana is different from the first time you are knocking your wife unconscious. It’s not what they did was such a small sort of slap on the wrist. Punishment to me, they should have suspended for a season at least and let him appeal. At least you send a message that this is not tolerated, that this matters.”

I’m confused, how is domestic abuse something that relates to a football career? Seems like a clear cut case of personal life vs private life.

Domestic abuse is a personal and legal issue. It is NOT a professional issue.

If feminists believe the NFL should punish players professionally for issues with their personal lives, then I don’t see how feminists can complain about people having issues with Zoe Quinn’s immoral and possibly “rapist-like” (by a feminist’s definition of rape) behavior.

Hypocrisy and double standards?

In defense of feminists:

Domestic abuse is illegal while adultery is completely legal.

However, it is still a weak argument as the NFL players are punished by the law.

It is not as though they escape with no punishment and feminists can cry how feminist women are beaten and raped in an alleged “rape culture”.

I would actually fully support harsher penalties for domestic violence (but of course, this means punishment for women who commit domestic violence against men as well, something feminists love ignoring) and I would agree with feminists if they were pushing for that case, but they aren’t.

If an NFL player is jailed for domestic abuse, he can’t really practice/participate in football games can he? And usually when players are gone for extended periods of time, they usually get fired/let go from the team anyway.

Once more feminists are trying to take the law into their own hands.

Dear Feminists, No means No: How feminists promote the exploitation and manipulation of young women

From the egalitarian that is Christina Hoff Sommers.

Feminists have long used the phrase “No means no” as an attack towards men, implying that most men will assault and rape any woman that they find attractive. They believe that if a man expresses he is sexually interested in a woman, he refuses to take “no” for an answer and will use either physical, emotional, or other forms of coercion to effectively force a woman to have sex with him against her will, which is what rape is.

I believe it came about due to feminists having a very broad and strange definition of what rape is.

Personally I believe rape for a woman is when:

1) A man physically forces himself upon an unwilling woman.

2) Powerful threats like “I will destroy your career if you do not have sex with me” or “I will divorce and ruin you” or “I will kill you or someone you love”

That to me is rape.

Feminists believe these things count as rape:

1) A man and woman are both equally drunk and have sex that they both enjoy.

The woman has been raped because a woman cannot consent to sex (and anything) when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The man has not been raped because a man is able to consent to anything under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

2) A woman and her boyfriend/husband are lying in bed. He starts making sexual advances on the woman, like biting her ear or groping her breasts. She tells him “Stop, I’m too tired for sex” and he goes “Come on baby” and soon becomes much more sexual, meaning he starts to use his penis or perhaps touches her vagina. She is too tired and thinks to herself “Whatever, might as well just get it over with so he’ll stop pestering me for sex.”

This scenario was actually something real that happened and feminists claim it is rape, or at the very least sexual assault.

This is actually an interesting and difficult scenario to analyze correctly. I do not believe it comes anything near to being rape, but when considered sexual assault, it becomes a really grey-area situation.

Had she firmly said “NO!” again and he continued making advances, then yes it would be sexual assault/rape. However, her initial weakly replied answer made it seem like she herself wasn’t too sure and of course just because you are tired doesn’t mean you can’t still do something.

Problematic situation but even more problematic when feminists classify that as rape.

 

Which comes to the interesting thing.

Feminists claim men need to respect when a woman says No, it means No. Do not continue trying to convince me or argue against me. My no means no and end of discussion.

I agree with that.

Feminists do not agree with that.

When young women say “I am not a feminist” / “I do not believe in feminism” do feminists say “I respect your “NO” answer”?

Nope.

Instead they try to coerce women into identifying as feminists through deceitful means. In fact, they mock and demean these women in a very patronizing manner, telling them “You are uneducated and ignorant of what feminism is. Let me help you change your mind.”

If that is acceptable, then so too is a man telling a woman “You are being ignorant about sex. It is a very natural act and you think you’re tired but when you start feeling good you’ll change your mind. ”

Not to mention telling someone “If you don’t have sex with me, you’re a loser, you’re pathetic, nobody will ever want you” is emotional abuse that leads to rape.

Likewise, feminists are basically telling young women how stupid they are for not agreeing with the feminists.
The one counter argument I have FOR/in favor of feminists is that they are trying to inform/educate young women who lack knowledge about feminism, while I’m pretty sure young women are perfectly knowledgeable about what sex is and whether they feel like they want to have sex or not.

However, this only holds true if everything a feminist tells them is TRUTH. Anything that is a lie or misleading becomes misinformation/coercion.

And we know the many lies/misleading “facts” that feminists love using such as:

1) Wage gap myth

2) property ownership myth

3) 1 in 4 women are raped myth

 

By teaching young women that they are uneducated about their beliefs and thoughts and feelings and should listen to specious arguments that rely on misleading and outright false statistics and fallacies, feminists encourage young women to be exploited and manipulated.

They are teaching young women: “If you do not agree with me, then you are stupid and uneducated. Let me force you to change your mind with lies.”

What happens when a young woman meets a man she likes but is unready for sex? She might say “I’m not ready for sex” and then he can pressure her saying “No, no, you are uneducated about relationships and what they entail and how sex is really good for relationships.”

Thanks to feminists, a young woman will be pressured thinking “Well, feminists have taught me that I am uneducated and my opinions and thoughts don’t matter, so I should just agree with this man.”

I thought feminists hated that kind of thing?