Intersectional Feminism Made Easy!


For those of you who failed chemistry, dihydrogen monoxide is water.

Years ago, I had a career specializing in nutrition science.  I was familiar all the big fancy chemical compounds in various foods, what they do, how they work, and what benefits and detriments came with overdoses and deficiencies.  Gama-amino-butryic alpha-keto-gluterate may sound impressively dangerous, but it’s actually rather harmeless.  It’s an amino acid commonly found in food, and is also sold as a supplement to help you sleep (often combined with a B complex and taurine – another amino acid – for added effect).

However, as I started working vitamin companies, I started noticing that there were dozens of ingredients added into the product which didn’t actually contribute towards anything the product claimed it did.  I mean, ecosapentaenoic acid is just fish oil… so why not just call it that?  And why is “caffeine” always listed as “trimethylaxine”?  And why are there 20 dozen other ingredients added at 1/1000 their effective dosage, just to have them on the label?

The answer: it’s just to have them on the label.

Using scary complex sounding chemical names on the back of a vitamin bottle, with Ronnie Coleman or some other champion body builder on the front cover, giving you some mean glaring stare, makes it feel as though you’re taking some incredible super hardcore anabolic DRUG!… when in fact you’re what you end up paying 70 dollars for is a bottle of placebos.  That’s part of the reason why I’m no longer in that industry.  I had a hard time dealing with that kind of environment.

But this tactic of making something sound totally legit by giving it a huge overly complicated verbose explanation, with lots of theoretical terminology that (hopefully) goes right over your head, is actually a common tactic used in plenty of different places.  That same thing holds true for social theory – especially feminism.

Case in point:

Today’s topic is:

IntersectionalityAnd what is intersectionality?  It’s a lot like dihydrogen monoxide.  It’s an overly convoluted topic often explained in such a way that it makes your need to apologize for your existence as a cis-white male sound like an established scientific fact.

A better source for explaining this be found here:

But the BEST source to learn what it means is… well, you’re reading it now.

Lets go straight ahead and make this real super simple.

“Intersectionality” basically means “everyone has a different real-life experience based on who they are and where they’re from”. That’s all it really means.

Because different people have different real-life experiences, and come from different cultures and backgrounds, it could be wrong to superimpose YOUR personal values onto someone else.

For example, the American value is to work at your own job, fight your way to the top, and one day have your own home and own car. However, the Mexican value is to work a job that’s relevant to your community, earn money to help your family, and one day take care of your parents in their old age. So the life values of one may not work for the other.

We all on the same page so far?

The train-wreck known as Third Wave Feminism has tried to take this “real life experience” and turn it into ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Suddenly, all the facts, figures, statistics, and sociological data we can gather mean nothing! You can now transform any frivolous uneducated opinion you might have had into something EVEN LEARNED SCHOLARS must now bow down to without question because your real life experience can only be understood by you.

Do you see how this is not the same as the example between the American and the Mexican?  This is how it gets twisted.

Sure, I can’t know the mind of another person. That’s philosophy 101. But there are things that we CAN know. Words have meaning, and claims can be checked.  Intersectionality is often used an excuse to shut down the conversation and disallow anyone to speak, except people who agree with your opinion. Because only THEY have had the “same real life experience” and therefore can speak to it.

Isn’t it strange how none of us accept that kind of bullshit from religion? Do we let Young Earth Creationists tell us all about Jesus and God because… hey, their real life experience can only be known by them?

And their experience with God Almighty can’t be questioned because you haven’t had the same experience?

For some reason, that shit never flies. But if someone disagrees with a Third Waver, “well YOU can’t talk because you’re not black / woman / trans / gay / lesbian / cat / so you can’t lecture me about what my experiences have been like!”

We can’t leave off a topic like intersectionality without also talking about Power Differentials!  This is another one that’s treated like sacred knowledge, and is usually thrown in for good measure.  From the above link:

—– —–
Attention to power highlights that: i) power operates at discursive and structural levels
to exclude some types of knowledge and experience (Foucault, 1977); ii) power shapes
subject positions and categories (e.g., ‘race’) (e.g. racialization and racism); and iii) these
processes operate together to shape experiences of privilege and penalty between
groups and within them (Collins, 2000). From an intersectional perspective, power is relational. A person can simultaneously experience both power and oppression in varyingcontexts, at varying times (Collins, 1990).
—– —–

^^^ If this sounds lofty, vague, and intangibly theoretical – remember, it’s supposed to.
First, “power differential”, and abuse of power, are real things.  Here’s a quick example: your boss has more power than you.  Your boss can tell you to do stuff, and you have to do it.  If you don’t like it, you’re fired.  The telling-you-what-to-do part is the differential, which on it’s own is not good or bad.  The do-it-or-your-fired part (depending on what you’re being told to do) can be considered an abuse of power.
I work in mental health as a PSS, and one of the topics that routinely comes up is “power over” vs “power with”.  Because of my position and the nature of my work, I come in contact with a large number of people who are abused by the system, who are unfairly discriminated against, and have real socio-economic barriers that prevent them from changing their situation.  Another quick example is how some of the homeless shelters treat their residents.  When I was in Alaska, the shelters forced anyone who didn’t want to sleep in the snow to attend church services (for their own good, of course).  That’s another example of abuse of power.An example of “power with” is when a shelter asks the resident what their goals are, then provides options and resources to help them achieve those goals.  Here, both the client and the shelter have power, and both are working together.

Notice how each of those examples necessarily includes the type of interaction two people are having!  The simple act of being your boss doesn’t mean there’s a “discursive and structural level” that excludes anything in any relevant way.
Now, Third Wavers want you to believe that’s how it works, because then your act of having a penis oppresses me.  The simple fact that you exist “creates a power structure” that harms me somehow.  And your white skin oppresses me if I have black skin.  It’s just another way to continually criminalize cis-white males.  Isn’t it curious how cis-white males cannot be oppressed?  Like, ever?
When I was a cis-white male and staying at the homeless shelter, the manager of the place walked right up to me one day, sipping his Starbucks, casually dressed in an outfit worth more than everything I owned, and told me flat out “Hey, if you can’t do the chores we give you, leave!  I got 90 other people who want your bed.”  This particular shelter was frequently referred to by the people staying there as “pre-jail”; as in, it was the kind of environment that got you ready for jail.  The front desk could, at any time, for any reason, kick you out on the streets.  They often did this, then went in and stole the belongings of the person they kicked out.  A lot went on there, and some people became suicidal, as there was utterly no support given to the residents.  But because these were mostly cis-white males, we’ll never hear anything about them being oppressed through the exact same description of power differentials given above, which are so often cited by the more educated and articulate Third Wavers.For them, cis-white males cannot ever experience oppression, and anyone who isn’t a cis-white male always experiences oppression, and finer concepts such as “power over” vs “power with” are never talked about, because they actually have no f*ing idea what they’re talking about – they only learn just enough of the concept and related terminology so they can legitimize their world view and shut down anyone who disagrees with them.

Imagine for a moment you work in an office building, with 2 other employees; Jeff, who’s been with the company for several years and holds a position in management, and Sarah, a new intern working at entry-level.  On her first day at work, Sarah walks by Jeff’s cubical, and sees a swimsuit calendar she doesn’t like.

In this situation, who has the power?  Who has the ability to bring the entire company to a screeching halt with a number of law suits over something that wasn’t liked?  Remember, this is a patriarchy.  Where only men have power, and can never ever feel oppressed because intersectionality just somehow never applies to them.


Your Personal Experience Does Not Decide Reality

If you’ve listened to Third Wavers, you’ve probably heard them tell you how your input, as a white cis-male, on their experiences, is “mansplaining”; followed by your need to politely shut up, and listen to them tell you about your experience as a privileged white cis-male.

Ain’t it funny how that works?

See, the thing with real, lived, personal experiences, is that they are important, and so are a person’s feelings (yes, even if you’re a cursed heterosexual cis-white male!)  Personal feelings shouldn’t be invalidated or dismissed – they should be listened to and empathized with.  That’s called “being a good person”.  But at the same time, real, lived personal experiences, do not amount to absolute proof of anything outside of you having that experience.  Most Third Wavers out there probably wouldn’t accept a biblical testimony from someone who claims to have had a real, lived personal experience with Jesus Christ.  We have no problem telling a creationist that his real, lived personal experience does not prove God’s existence, no matter how real, lived, or personal it might have been.

Social science is a soft science.  As I wrote in my book, A Bridge Between Feminist Theory and Reality (which I would post a link to for free, if I could find someone to help me update this site), sciences such as chemistry and physics are a cut and dry thing; sodium and chloride make salt.  That’s it.  End of story.  Your opinions don’t matter and there’s no other narrative involved.

But when discussing things like privilege, we are talking about the way people live.  Their lives, their feelings, and their position in society are all necessarily included – and these things can be extremely difficult to measure, and because personal lives are involved, personal story-telling narratives and hypothetical allegories always find their way in.

However, we can measure many parts, and verify most claims!  I can confer with the US Census Bureau to find out how many women choose to work in the fishing industry (hint: very few, and hence the wage gap), but it can be more difficult to understand the reason why women make that choice.  It can be more difficult still to determine and measure all the influences that go into shaping the thoughts and feelings that lead to that choice, especially since every woman is different.  At some point, it becomes rather tempting to rely on social tropes, personal allegories, and shared understanding.

But here’s the thing.

Verifiable measurements, whenever possible, are always better than social tropes and personal allegories.

That is to say, it’s better to rely on actual facts and figures – things that we can measure.  For example, we have studies that say women are choosing not to run for public office.  It doesn’t work to then say women are kept out of politics because of sexism, and try to prove that claim with a personal story of your experiences of sexism.

Your experiences are very real, and I’m sorry you had to go through such a thing.  But that’s not related to the actual facts and figures that are available to us through research.  We know that congress is mostly men because mostly men choose to run.  That’s a conclusion backed by research.  Congress is not mostly men “because penis” (which is literally the claim of patriarchy; they’re in congress only because they are men).  That’s an assertion backed with nothing more than personal stories (I’ve experienced sexism, so I know that must be the reason men get into office).

Rebecca Cooper makes another excellent point on her site, saying:

—– —–
Suppose two women disagree about whether a certain action is sexist or not – one experiences it as discriminatory or oppressive, while the other does not feel this way about it. While it is useful to know how they feel about it, it doesn’t get us very far in deciding how to judge that action and whether to allow it or not.
—– —–

Again, we can define what sexism means, and describe what a sexist attitude is.  That’s the hard-science part.  But when a man does or says something you consider sexist, was that what he meant?  Was he trying to be sexist?  In his mind, is he aware that what he did or said could even be interpreted that way??  His intentions matter a lot – and this is the soft science part.  You can probably find out his intentions simply by asking him (imagine that).  Yes, he could lie, but he’s probably not going to if you just ask like a normal person (there’s an example of shared understanding in what I’m implying by “normal person”).  You can’t know the mind of someone else, and that cis-white-male’s real, lived, personal experiences are just as real and just as lived as yours.  His intentions may be wildly divergent from what the Third Wave narrative mandates.

Cis gender men are rapist

And since the Third Wave is aimed squarely at PROVING women are victims – so it can then fix the problem it just created – the entire point is to reinforce that narrative by as much as possible.  As it turns out, we can’t find any facts or evidence in reality to back up their claims.  So Third Wavers simply don’t rely on such silly outdated notions as testable and repeatable data (science is probably something a MAN dreamed up anyway).  They rely on personal narratives instead.  This becomes the absolute only way you, as a dirty cis-white male, can ever truly understand what is happening, and you can only understand it from the Third Waver telling it to you, and you can never challenge it!  Because your science can’t speak over my real, lived experience, which works as the ultimate trump card.

This simply turns into another way of shutting down the conversation, and it’s like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks down the pieces, shits all over the board, then flies back to it’s nest to claim victory.

AronRa and The Religion of Third Wave Feminism

Yup, that click-bait title you see there does indeed refer to *THE* AronRa of Atheism.

This is the same AronRa who highlights how creationist just.  will.  not.  change their minds no matter what evidence they see.  And at the same time, this is someone who, with breathtaking irony, will not change his mind, no matter how much evidence he sees.

Recently, my comrade Jaline Williams and myself had a discussion with him on his facebook about feminism – from which he banned both of us when he started losing the debate – only so he could then continue arguing against the points we made in our absence.  This is the exact thing he often accuses creationist of doing against him in debates, often to a crowd of exasperated atheist, audibly guffawing at how dishonest and disingenuous such creationist are for having resorted to such grade-school level tactics.

“How dare they!  They censor the other side, then continue debating as though the forced silence from their opponents means they’ve somehow won?  If you have to resort to such lengths to win a debate, doesn’t that show you just how dishonest your position is???”

We’re all familiar with this line of thinking I’m sure, and how it’s so frequently found in Aron’s rhetoric.  So imagine the jaw dropping surprise we had when he resorts to this exact same tactic.

Here’s the post he made that got the ball rolling:


I don’t see how someone can claim to support gender equality yet simultaneously minimize, ridicule, excuse or deny any of the issues related to that, or pretend that they don’t exist in the west anymore, if they ever did. I don’t know anyone who acknowledges issues that still exist here who does not also wear the feminist label.

One of the few atheist feminists on youtube Steve Shives posted a joke about that today: The name…|By lilandra


“The Great Shushing of Atheist Feminist” — The irony here is over 9000.

As most of you know, this is a feminist website.  I am a feminist.  I believe 4th Wave Feminism has three main functions:

– To function as a special interests group for women’s issues (and there are many legit issues, like abortion clinics being unfairly shut down)
– To refute and disprove 3rd Wave nonsense (which hurts both men AND women) with facts and evidence
– To eventually launch outreach missions to other countries where equality is still a problem.

So to be shushed as a feminist in a debate with someone who criticizes shushing feminist is about as much of a train wreck as your argument can get.

What follows is the conversation.  Again, note that Aron banned us, but decided to leave our comments up and continue arguing (the discussion continued for some 500 or so comments after we were banned – and I’m totally uncertain how many others he was forced to ban due to the weaknesses revealed in his position).

So far, his wall remains public, so you can still see the entire conversation if you search him on facebook.

Also, this thread had a number of different discussions going on.  To make things easier to read, in Part 1 I’ve included the exchange that happens mostly between myself, Aron, and a few others first, which got me banned, and in part 2, I’ll post what got Jaline banned.

Upon review, it appears I was banned hours before Jaline was.  Not to brag or antyhing, but you know… just saying.

Much of this really goes to show how 3rd Wavers refuse to change their minds, even if you provide them with all the examples they ask for.  I’ve also left a few other commenters in, as I replied to their points as well.


  • Jaline Williams – to – Aron Ra You don’t know yourself then Aron? I mean. You yourself minimize, ridicule, excuse, and deny issues related to gender equality when it comes to equality for the male gender. So does Steve Shives, in fact Steve Shives probably does so far more than yourself in ways that showcase how fucking ridiculous his beliefs are on the subject.It’s fantastic how you can say such things when you yourself are a living representation of the type of person you claim to not know.




  • Lilandra Ra Pardon Jaline, he often winds up discussing issues related to the male gender more than feminism whenever The Magic Sandwich Show topic is feminism. So look into it more before making such a broad accusation.



  • Athena Brown Lilandra – could you go through my definitions of what defines a Third Waver, then show me how that definition is not accurate?  [[Lilandra never does this for some reason.]]Rather than declaring it a strawman, then declaring victory?(Which is, ironically, a strawman)


  • Hay Seed I’m still trying to unpack the reach it takes to equate feminism with religion. [[It works better if you click the links I provide, then show me why the content in the links are wrong, instead of NOT clicking them, then pretending I never made a case.  He’ll continue using ignorance as a defense for much of the discussion.]]


  • Lilandra Ra Ah yes, your definition of third wave feminism that doesn’t agree with the commonly accepted definition of feminism.


  • Athena Brown You mean like when the commonly accepted definition of “atheism” was “someone who DENIES the existence of god”?Or the definition of Islam which states that it’s “a religion of peace”?Because I even stated out how definitions are insufficient this way in the opening part of my link. Why don’t you read it, then actually show me how I’m wrong? Because as atheist, surely we’ll change our mind when new or better information comes along, right?


  • Athena Brown Also I’m going to bed now – will answer again when I get up. [[I’m gone from the conversation for a while]]


  • Hay Seed It seems like Athena Brown is using a different dictionary from the rest of us. I’m quite curious how the third wave expansion of feminism to non-white and queer women is a bad thing. Just like any community, we have to teach tact and reason to our members. The reason, as demonstrated here, is opposing view points will isolate tactless and poorly executed arguments and say they’re representative of the whole.  [[Again, click the links.]]


  • Aron Ra The standard definition of ‘religion’ is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. I have discovered that do not include gods. However even then, every religion universally accepted as such is a faith-based belief system which includes the notion that some element of self, (be it conciousness, memories, a soul or spirit) will somehow transcend the death of the physical body and continue on. By ANY definiton, feminism is definitely positively not remotely similar to a religion.


  • Aron Ra Jaline and Athena, you’re both showing a lot of projection. [[Aron also has a knack for misusing terms outside of his field.  I correct him later on, but then he continues to misuse it anyway.]]


  • Jaline Williams – to – Aron Ra The difference between us is that Athena and I openly admit to the fact that we’re ridiculing shitty ideas when they arise, no matter the source that they’re coming from. It just so happens that far more shit ideas rise from feminism than good ones.


  • Aron Ra I ridicule shitty arise when they arise too, Jaline, even when they come from other feminists. However, I get far more ‘shitty ideas’ from the anti-feminists.  [[Two things of note: First, during this entire discussion, I do not see any “anti-feminist”.  Not one single person ever speaks out against women’s rights.  Second, I never actually see Aron ever ridiculing any of the nonsense coming out of the Third Wave, even though I’ve linked him repeatedly.]]


  • Jessica de Bruin Another thing worth mentioning is that focusing more on one group who is more often ignored and abused than the more privileged group doesn’t mean we don’t or shouldn’t care about both groups’ problems. It’s just that one group is more desperately in need of aid than the group that already has other privileges [[You can say that again: ]]. Black people and white people can become victims of police brutality, but we have data that shows black victims far outnumber the whites in this regard. So telling protesters “ALL lives matter! Why aren’t you fighting for white people’s rights?” is ridiculous because it’s the black community who faces more problems and whose cause is more urgent. That’s why feminism often focuses on women’s problems first and men’s second: because it’s the women who are being raped and killed at an alarming rate. Hose down the house that’s on fire before the one that’s not.  [[My stance on this is of course we should *acknowledge* the problems other groups face, but that feminism can and should work as a special interest group that *focuses* on women’s issues.  I think it would be great to work together with men’s rights groups, which could focus on men’s issues, to achieve equality for all.]]


  • Jessica de Bruin I hesitate to call atheists “rationalists” in any case because they so often hold irrational views on non-religious issues. Just because you may have figured out one popular narrative is a myth doesn’t mean you can’t still believe a dozen others.  [[How very, very true.]]


  • Dan Knype In other words, shut the fuck up, cis-white-male. I’ve gotcha, loud and clear.I mean, hose down the house that’s on fire before the one that’s not? Men are 9x more likely to die a violent death than women. Let’s hose down that fire first, then, according to your logic!But NO! Because feminism does not EVER acknowledge that some issues aren’t about them only.


  • Jessica de Bruin “I mean, hose down the house that’s on fire before the one that’s not? Men are 9x more likely to die a violent death than women. Let’s hose down that fire first, then, according to your logic! “So men are 9x more likely to die from domestic violence and sexual assault cases, which is clearly what I was talking about? Please cite your sources.If you meant that men are more likely to die in war or from suicide, you’d be correct. And those are a result of the patriarchy *which feminists oppose*. Men are taught by the patriarchy [[I respond to this in a bit]] that only men are fit to serve on the front lines and that having depression or other mental health problems isn’t “manly”. It’s the bullshit construct of stereotypical gender roles that is hurting BOTH genders. The sooner we can fix the notion that anything “weak” is associated with only one gender, we can start ridding society from problems that stem from the strict adherence to “masculinity” and “femininity”.”But NO! Because feminism does not EVER acknowledge that some issues aren’t about them only.”I just provided arguments proving you’re wrong. Also, nice job ignoring my earlier point in which I stated that it was the feminists who fought to include male victims in the legal definition of rape.


  • Aron Ra Yes Andre, I am an atheist and a feminist, which means I acknowledge there are issues of gender inequality which should be addressed. Obviously there are other atheists who cannot address those issues since they won’t even admit they exist. So you can’t say atheists advocate equality, because that’s not true for all of us.  [[I would argue that this is 100% true for most of us.  However, we do not agree that saying “god bless you” is a form of street harassment: , we do not believe patriarchy is a group of rich white men who nefariously control everything: , and we do not believe that women are objects because Mario saves the princess .  Links provided in case any of these get called strawmen (and of course they will).  But because we don’t agree with “shitty ideas” that Aron says he’ll criticize – but then never does – we’ll be called anti-feminist.]]


  • Carly Anne Isn’t it interesting how – with out fail – anti-feminists fail to understand even the most basic concepts involved in feminism [[I *STILL* have not seen anyone speak out against any of the rights held by women, nor demonstrate a lack of understanding of the “most basic concepts”.]]

[[And here we go.  I got banned after these next 3 posts.  Tell me if you can see why.]]

Athena Brown Okay, awake now. There’s a HEWG amount that got said, although I’m 1,000% confident that no one went through my links and actually refuted what was there. I can say that before I even start.

I’ll be going

>> point
^^^ by
>> point

though will only address the main arguments so this doesn’t turn into The World’s Longest Post. May still need 2 posts though.

Lets start with Aron Ra

>> The standard definition of ‘religion’ is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. [[In response to my link Feminism Is A Religion]] I have discovered that do not include gods. However even then, every religion universally accepted as such is a faith-based belief system which includes the notion that some element of self, (be it conciousness, memories, a soul or spirit) will somehow transcend the death of the physical body and continue on. By ANY definiton, feminism is definitely positively not remotely similar to a religion.

^^^ Alrighty, 2 key points.

1 – You did not actually address the reason *WHY* I said Third Wave Feminism is a religion. I put forward the 5 sacred tenets held by Third Wavers that cannot be questioned, are accepted on faith despite all evidence, and defended against no matter what evidence comes forward.

2. You’re saying there is no other possible definition of religion; it absolutely must involve a form of self which survives death. Using Socratic Inquiry, we would immediately ask if it is possible to have a religion without that requirement.

However, according to

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.”

I’m going to put forth that a religion does not necessarily need a sense of self that survives death. What if a Theravada Buddhist believed that once you die, you’re dead, and thats it – but continued devoutly believing everything else about Buddhism? Does it stop being a religion?

But alright, lets say Third Wavism is not a religion by strictest definitions. What would we call it then? What word do you give something that has utterly no evidence, is accepted on faith alone, and is defended no matter what evidence comes forward?

I’ll accept “ritualized superstition” if you insist on calling it something besides religion.

Next point:

>> Jaline and Athena, you’re both showing a lot of projection.

^^^ I work in the field of mental health and psychology.. I don’t think you’re using the term “projection” properly here.

Projection would mean that Jaline or myself have some form of anxiety or cognitive dissonance that we are assigning to someone else because we don’t feel comfortable addressing it while being the subject.

Lets stick with the arguments being put forward about feminism, unless you’re qualified to psychologize our motivations.

>> Feminism also does not only focus on women’s rights; they advocate men’s rights too, and I can show multiple examples of that. [[In response to Evan, who said feminism is sexist because it only focuses on one gender]]

^^^ Would like to see a few examples of Third Wavers fighting for men’s rights, if you don’t mind. Also I will agree that feminism is not sexist for the reason that it focuses on women. The NAACP is not racist because it focuses on blacks. Focusing on the needs of only one demographic makes it a “special interest group”, and there’s nothing wrong with feminism doing this.

In fact, that’s why I founded 4th Wave Feminism.

>> Feminism has no faith-based beliefs, does not deny sexual dimorphism, and does not hate men.

^^^ Sir? Did you not even bother to click link I posted earlier? Or are you just being disingenuous?…/is-feminism-a-religion/

5 Sacred Beliefs are:

— Male privilege. I provided a substantial list of all male privileges that are claimed to exist, and demonstrated why they are not privileges, by definition.

— Objectification. I provided the full published report of Objectification Theory, as hosted by the American Psychiatric Association, and provided a point-by-point break down of why it’s wrong.

— Wage Gap. There are now more than 50 PEER REVIEWED STUDIES demonstrating that it is **NOT** caused by sexism, yet Third Wavers maintain that it is. If a creationist did this, you’d give them an intellectual smack-down and call it a Foundational Falsehood.

— Patriarchy. I have 2 posts (both are linked later in this post) that refute patriarchy in step by step fashion.

— Rape Culture. I have a FIVE PART SERIES that exhaustively addresses each and every individual point, with sources cited from the US Department of Justice and other peer reviewed sources.

None of these have evidence. They are all accepted on bind faith. Again, if a Creationist tried this, you’d be all over them like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in Nazi Germany during a KKK meeting.


  • Athena Brown Okay, now for Hay Seed>> Okay Mike. I’ll try to unpack this for you. Again. The shirt, in context, was inappropriate. It was a mindless, inconsiderate move and i mean that literally. [[In regards to the shirt a scientist wore, which had women on it – said in another part of the discussion that wasn’t copied over to here]]

    ^^^ Here we see that men have to carefully consider what shirts they wear so they don’t offend women.Women can wear “I BATHE IN MALE TEARS” – and that’s perfectly 100% fine.And yet…. women are the ones who are oppressed, while men are privileged.>> Okay. You might not like to read this, but I don’t think your article supports your point quite as much as you think it does. [[And then posted a link to “Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science”, which shows how women are under-represented in the fields of science.]]

    ^^^ That’s because women choose not to enter into those fields of science. Think about it for a second. What’s stopping them?What’s preventing a woman from being a biologist? She signs up for college, and someone laughs at her and refuses to let her join because she’s a woman?

    She graduates, has a degree, but when she applies for jobs people laugh and wont hire her because she’s a woman?

    It’s strange that whenever men face such opposition, they’re expected to brave the storm, fight the good fight, and come out on top despite any social pressure. But whenever women face even the slightest obstacle, SOCIETY NEEDS TO CHANGE. If you apply once for a job and someone doesn’t hire you – sexism!

    As a man, I applied for over 200 jobs and heard nothing back. Sexism was never considered a cause. It was always “You’re just not trying hard enough”.

    As a woman, each time I apply to any company anywhere now, if I’m not hired, I always hear someone saying it’s because of my gender. It can’t ever be that I wasn’t picked because another candidate was more qualified.

    ……… and yet women are oppressed, and men are privileged.

    Dan Knype

    >> The proof is in the places where feminism is silent. ESPECIALLY in those areas where they are shouting on behalf of women, even when the issues equally affect men, or in some cases affect men more.

    ^^^ You raise a very good point.

    As stated earlier, Feminism works fine as a special interests group for women. It doesn’t need to include addressing men’s problems. However, you’re 100% right that we should at the very least *acknowledge* those issues you mentioned that men face.

    Most studies show that men face domestic violence just as often as women, yet when it happens to men, they get laughed at, and many agencies refuse to help them (I can post links to the studies if anyone wants). This should be acknowledged and validated, rather than dismissed with an eye roll because you’re a man, not a woman, and no one cares.

    Jessica de Bruin

    >> If you meant that men are more likely to die in war or from suicide, you’d be correct. And those are a result of the patriarchy *which feminists oppose*.

    ^^^ First, there is no such thing as patriarchy in the US


    Second, suicides are not caused “because penis”. They’re often crisis driven, and happen when the individual experiences a greater level of distress than they are able to cope.

    Wars are not caused “because penis”. They often have multiple direct and indirect factors which span across a spectrum of socio-economic causes.

    As I stated in my earlier link, the purpose of patriarchy (specificallly, it’s use by Third Wavers) is simply to reinterpret everything that happens in the world as a way of blaming men.

    That covers the bulk of what was said. Gotta go to work. Will be back later.


  • Aron Ra Well Athena, I did refute your false allegation that feminism is a religion.


Athena Brown ^^^ And I did answer your refutation.

Lets go ahead and say it’s not a religion then. It’s a faith based system of unfounded superstition, or whatever similar thing you want to call it.  [[This is the last time I got to post.  Aron decided to block me after this.]]

[[Yet, Aron responded later with the following]]

  • Aron Ra Eric, you’re proving my point, that anti-feminists can’;t even demonstrate understanding of the issues, and that’s why they can’t adequately criticize the movement as a whole.  [[Proudly demonstrating that he is going to ignore everything anyone has said thus far under the banner of “You don’t understand”.]]


Aron continues on for a while with the following arguments.

— You can’t support gender equality and deny exaggerated claims that Third Wavers make, because – without examination – all of those claims are true (he never actually addresses any of the claims to show WHY they’re true, or answer detractors when they point out right in front of them how and why they’re wrong)

— Feminism isn’t a religion because it doesn’t have a God, and you have to have a god for it to be a religion.

— If you don’t agree with Aron’s position, you’re an anti-feminist. Also, you’re projecting (a term he keeps using wrong even after I explained it to him).

— There is no 1st Wave, 2nd Wave, 3rd Wave, or 4th Waves of “feminism”.  They don’t exist.  Feminism is Feminism. It doesn’t matter that the differences between them are taught by accredited universities; according to Aron, they’re all the same thing, and feminism only ever means “equality for women” and nothing else, no matter what.

— If a man sleeps around, he’s a “player”. If a woman sleeps around, she’s a “slut”. This is proof of 1. male privilege, and 2. the need for equality.  This is about the only issue I’ve seen actually explained by Aron concerning women’s rights (he later goes on to admit he doesn’t know who Anita Sarkesian is, but make no mistake – it’s everyone else who doesn’t understand the issues).

But before I move on, Jessica de Bruin finally did come back to answer my post above.  Of course I was blocked and couldn’t answer her.

Because I don’t resort to censorship as a tactic, and because my position can withstand any level of scrutiny, I want to give her a voice here.  If you’re reading this Jessica, and you want to continue the discussion in the comments section below, rest assured your comments will be accepted.  This goes for absolutely everyone.  Just know that you will be responded to with facts and evidence, and nearly everyone who’s tried to engage me so far this way has either rage-quit, or resorted to blocking / banning me, the same way Aron did.


  • Jessica de Bruin Athena Brown: You claim you addressed the “bulk” of my arguments when in fact you didn’t address even one. You just made up strawman arguments that are nowhere close to what I even said and called the matter settled.”Wars are not caused ‘because penis’?” “Suicide is not caused ‘because penis’?” Whaaaa? When did I say anything remotely like this?  [[This is what the claim of patriarchy generally is.  You’re saying men are in charge only because they are men, and not because of merit or any other cause.  It boils down to literally “because penis”.]]What I *actually* said was this: the patriarchy is responsible for creating an atmosphere in which men, and only men, are expected to join wars simply because that’s supposedly “being a man” and “not being a bitch”. [[I posted not one, but two links prior, that exhaustively covers all these points.  She apparently decided not to click on them, which seems to be a common Third Waver tactic.]] Because women (aka “bitches”) are perceived as weak and in need of protection and coddling, society has collectively decided that armies should primarily consist of men. [[That, or men cannot stand the thought of their mothers and daughters being bayoneted and machine gunned.  In a patriarchy.  Where men are valued and women are worthless.]] This is BAD. This is WRONG.  If such a thing as the draft must exist, then it should exist for BOTH men and women. Guess what? Feminists are the ones who have been fighting to make that a reality. The people who support the patriarchy – aka the upholding of traditional gender roles – have resisted making the army equal at every turn because they still cling to the notion that men should be one way and women should be another way.  [[And why would a system controlled by men, for men, and against women – constantly hurt men and help women?  I mean think about this.  If you found a society supposedly controlled by any other group – lets say Jews for example – and that society constantly hurt Jews and helped every other group, why would that happen?  Why would a government controlled by Jews have The Department for Violence Against Palestinians – AND NOT a similar department protecting Jews?  Unless that group *wasn’t* controlled by Jews, and all the observations you’re pointing to had naturalistic explanations.]]  As for suicide, the same rigid adherence to traditional gender roles (aka the patriarchy, since you seem to have trouble understanding what it means) makes men less likely to seek help when they are depressed and suicidal, because they feel like they just need to “man up” and solve their problems on their own.  [[And you’re absolutely 100% positive that such gender roles COULD NOT have evolved out of survival oriented behaviors in early human societies?  And that they absolutely *MUST* have been handed down by a secret society of rich white men who decided that white men must carry such a horrible punishments… for what purpose?  What possible benefit do these shadowy untouchable conspiratorial rich white men get from pressing their buttons, throwing their switches, and creating a society that acts this way?  Unless there is no secret group of rich white guys, and all the observations you’re pointing to have naturalistic explanations.]] They are also more likely to seek out more effective means to killing themselves (like shooting or hanging) compared to women, because men are taught that being a man should be all about strength and determination and willpower. In other words, suicidal women more often use suicide attempts are a cry for help, while men are taught that crying for help is unacceptable.This is why your claim that the patriarchy doesn’t exist is laughable. The patriarchy doesn’t have to manifest in the same extreme ways as in , say, Saudi-Arabia in order to exist. Just like you can have Westboro Baptist Christians and ultra-liberal, “Jesus was a hippie” Christians  [[Ironic statement, because patriarchy works just like creationism (which is why we call it a religion); any result or observation can only ever be interpreted in just one per-determined way.  The Recurrent laryngeal nerve in the neck of the giraffe only needs to be 2 inches long – yet it goes all the way down the neck, from the brain, wraps around the aorta, and comes all the way back up through the neck to the larynx, a process perfectly explained by evolution.  But it can’t be evolution because GOD JUST WANTED IT TO BE THAT WAY!!!!!11111111oneone.  Similarly, gender roles make perfect sense from the stand point of societal evolution and paleo-ecology, but that can’t be it because THE RICH WHITE MEN JUST WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY.]] The patriarchy can manifest in both subtle and violent ways. Both forms exist in today’s America.  [[God’s creations can manifest themselves in subtle and violent ways, so we can always say “God did it” or in this case, “Patriarchy does it”, and ignore all the obvious contradictions.  And if anyone disagrees, it’s only because they’re a sinner / anti-feminist.  And you wonder why this is called a religion.]]


And that’s it for this post.

Part 2 will be Jaline’s episode.