4th Wavers Has Moved

Hello everyone!

4th Wavers has moved.  This site will remain where it is, but all content has been transferred over to www.4thwavers.net , and that’s where all new content will be posted from now on.

As you can see, it’s a major upgrade from what we have here.  And that’s where we’ll be from now on.  If you’d like to continue linking 4th Wave material, it’s best to do it from the other site so that one gets more traffic.  I’ll eventually post up a Patreon, possibly a chat box, and some other stuff.

That’s all.  See you over there, and bye from here!


Donald Trump, Sexism, and Racism – A Reply To Literally Every Accusation

This will be perhaps the most ambitious project I’ve ever taken on.  I plan to respond to literally every accusation against Donald Trump regarding sexism or racism that can be found in popular media.

The reason I’m doing this?  It’s simple.  It’s because despite the media spin, there have never been any examples of Donald Trump being either racist or sexist, and yes that includes the whole “Mexicans are Rapists” thing.  This post will respond to every accusation, including that one, so sit tight.  Basically, I’m tired of hearing people use as the only reason they aren’t voting for Trump is that “he’s racist and sexist”.  We’re going to settle this once and for all.  At the end of this post, if you still believe Trump is either of those things, it will be only because you simply want to believe, and for no other reason.

To be clear, there *are* legitimate arguments against Trump.  But him being sexist or racist simply aren’t among them, and it’s only those accusations specifically that I’ll be answering.

For the SJWs and 3rd Wavers among you, please feel free to close this window and run away to your safe spaces.  And yes that’s hyperlinked to an actual example reported by the Washington Post, so it’s not just hyperbole.  I’ve had over 100 former friends block me on social media over the last few weeks, many of which I personally helped care for in real life, and I’m still seeing bullshit posts like “If you are voting for Trump / Hillary, please unfriend me”.  Only a handful of LGBT people are still connect with.  That number will probably reduce further after this post, as I don’t expect this nonsense to end anytime soon.  But someone needs to step up and be the voice of reason in an ocean of Buzzfeed and Vox clickbait.

And before we really get into it, we need to define our terms, as we always do on 4th Wavers.

racist definitionThis is essentially the definition used by Martin Luthor King Jr in describing it as “judging by content of character rather than by colour of skin”, with the context of this statement being explained in a speech that is now part of the American identity.  It is not the ridiculous notion of including a “power structure” where whites are automatically racist and blacks simply can’t be due to their being more whites in the country (the US population is only 10% black).  This is obviously an attempt to excuse all black racism.  Clearly, if I took a plane to Nigeria tomorrow, I would both be the minority, and would lack access to a “power structure”.  Does that mean I can walk around using the “N word” and every other racist lingo that comes to mind, seeing as how I’m the minority, without a power structure, and therefore can’t be racist?  Yea, no – we’re using the definition seen above.

Moving on…

sexist definitionI find it particularly ironic that the definition of sexism involves some level of sexism.  Why are women considered more important in the definition itself?  Isn’t that an example of sexism?  Aren’t men and women equal?

Either way, this is the definition of sexism we’re using.  If Donald Trump is rude to most men, he’s not sexist for being rude to a woman, for the reason that he did not discriminate based on gender.  If Trump refuses to hire a woman because she doesn’t have the qualifications, that again isn’t sexism.  If he refuses to hire her because she’s a woman – that’s exactly what sexism means.  We’re going to be referring back to the definition of sexism a lot, as liberals have it to where literally everything a man says to a woman that isn’t apologizing for his existence is somehow a form of sexism.  Tell a woman to shut up?  Sexism!  Tell a man to shut up?  No one cares.  Open a door for a woman?  Sexism!  Do you also open doors for men?  Yea doesn’t matter.  Tell a woman she’s beautiful?  Benign sexism!  Tell a man he’s beautiful?  Hopefully you’re seeing a pattern here.  Sexism is rough treatment of a woman because she is a woman.  Telling a woman she’s a bitch isn’t sexist if she’s actually being a bitch.

In short, one of the quickest and easiest tools for determining if something is sexist is to simply change male and female roles.  If a woman said this to a man, would it still be sexist?  If the answer is no (because it’s not discrimination based on gender), then it was never sexist to begin with.

Now, as for the format of this post, I thought about whether it should be divided into parts, or I should follow in the true spirit of the subject matter and make it HUUUUUUUUGE.  I’ve decided to go with the latter, so to keep some order and make this easier to navigate, here’s how we’ll do it: hit ctrl + f on your keyboard right now, then copy paste one of the lines below into the search bar on the bottom of your screen.  It should take you to the section where that particular set is answered.  Each section will include at least one mainstream source on the accusation so we can review what was actually said according to the source.  I have someone in the process of remaking 4th Wavers so it has a more modern format, but for now, that’s how we’ll do it.

So here’s the table of contents.  ctrl + f to get to them.  The first two featured:

— Mexicans are rapists (starting with this one since it’s the most popular)

— “When I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof” (featured image is here if that’s what you came for.)

— When he belittled his wife / “negotiable assets” remark
— When he called women ‘beautiful pieces of ass’
— When he said all women are goldiggers
— When he said he was irresistible to women
— When he told a woman she’d ‘make a great wife’
— When he cracked an incest gag
— When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part one
— When he compared women to architecture
— When he called Angelina ‘not beautiful’
— When he pitched ‘Lady or a Tramp?’
— When he called Anne Hathaway a goldigger
— ‘The Trump rule’
— When he asked men to rate women
— When he called breastfeeding ‘disgusting’
— When he called a female journalist a ‘dog’
— When he joked about his penis
— When he criticised Cher
— When he insulted Arianna Huffington
— When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part two
— When he made an oral sex joke
— When he blammed sex assault on cohabitation
— When he did a u-turn on abortion
— When he called Arianna Huffington ugly part two
— When he said Hillary couldn’t ‘satisfy’.
— When he used the word ‘bimbo’
— When he called Heidi Klum fat.
— When he insulted Carly Fiorina
— When he insulted Fiorina part two
— When he said abortion was ‘punishable’
— When he called clinton an ‘enabler’
— When he ‘apologized’ to Megyn Kelly
— That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist.
— That women have a “great act going on to trick men.
— That Bette Midler’s “ugly face and body” are offensive.
— That the best line in any movie is this beautiful gem.
— That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful.

— The Justice Department sued his company — twice — for not renting to black people
— Discrimination against black people has been a pattern in his career
— He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him
— He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States
— He treats racial groups as monoliths
— He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment
— He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester
— He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”
— He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic meme
— Laziness is a Trait in Blacks


1. Mexicans are rapists

Source: watch here / read and watch here.

Trump actually makes a pretty good case if you click the “read and watch” link above, which takes you to the Washington Post article.  The exact quote:

>> “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you.”

^^^ Straight off, he’s not talking about all Mexicans.  He’s only talking about the ones coming here illegally. Further, he’s acknowledging that Mexico has “their best” – which includes people in the crowd that day.  He did not say “Mexicans are rapists”.

>> “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

^^^ Again, where in that statement do you see any indication that “All Mexicans are rapists”?

He said:

1. There are rapists in Mexico.


2. Those rapists are coming to the US.  And Trump even quoted a Fusion investigation which found that 80% of women coming to the US from Mexico end up getting raped, by – guess who – rapists, who happen to live in Mexico.

Now to be fair, he did say “Mexico is SENDING” – and maybe I’m reading this differently than most – but it’s clear that an uneven economic situation currently exists that has people in Mexico wanting to come to the US.  It’s also clear that people in poverty commit more crime, and are more desperate to get away from their situations – as such, trying to get into the US.  This creates a situation where rapist may indeed be among those coming to the US, which is not at all unreasonable, and is exactly what Trump pointed out.

Again, he did not say “Mexicans are rapists”, or did he intend or imply that.


2. “When I come home and dinners not ready, I go through the roof”

Source: here.

This one comes from a 1994 interview, and the quote is exactly as it sounds: two people in a heterosexual, consensual relationship, have agreed to take on their respective gender roles and expectations, and one of them doesn’t come through on their side of the agreement, then it’s somehow sexist to call them on it.

But remember, if Trump – taking the traditional male role – didn’t feel like going out and getting a job and wanted to lay around the house all day – then it wouldn’t be sexist AT ALL for his wife to kick his ass for it, right?  He needs to stop being lazy and provide for his family, right?  Not so much because “that’s what men do” – but that’s what he agreed to in this relationship.  His wife at the time, Marla, was a grown woman, and despite what 3rd Wave feminist might think, she is an adult, who is responsible for her own decisions.  She married Trump and stayed with him for 6 years.  Marla was an actress and TV personality, so there was no discernible economic duress that kept her in this relationship.

Believe it or not, some women like being womanly, and enjoy traditional female roles.  There’s nothing sexist about that.  And if I, as a woman, want to be a homemaker, then I have responsibilities to that effect.  I can’t just lay around whenever I want while someone else pays the bills and expect them to be totally okay with it.  Now if I don’t want to be a homemaker – I don’t have to be!  I’m an adult.  It’s a personal choice.  She chose to stay married to him for 6 years.

This argument is particularly strange as it comes from liberals, who will maintain that THIS:

BDSM^ Is 100% PERFECTLY NORMAL in the home, and should totally be respected – and in fact you’re oppressing LGBT rights somehow if you don’t agree.

………. and they would of course have a very reasonable point.  What two people do in their own home, as long as it’s consensual, is entirely okay.

Except if you want dinner on the table.  I mean, that’s just completely across the line.  How dare you.  Sexist!


3. When he belittled his wife / “negotiable assets” remark

Source: Here and here.  You can see the full story with the original quote here.

Not much to say on this one.  Trump reportedly said: “I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?”

Remember our sexist test?  Switch it around, and imagine a woman saying this to a man.  3rd Wavers would jump up on the chance to remind everyone that women do not owe you their time, money, or assets, and that if a man wants his own jewelry there’s no reason he can’t get a job and buy his own.  For sure this does make Trump sound rather cold… if I were married, I’d sorta *want* to give my wife stuff… but hey, you don’t have to, and it’s on Ivanna to know the person she’s getting married to before she marries him, then take the good with the bad, for better or worse.  Again, if we switch the genders around, the man would be seen as a leech who’s only married to a “sugar mama” for free stuff.


4. When he called women ‘beautiful pieces of ass’

Source: here and here.

The exact quote is: “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

Lets use our sexist test!  Switch it around.  A woman is saying this about a man.  Still sexist?  Are you going to tell me that I, as a woman, am not allowed to express my sexual interest in a man?  Of course not – that would be sexist.  I’m an independent woman and I can growl when I see a hot muscular man take his shirt off in this July heat we’re having.  With his muscles all glistening in the sun.  For some reason that’s totally okay.

But turn this around, and somehow it’s sexist.  Sure.  Remember that definition by the way?  “Sexist” means “discrimination against women”.  So wtf is a man supposed to do?  Say the same exact thing about other men so he doesn’t discriminate???


5. When he said all women are goldiggers

Source: here and here.

This claim is a bit strange… because the example they use doesn’t say anything like this.

Here’s the exact quote:

“There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle [aww, how sweet]. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else [if that’s your opinion]. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp [yea, there are women out there who are like that.  Hell every woman I know will vouch for me on this one – we *all* have met someone exactly like this at one point]. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her [right, but I don’t think this excludes that she might also be signing because she loves you like the first woman does].”

^^^ Trump here is pointing out the cruel reality that *some* women definitely are after money.  But he very clearly points out with his first example that *not* all women are like that.  Some women do love you.  He flat out says that.

This kinda reminds me of that scene from Star Trek where Picard is told that there are 5 lights when there aren’t.  You’re expected to disbelieve the very thing that is right there in front of you, and believe what you are told.


6. When he said he was irresistible to women

Source: Here.

The exact quote: “all of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me – consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected”.

^^^ Really?  Saying women flirt with you is sexist?  I mean… okay, what if women actually did flirt with him?  Then what?  He has to lie about it?

Why the hell is this even included on the list???  It’s not even worth using the Sexist Test where we flip it around.  If a woman said men flirted with her and “that’s to be expected”…. well… YEA!  Thank you Captain Obvious!  But sure this is somehow sexist.


7. When he told a woman she’d ‘make a great wife’

Source: Here.

I’ll admit, I was already rolling my eyes just as soon as I copy-pasted this from the table of contents above, wondering in what POSSIBLE context telling someone this could EVER be sexist.  And now let me click over to the other tab to find out.

From the link: According to one woman who appeared on the show, Trump told her: “I bet you make a great wife”.

^^^ …………………………………… th….. that’s it?

He….. he told her.  That.  She’d make a great wife.  That’s it.  Nothing else.

reaction23Okay.  If you say so.  I’m not even sure how this could ever *possibly* be discriminatory towards women, since a man generally wouldn’t be a wife, but rather would be a “husband”, even if he married another man.  So a woman is able to become a wife, and most women actually do want to fall in love and settle down one day.  But yea.  I have a feeling I’m gonna end up with a headache trying to understand some of these.


8. When he cracked an incest gag

Source: Here

>> According to ABC News, back in 2006 Trump said “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

>> A spokesman later said it was a ‘joke’.

^^^ The title of this article is “Trump Sexism Tracker”.  They keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.

If your daughter were not your daughter, then you would not know her to be your daughter.  You wouldn’t have *any* of the memories you currently have of her.  This would be another universe where the two of you had never met, and she would not be related to you.

Alright moving on this one isn’t even worth spending time on.  There’s nothing here that is discriminatory towards women on the basis of gender, which is the definition of sexism.


9. When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part one

Source: Here.

>> “Rosie O’Donnell is disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she’s a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I’d fire Rosie. I’d look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’

^^^ Okay, first… you say you don’t like a single woman, and that makes you sexist towards all women?  I mean it’s okay to not like one single woman.  I’m not a huge fan of Sarah Palin, and I’ve said some rough things about her before.  Come to think of it… and I’m just throwing this out there… I’m willing to bet that if Trump had said the same exact thing about Palin?  Probably wouldn’t have made the list.  Hell he’d be consider a hero for having said that!

The definition of “sexism” being used for this list seems to include criticism of absolutely anyone who the left admires.  You’re not allowed to call Rosie fat.  But you’re absolutely allowed – and encouraged – to call Sarah Palin stupid and Ann Coulter ugly.  That’s not sexist at all!


10. When he compared women to architecture

Source: Here.

God… I can’t believe I’ve been on this for hours and I’m only up to number 10.  And this is mostly from just one source.  What have I gotten myself into…. the stupid is starting to hurt…

From the link:

>> “Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.”

>> At least our beauty isn’t superficial, eh ladies?

^^^ Right.  Remember way up there in the introduction, where I pointed this out?  Telling a woman she’s beautiful is sexist.  Telling her she’s ugly is sexist.  Holding a door open is sexist.  NOT holding a door open is sexist.  Basically, if you’re white, cis-gender, and male, and you’re doing something – it’s sexist.

The man is even saying, verbatim, that beauty and elegance is *not* just superficial, but it’s still somehow sexist.  I mean there’s an entire branch of philosophy called aesthetics: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_aesthetics.html

From the link:

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and appreciation of art, beauty and good taste. It has also been defined as “critical reflection on art, culture and nature”. The word “aesthetics” derives from the Greek “aisthetikos”, meaning “of sense perception”. Along with Ethics, aesthetics is part of axiology (the study of values and value judgements).

^ Yes, that’s right.  Even philosophy itself is sexist now.  And you have nothing to lose but your chains (cuz you already lost your friggen mind).


11. When he called Angelina ‘not beautiful’ / That Angelina Jolie has dated too many guys to be attractive.

Source here and here, respectively.

The first one:

>> “I really understand beauty. And I will tell you, she’s not—I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she’s not”.

^^^ We **JUST SAID** in the previous one of these that saying women are beautiful, and beauty is not superficial, WAS SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you’re saying that when a woman ISN’T beautiful, that too is sexist????

Okay so men just CANNOT SPEAK!  I was joking earlier about anything a man says is sexist but god friggen dammit!  This is clearly not a joke!  If Angelina is beautiful, that’s literally a sexist statement – and if she’s not beautiful, THAT’S ALSO somehow a sexist statement!!!

And from the second link:

>> “[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby… And, I just don’t even find her attractive,”

^^^ I’m kind of wondering which part of that is *supposed* to be sexist… the part where he doesn’t find her attractive?  Or the part where she’s been with a lot of guys?  But at this point I’m starting to wonder if each and every word of this sentence isn’t somehow sexist.  Like…. linking verbs and shit.  Your prepositions and adjectives be oppressing me!  STOP OPPRESSING ME, PARTS OF SPEECH!!!  Why is grammar so sexist??? WHY???

God I’m starting to lose my mind and we’re only at 11.  This post started out as a response to accusations of Trump’s sexism.  It instead will be the documented process of Athena slowly losing her mind.


12. When he pitched ‘Lady or a Tramp?’

Source: Here.

At this point, I’m kind of torn.  These are getting more and more ridiculous, yet I don’t want to leave them out and unanswered.  Here’s the actual quote from the link:

—– —–
Yes, really. This was reported to be a reality show, in which ‘out of control’ party girls were sent to charm school to learn some manners.
—– —–

Isn’t one of the most common arguments against Trump being that he doesn’t have “presidential demeanor”?  That he’s a loud mouth without manners?  Who’s constantly rude and doesn’t care how others feel?

………… but if you want to send a *WOMAN* who fits that very description to charm school so she can learn to not be that way…. that’s sexist.

In fact, lets look at just how incredible this double standard is. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-harrow/relationships-charm-schoo_b_577959.html .

From the link:

—– —–
How many of you gals out there would like to send the men you meet trying to find Mr. Right to charm school? Imagine that those men learned how to really look at you and listen. Their bachelor pad had all the comforts a girl could want. This is not some pie in the sky dream. You may be meeting a man near you who is skilled in the art of seduction, love, conversation and who can possibly even make a mean pasta pomodoro.
—– —–

^ But Trump suggesting this exact same thing for women?  Sexist.


13. When he called Anne Hathaway a goldigger

Source: Here.

Just as it sounds, Trump is quoted as saying: “So when he had plenty of money, she liked him. But then after that, not as good, right?”

Well I don’t know.  Lets ask Anne F*ing Hathaway what she thinks.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/8206954/Anne-Hathaway-That-was-a-bad-relationship.html – from the link: “‘Goodness, it was a bad relationship,’ she says softly. ‘It was an embarrassing break-up, but what I went through is not that big a deal compared to what many people go through.’ “.

So, yes.  That appears to be an accurate description.  And also her husband was arrested for money laundering, so the reason behind him not having money anymore seems rather important.  Pretty damn reasonable decision, not something I would call being a “golddigger” – and note that Trump never used that word.  Probably because finding out your love interest has laundered his fortunes, and then not wanting to be with him because of that, doesn’t make you a golddigger (except according to The Telegraph, apparently).


14. ‘The Trump rule’

Source: Here.

Sigh…. okay.  What’s it gonna be this time?  He’s sexist because his name is Trump?  He made a rule once, and now he’s sexist?  I’m answering these as I read them.  They’re so fallacious that most of them require literally no research.

From the link:

—– ——
Beauty queen Carrie Prejean wrote about the ‘Trump rule’ in her book, referring to the Miss USA pageant, of which Trump is co-owner. She claimed that the billionaire had the girls parade in front of him, so he could separate those he found attractive from those he didn’t.

She wrote: “Many of the girls found this exercise humiliating. Some of the girls were sobbing backstage after [he] left, devastated to have failed even before the competition really began . . . it was as though we had been stripped bare.”
—– —–

^ Oh god I was actually right.  Trump literally “did something”… so he’s sexist.

Okay look, you are at The Miss USA pageant.  This is a beauty contest!  You are being judged based on how beautiful you are!!  You don’t want to be judged that way?  Then DON’T BE IN THE CONTEST!!!  Trump being one of the judges doesn’t make him sexist.  You being offended that you’re not pretty enough – in a beauty contest – makes you an idiot.  That’s like me not lifting the most in a bench press contest then being sad and offended that I didn’t win and then claiming you were being sexist.


15. When he asked men to rate women

Source: Here.

From link: “Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy claimed: “So much of the boardroom discussion concerned the appearance of the female contestants—discussing the female contestants’ looks—who he found to be hot.”

^^^ It’s.  Called.  A.



What part of this concept eludes you???  Why are you even in the contest if you don’t want to be judged on your looks???


16. When he called breastfeeding ‘disgusting’

Feminism actual issue breast feeding

Pretty legitimate point, actually.

Source: Here.

From the link:

—– —–
Trump was in court testifying in a deposition over a failed Florida real estate project, when lawyer Elizabeth Beck asked to take a break to breastfeed her three-month old daughter.

Trump and his team objected, so she pulled out her breast pump to prove it. In an incident that the Republican presidential candidate ‘does not dispute’, he walked out of the room, telling Beck she was ‘disgusting’.
—– —–

Yea, 2 things.

First, I’m personally 100% with breast feeding in public, and have always kinda scratched my head when folks raise a fuss about it.  I don’t see the big deal.  But apparently, there’s this idea that it’s just not an appropriate thing to do in public.  That’s not a gender thing, it’s not a sexist thing – in Louisiana, wearing your hat indoors is considered inappropriate, and I remember folks getting yelled at for it when I was growing up there as a teenager.  Why is it so important?  No idea.  It’s just one of those things that culture says we shouldn’t do.

That’s probably why Bill Mahar, who’s an icon to the left, also thinks it’s disgusting.  (And just an aside, there is actually a good deal of debate over whether breast feeding is better than bottles anyway.)

Second, a pattern is beginning to emerge here.  Trump never actually said she was disgusting for wanting to breast feed.  The man is in court, battling against someone who wants a recess when Trump doesn’t, and the judge rules in her favor.  I can imagine that’s probably the actual source of the remark, and had nothing to do with breast feeding.  But you’re just supposed to believe that anyway, because Trump is sexist.  And we know he says sexist things, because he’s sexist.  And we know he’s sexist because he says sexist things.


17. When he called a female journalist a ‘dog’

Source: Here and here.

Switch it around.  If he called a male journalist a ‘dog’… would it be sexist?  No?  Okay, moving on.


18. when he joked about his penis

Source: Here.

From the link:

—– —–
In 2012, transgender Miss Universe contestant Jenna Talackova was kicked out of the contest for not having declared her trans status in her entry (the pageant does now accept trans people). Talackova’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, angrily said that no one had asked Trump to ‘prove’ he was a man by showing his anatomy.

In response, Trump called in to TMZ Live and said of his penis: “I think Gloria would be very impressed”.
—– —–

^^^ First, the issue surrounding trans people and our participation in public events is a brand new issue people are beginning to face, and along the way, we’re going to have to restructure some of the rules and administrative processes that were written with cis-people in mind.

What this little tid bit doesn’t mention is that it was, in fact, Donald Trump himself, who stepped in and reversed the decision to not allow Jenna to compete.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jenna-talackovas-miss-universe-canada-bid-could-be-back-on-after-donald-trump-steps-in – the title of this URL says it all.  From the link:

—– —–
“As long as she meets the standards of legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, which we understand that she does, Jenna Talackova is free to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant,” said Michael Cohen, special counsel to Trump and executive vice president of his business group.

“Nobody is capitulating. Rather the Miss Universe organization is respecting the laws of Canada,” Cohen told Reuters, adding that she, “like all the other contestants, is wished the best of luck by Mr. Trump.
—— —–

^ Now it’s something how the Telegraph article forgot to mention *any* of that, and the only thing we heard was him Jenna being kicked out of the competition, and him making a joke about his penis.


19. When he criticised Cher

Source: Here and here.

Okay, so Cher insulted Trump’s hair.  In return, Trump brought up Cher’s plastic surgeries.

…… sorry Cher, but as the old saying goes, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.  If you’re expecting that you can trash talk him as much as you want, and he’ll just sit there and hang his head and take it, think again.  And there’s nothing here that’s sexist; Trump would fire back against anyone; man, woman, black, white, tall, short, fat, thin – anyone.


20. When he insulted Arianna Huffington

Source: Here.

Again, Trump very openly attacks just about anyone who goes up against him.  This is actually what makes him more honest.  If he doesn’t like you, he doesn’t smile and pretend that he does – he lets you and everyone else know in no uncertain terms, and he’ll change his tone as soon as you change yours.

Does that make him an asshole?  Probably.  But it doesn’t make him sexist or racist.  If you go up against Trump, no matter who you are, he’s coming right back at you.


21. When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part two

Source: Here.

I like how in order to make him seem sexist, we have to track down absolutely every woman he’s ever insulted – and noticeably absent are all the men he’s ever insulted.  They aren’t included in this list.  I wonder why.

As for his comment, he needs a trillion dollars before he’d make out with Rosie??  Hell I’d need at least 2 trillion!  (I’m a woman so I can say that and it’s not sexist.)


22. When he made an oral sex joke

Source: Here.

We’re up to 22 so far and not a single example of sexism or racism yet.  And now we’re referencing that one time he made a sex joke.

From the link:

—– —–
Former Playboy playmate Brande Roderick was a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice in the US. During a tense boardroom battle, she knelt in front of Trump – who takes the Alan Sugar role – to ask him whether she could be the next project manager.

After a six second silence (an eternity on TV), during which Trump presumably willed some blood to return to his head – he said: “It must be a pretty picture. You dropping to your knees”.
—– —–

First, this is a Playboy playmate.  I’m guessing she’s done a hell of a lot more than just get on her knees (I’m a woman so I can say that and it’s not sexist).  (Of course, it’s also not sexist because it’s 100% friggen true.)  You can see the joke here.

Second, you know what else you can see?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYtcaC8DEmc <– Not sexist for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtvXK8ni424 <– Not sexist for some reason, even though she’s very graphically describing things that would make any 3rd Waver froth at the mouth if a man said them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmzPp33kl7o <– Not sexist for some reason, though incredibly unfunny and banal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAX-r1jUHVM <– Not sexist for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOcb4ntJ8ps <– Not sexist for some reason.

And you know why none of those are considered sexist?  Scroll back up and read the definition of sexism.

Just think of Trump said *any* of the things the women in the above videos have said.  Imagine the media firestorm over how horrible, sexist, and misogynist he would be, for having dared say things that women say, on stage, and other women laugh about.  Tell me more about how male privilege lets men say whatever they want but oppresses women.


23. When he blamed sex assault on cohabitation

Source: Here.

From the link:

>> Rather than, say, questioning why so many assaults go unreported or why so few perpetrators are brought to justice.

^^^ If you’re interested in reading facts and figures from the Justice Department, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and other reputable sources regarding rape, you can see that here:

If you’d like to see the numbers regarding military cohabitation (copy pasted from the above link), in 1985, Charles P. McDowell conducted a study of 1,218 rape reports filed in the US Air Force.

false rape accusation 1800s

Taken from a newspaper in the late 1800s. False accusations are even seen in the bible; in Genesis 39: 7-18, Joseph goes through his own ordeal of being falsely accused, showing that people of the time were familiar with the concept. Thankfully today, we have “innocent until proven guilty” – a foundational principle of justice that 3rd Wavers of course find problematic.

Of these, 460 were found to be proven by legal standards, but 212 turned out to be false allegations. And this time, the accusers actually gave their reasons! 20% claimed they did it out of spite or revenge, another 20% claimed it was to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame, 13% said they thought they might be pregnant, 12% said it was to conceal a love affair, and the remaining had various other reasons. That’s a considerable amount of ruining someone’s life forever, and some pretty f*cked up reasons for doing it.

The link above provides numerous other case studies on women who file false charges, and provides some insight as to why.  Also according to the numbers, some 40% of rapists are women (sources provided in the link above), and one study found 95% of sexual assaults at one juvenile facility were carried out by female staff.

Rapes and sexual assaults account for only 0.43% of total crime in the US, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  We have one of the lowest rape and sexual assault rates in the world, even in the military.

Still, it’s an absolutely valid concern that men and women are going to cause drama if you put them in the same facilities together and do not lay down rules for governing behavior, expectations of professionalism, and related training.


24. When he did a u-turn on abortion

Source: Here.

Basically, Trump is pro-life, therefore he’s sexist.  Because you can’t be pro-life for any other reason, right?  And all pro-life people just secretly hate women, and have no other *possible* reason for being pro-life?

I’m thinking liberals see a list this long about Trump being sexist, then don’t actually bother to read it.  The headline agrees with what they want to think, and that’s all that matters.  The authors of these pieces understand this, and hence why so many of these are so whimsical and frivolous.


25. When he called Arianna Huffington ugly part two

Source: Here.

Call a woman ugly?  Sexist!

Say she’s beautiful, and that beauty is not superficial?  Sexist!

And remember, it’s only always ever the ones about calling women ugly – never the ones about men.  I’m guessing because it would somehow hurt the case for sexism if we acknowledged he calls men ugly since that’s not sexism, that’s social justice.

Also we’re literally using the *same* people we’ve already covered more than once just to make the list longer.


26. When he said Hillary couldn’t ‘satisfy’.

Source: Here and here.

Switch test.  If a woman said this about a man, still sexist?  If you want an even more thorough test, imagine Trump (or any other man) saying this about a man, or a woman saying this about another woman.  It has to remain sexist in all situations, or it was never sexist to begin with.

Also, does anyone from Oregon remember Monica Wehby?  You can read a little about her story here.  I was actually working for the Democratic Party of Portland during the time of her campaign, and was on the phones trying to get democratic candidates re-elected.  It was during this time that I saw just how much the left was gleefully dragging this woman’s name through the mud over her divorce.  Even at that time, as an ardent democrat,  kept thinking that this was a sensitive part of her personal life that shouldn’t be messed with – and how our side would hit the roof if a republican did this to one of our people.  And no one on the left ever called out anyone on the left when it came to attacking Monica.  It was never seen as “sexist”.

I’m sure I could dig up a half dozen more instances of the left doing this, like making fun of Sarah Palin’s kids, or Anne Coulter’s looks, as we’ve already covered.

Attacking Hillary’s personal life with Bill is a normal part of the mud slinging that goes with any political election.  Both the left and right do it, because it has an effect and it does work to sway voters.  But it’s not sexist.


27. When he used the word ‘bimbo’

Source: Here.

He insulted Megan Kelly by calling her a bimbo.

Here’s a list of 250 insults from Trump against various people, places, things, cats, dogs, goldfish, you name it.  Tell me again how you’re a special little snowflake because Trump called you a name.  Or how calling you a name, because you have The Legendary Vagina, gives Trump a special status; because he’s no longer just a name caller, he’s how A SEXIST!


28. When he called Heidi Klum fat

Source: Here.

Actually no.  He didn’t call her fat.

From this very source, immediately under that claim:

“In an interview with the New York Times, Trump said of the German supermodel: “Heidi Klum. Sadly, she’s no longer a 10.”

^ Saying you’re no longer a 10 is not the same as calling someone fat.  Plus, remember our switch test – is calling a man fat considered sexist?  No?  Then it’s not sexist.


29. When he insulted Carly Fiorina

Human suits itchy Carly and Ted

To the person on the left, this is sexist. To the person on the right, it’s not. Because that’s how sexism works.

Source: Here.

From the link:

—– —–
Fiorina is the former Hewlett Packard boss and Trump’s Republican candidate rival. According to Rolling Stone, he said: “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?
—– —–


^^^ Damn, attacking the way someone looks in a presidential race.  That’s just awful.

https://img.ifcdn.com/images/3592a40f94f14fc8717417c884d139f87395e05dcfd69099ab4f78ca74f9d117_1.jpg <– Not sexist.

http://pocho.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/trumphairdresser.jpg <– Not sexist.

http://mexlol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Trump-Mexico-meme-wants-to-control-the-country-cant-even-control-his-hair.png <– Not sexist.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/400/img/photos/2015/07/13/52/c4/trumpcat.jpg <– Not sexist.

http://ladmansion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Caterpillar_2015-06-19_21-15-13-589×391.jpg <– Not sexist.

I’ll agree entirely that attacking Carly on her looks was unnecessary, especially when there’s two dozen other points freely available that Trump have referred to.  But no, this is not sexist.


30. When he insulted Fiorina part two

Source: Here.

Wow, part 2?  They released the sequel so early!

>> His comment – “Why does she keep interrupting everybody?” – was immediately called sexist on social media.

^^^ I don’t know.  Maybe cuz………. she was interrupting everybody?

Please don’t pretend that this suddenly wouldn’t be sexist if Trump had only mentioned another person who was interrupting who didn’t have The Legendary Vagina.


31. When he said abortion was ‘punishable’

Source: Here.

This again, huh?  We’ve done abortion already.  But yea lets do it again.

>> Trump caused mass outage after advocating “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if the practise is banned (which it likely will be if he gets his way).

^^^ Wow.  Punishing someone for breaking the law.  How sexist can you get?

And don’t get it twisted – abortion is one of those things I don’t completely agree with the GOP on.  I think early term abortions should be okay.  Only your most fanatical 3rd Waver rad-fem would support having an abortion one day before the due date, demonstrating that most reasonable people are indeed somewhat pro-life.

But no matter where you stand on this issue, pro-life does not = sexist.  And neither does wanting to enforce the law.  If abortion is illegal, and you have an abortion, you broke the law.


32. When he called Clinton an ‘enabler’

Source: Here.

>> At a rally, he said: “Bill Clinton was the worst in history and I have to listen to her talking about it?” he said in Eugene, Oregon. “Just remember this: She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler.

^^^ Again, ripping on someone’s personal life when you don’t know the full reality of what’s going on with them.  It’s also not really an effective counter argument, though it would appeal to folks who are already against Hillary, as mud-slinging typically does.  But how is this “sexist”?


33. When he ‘apologized’ to Megyn Kelly

Source: Here.

He supposedly botched the “apology” by saying: “Over your life, Megyn, you’ve been called a lot worse, wouldn’t you say?”

Yea, not sexist.  Moving on.

Also, we are finally done with that source!  Thank god, I thought that would never end.


34. That women on “The Apprentice” need to rely on sex appeal.

Source: Here.

I’m actually using the ctrl + F method now to determine if I’ve already covered this one.  It’s coming off a source that overlapped a lot with the one we just finished with.

Anyway, the claim here: “It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on ‘The Apprentice’ were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal.”

^^^ Statements like this are just so damn confusing.  On what conceivable level is this sexist?  We’re all grown adults here.  We all *know* that women have physical features and assets that make them attractive to men (and sometimes even to other women).  How is stating the obvious a sexist statement?  Do we really need to pretend that women don’t have curves?  That the sound of a woman’s voice, or the look of her eyes, or the way she moves, isn’t an obvious motivator for people to do things in their favor?

I’ve been given promotions and raises before because I was pretty.  I mean, yea, that does, in fact, happen in the grown up world.  And there was no way in hell I could ever have that happen as a man.  I can’t bat my eyes, twirl my hair, blush, and get free stuff.  This is absolutely an advantage that some women have.  It’s the same reason we’re less likely to get speeding tickets and more likely to get warnings.  And it’s never the women who actually have this advantage that complain that it’s sexist.  Ever notice that?

The woman in the swimsuit calendar that gets a 6 figure income for doing a fun job that she loves doing isn’t the one demanding this form of “sexism” end.  I doubt any of the women on The Apprentice were complaining that they were winning because they were pretty.  Again, this is an obvious advantage, and it’s never the women who *have* this advantage who are complaining about it.


35. That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist.

Source: Here.

The quote: “I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters,” — “Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.”

^^^ Again, are we supposed to pretend like women aren’t beautiful?  And any acknowledgement that they are is sexist?

Here’s an interesting quote from Judge Judy – yes, THE Judge Judy – from her book What Would Judy Say: Be The Hero of Your Own Story:

“Let’s be real. I understand that as women we want to be respected for our abilities and our intellects. But the idea that we should all treat each other as if we are neutered, genderless creatures is just plain silly. I say to women—and to men, too—use all of your assets. I find it disingenuous for women to wear short skirts, high heels, and flattering sweaters and then complain because men look at them.

I figured this out as a lawyer because there are few places that so rely on personal appeal as a courtroom. Use my feminine wiles? Damn right! It’s not just women who do this. I remember going to see Jerry when he was a lawyer. He was delivering his summation to the jury—six men and six women. Jerry cut a cute figure and I saw him unbutton his jacket, put his hands in his pockets, and strut back and forth. He was working that jury like a hooker on a street corner. He probably would have won anyway, but he was using his assets—all of them.”

^^^ So… Judge Judy is just as sexist as Trump?  Probably so, given how we’re defining “sexism” these days.  Any recognition that women are … well, women, is sexism.


36. That women have a “great act going on to trick men”.

Source: Here.

Here’s the quote: “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.

^^^ If anyone reading happens to be in Portland, Oregon, we can go out together sometime, and I will show you how a woman can do this.  I absolutely can get things from men by flirting with them.  Not every woman can, and those who can don’t always choose to, but this most certainly does happen.

In fact, one of these days if I have someone follow me with a camera phone, I’ll even demonstrate it and post it on youtube.  I can walk into a place with a sign posted “customers only” for the restrooms, and if I’m dressed and sound like a man, I won’t get in.  If I’m dressed and sound like a woman, they almost always hand over the key.

If I walk up to a bus stop when the bus is just getting there, and someone else has been waiting for half an hour, if I’m dressed like a man, they’ll go first.  If I’m dressed like a woman, they’ll stand aside and let me board first.

I’m a woman who used to be a man, so I can still wear men’s clothes and sound like one.  I can demonstrate these differences right in front of you.

Again, it’s interesting how the women who get this advantage never complain that it’s sexist, and neither do the men who joyfully provide this advantage.  It’s always those who aren’t involved in this exchange who like to cry sexist.


37. That Bette Midler’s “ugly face and body” are offensive.

Source: Here.

Quote: While @BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct.

Is it sexist to say a man is extremely unattractive?  No?

Okay.  Not sexist.  Moving on.


38. That the best line in any movie is this beautiful gem.

Source: Here.

Quote: “My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.”

It’s interesting that if Trump said his favorite part of a movie is where the bad guy gets shot in the head 20 times, that’d be totally fine.  Anyway I’ve never seen Pulp Fiction, so I don’t know the context of this scene.  It sounds like a line from a bad guy, because bad guys are supposed to talk like that.  They usually end up getting shot, blown up, or run over at some point – and the audience cheers!  But saying “bitch be cool” – yea, seriously a problem.  Can’t allow that.

Double standardWomen choking men is a sign of empowerment.

Man choking woman is sexist.


39. That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful.

Source: Here.

Quote: “Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred,” Trump said about himself one time. “Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.

^^^ Which part of this statement is supposed to be sexist?

That as a woman, it’s sexist that I like a strong, powerful man?  Am I not allowed to like that?  I also like money.  Am I not allowed to like that either?

Okay what if I were a man and I liked strong powerful women?  What about a man who likes strong powerful men?  How bout a non-binary person, as Oregon has now recently recognized that as a gender identification.  If you’re non-binary, are you allowed to like strong and powerful men?  Powerful women?

Someone please explain to me which of my emotions are automatically sexist so I can memorize them and remember never to feel them.

And with that, we are finally done with another source!


40. The Justice Department sued his company — twice — for not renting to black people

Source: Here.

Quote: “When Trump was serving as the president of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Management Corporation, in 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

You can find a little background on the Trump Organization, which is freely available online, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization .  The company was founded in 1923, and has over 22,000 employees.  It’s very possible for 2 or 3 people in an agency that big to actually be racist, especially since there’s always that “one guy”.

Imagine if Wal-Mart, with it’s 1.4 million employees, had a store somewhere in Texas that denied employment to a black person.  You’d have to be on drugs (or maybe just a liberal) to think that makes the ENTIRE COMPANY – including all board members and it’s CEO – a bunch of racists.  It’d be even more telling if the CEO, Doug McMillon, were then completely outraged upon finding out such a thing, and took legal action as a result.  Any reasonable person would call that the right move.

…. except if it’s Trump.  Who did actually file a counter-suit for defamation.  This is a person who wears his heart on his sleeve, speaks his mind, says exactly what he’s thinking, and immediately responds to such accusations with outrage.  In fact, in his own words on the matter in The Art of the Deal:

What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black . . . I’d rather fight than fold, because as soon as you fold once, you get the reputation of being a folder.“.  Completely reasonable: If you don’t rent to welfare recipients, and most of those are unfortunately black, then that’s how the numbers may tend to come out.  And I’m saying this as someone who has received welfare benefits for most of her adult life in the US.  The sad truth is, I can’t be on welfare, and also rent a space in any property I want.  That’s the case regardless of my skin colour.  This whole thing can be made a lot worse if you have some one in your company of 22,000 employees who comes up with the wise idea of making the call based on how the person looks rather than due process.

According to the justice department, the settlement was “in no way an admission of a violation“.  That’s probably why Trump went on to say in his book: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.

Despite this, Trump still went on to make changes in his company to ensure that no discrimination could happen without him being aware, and also agreed to work closely with the New York Urban League (a civil rights group).  However, this *did not* mean changing the no-welfare requirement, which stayed.  As a result, Trump was called back into court again in 1978, but the justice department could do absolutely nothing to build a case.  It’s not against the law to discriminate against welfare recipients.

So this claim falls flat.


41. In fact, discrimination against black people has been a pattern in his career

Source: Here and here.

Quote: “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, told the New Yorker for a September article. “It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.

Not sure why “teen-ager” is hyphenated.  Anyway, the second source link explains this a little more accurately.  A New Jersey appeals court upheld a 200,000 dollar fine because managers – not trump – had removed a black dealer when they were asked to by a high rolling gambler named Robert Libutti – who is also not Trump.

Again, none of this is Trump.  It’s people in his company.  Trump himself has spoken out against racism and other forms of bigotry numerous times:



African-American Trump Executive Defends Her Boss Against Racism Charges

Take a moment to listen to the above video.

It’s a legitimate criticism that Trump could possibly do more to root out and stop such behavior happening in his own company before it happens, but there is absolutely *no* indication, anywhere so far, that Trump himself is a racist.

Also worth noting:





42. He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him

Source: Here.

Quote: “Three times in a row on Feb. 28, Trump sidestepped opportunities to renounce white nationalist and former KKK leader David Duke, who told his radio audience last week that voting for any candidate other than Trump is “really treason to your heritage.”

So… we’re up to number 42 on this list now.  Most of these accusations have had absolutely no merit whatsoever, and the small portion that may have seemed to did not hold up under even the briefest scrutiny.  And we’ve seen how on number 7, telling someone they’ll make a great wife is sexist (I still wonder if telling someone they’ll be a good husband is also sexist).  On number 10, saying that women are beautiful is sexist.

And at this point in the list, we’re seeing that accusations of racism are thrown around the exact same way.

If somebody walks up to me and says “This person is a racist / sexist!  Are you against them???” – yea, no.  I’m gonna need wayyyyyy more information from now on.  By racist these days you could literally mean just about anything OTHER THAN the actual definition of racist.

In fact 8 Bit Philosophy did a good video on this very problem.

Then we have sources like this one: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-david-duke-amnesia/

Racist 1So apparently, 16 years ago, Trump was disgusted with David Duke and his racism!!

16 years is a long time.  I mean there are people I knew that long ago that I’d have a hard time recalling.  That’s probably why he kept saying he doesn’t know anything about him.  If you haven’t hung out with someone in nearly 2 decades, that’s a pretty safe bet.

Some time later, Trump gets the update, finds out who the guy is, and what does he do?


Another bullshit claim that doesn’t check out.


43. He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States

Source: Here.

Quote: “Long before calling Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists,” Trump was a leading proponent of “birtherism,” the racist conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus an illegitimate president.”

Oh yea.  Several things.

1. How is this racist?  Nobody brought up racism when people were questioning if Ted Cruz could be president because he might have been born in Canada.  You seriously friggen *can* call literally anything and everything “racist” these days.  How is being born in another country racist?  I can’t even….

2. Trump never called Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists”.  Scroll back up and read the very first one of these we covered in this post.

3. The original birther claim did, in fact, come from the Hillary camp.  Now, to be clear, Hillary Clinton herself was not the one who started that, so lets keep our facts straight.  It was actually one of her campaign strategists who saw and opportunity.  Hillary did try using this for leverage during her 2008 campaign bid, but she eventually relented and encouraged her voters to support Obama.  So she was out pretty early on, but Trump kept going with it.  Again, bottom line is that this originated with the Clinton camp, not with Trump.

Of course it’s not racist when she does it.


44. He treats racial groups as monoliths

Source: Here.  – And this, by the way, is my absolute favorite one!!

Quote: Like many racial instigators, Trump often answers accusations of bigotry by loudly protesting that he actually loves the group in question. But that’s just as uncomfortable to hear, because he’s still treating all the members of the group — all the individual human beings — as essentially the same and interchangeable. Language is telling, here: Virtually every time Trump mentions a minority group, he uses the definite article the, as in “the Hispanics,” “the Muslims” and “the blacks.”

^^^ Now hang on, it gets even better.  Here’s the key point:

“I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan,” Trump said during his visit to the U.S.-Mexican border in July. “The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.”

^^^ Okay, so did you get that?  Referring to a group of people as a demographic is racist.  That is: saying “blacks” do such and such, or “hispanics” want such and such – is racist.  Before you go further, go back up to the start of this point, and read it again real slow.  Even read from the original source on this one – trust me, it’s worth it.  Make SURE you understand what’s being said here.

“The Hispanics / Latinos / Native Americans” getting jobs, or loving Trump, or loving Hillary for that matter (unless it’s only racist if they love Trump) – are all examples of racism.

Are you ready for this?  Lets check out how  many websites are TOTALLY F*ING RACISTS!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_vote <– Latinos vote a certain way??? OMG RACIST!  How could you wikipedia???!!

http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/hispaniclatino-vote/ <– Pew Research!  Noooooooo!  Why?  WHY PEW RESEARCH???  Why did you become… RACIST???!!

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/programs/healthycommunitiesprogram/tools/pdf/hispanic_latinos_insight.pdf <– My god, not even the Center for Disease Control is safe from racism!  The liberals were right.  Racism really IS systemic!  I can see why they say that now!  (No seriously I really f*ing see why they keep saying that.)

http://www.kidzworld.com/article/4973-hispanic-culture-and-traditions <– Even a site called Kidz World is treating Hispanics like they’re a “monolithic” group of people with a shared cultural understanding that leads to commonalities in their thoughts behavior and choices!  Is this *really* what we want to teach our children???  (Because that’s pretty much what I’d be teaching mine…)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44247/ <– Scientific research CLAIMING that Hispanic people have needs that should be considered as far as their mental health is concerned!  Someone have Trump say “The Hispanics need mental healthcare” so we can condemn this study for being a completely factual and peer reviewed study on the importance of cultural sensitivity RACIST!!!

Not meaning to get too sociological at this point, since only maybe 2 people have bothered to read this far, but there’s a difference between gendered / racial expectations, and stereotypes.  What are they?

Gender expectations: “This job requires walking alone at night, under bridges, through dark alleys, checking up on homeless individuals who may be suffering from mental health disorders and providing them with supplies and resources (an typical job description of community outreach work).  A woman probably won’t like this job because most women try to avoid such situations if they can, but we’re of course still an equal opportunity employer.”

Stereotypes: “You can’t work this job, YOU’RE A GIRL!”

Okay, see the difference?  If a woman applies for a job as a community outreach worker, the hiring agency will probably take steps to make sure she knows what she’s getting into, because it’s perfectly reasonable that most women would change their minds once they really know what’s expected of them, whereas most men might see it as an adventure.  Gender expectations are a safe assumption regarding the differences between men and women, while gender stereotypes are an insistence that each gender must adhere to your preconceived ideas.

There are racial expectations too.  If I told you that I was walking by the inner city park this afternoon and saw some kids playing basketball… what image comes to your mind?  Black kids?  Cool.  That’s exactly what I thought of too.  That’s not racist – I’m not saying black kids have to play basketball!  I’m saying when I think of inner city kids and basketball, I think of black kids, because that’s generally a reasonable expectation to have.  If you walked into a golf club, would most people be black or white?  Having an answer to that question does not make you racist.  Saying only white people can play golf – THAT’S racist.

This is precisely why you have so many webpages talking about Hispanic voters / behaviors / preferences / and so on.  Hispanics absolutely do have preferences as a group.  That’s not the same as stereotyping, or seeing them as “monolithic”, or whatever intellectualize academic-sounding buzz word you decide to use to make your nonsense sound more valid.

But like I said, probably only 2 people have read this far, and I probably just put one of you to sleep.

Before we move on, also from the source link:

Quote: “I have a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump said in April 2011. “I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/07/black_american_versus_african_american_why_i_prefer_to_be_called_a_black.html <– a lot of black folks want to be called black, because they have never been to Africa.  They were born in America.  They’re Black Americans, not African – which makes perfect sense.  While you should call a person what they liked to be called, it’s not racist to refer to black people as “blacks”.  It’s called “Black Lives Matter”, not “African-American Lives Matter”.

I mean I’m white.  But you don’t call me European-American.  You just call me “white”.


45. He trashed Native Americans, too

Source: Here.

Quote: “In 1993, when Trump wanted to open a casino in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that would compete with one owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation, a local Native American tribe, he told the House subcommittee on Native American Affairs that “they don’t look like Indians to me… They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”

You can see the video here:

Basically, Trump owns casinos, and wants to open new casinos in a territory where Native Americans are also operating them.  In his view, the fact that Natives don’t have to pay taxes, and he does, is “anti-competitive”.  You can see a little more about the complexity of this lawsuit here: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/trump-in-a-federal-lawsuit-seeks-to-block-indian-casinos.html <– this is a report from when the case was actually happening, so it’s a bit more journalistic than nearly every other result on google where it’s basically “Trump said something something casinos HE’S RACIST!!!”

It’s an interesting question as to whether or not this actually creates and anti-competitive situation in the gambling industry.  The Indian Casinos are referred to as a “monopoly” in the article linked above.  Is this a situation we should just accept due to the need for “reparations”?  That’s definitely a question that will never get discussed since the moment anyone even tries, liberals will start screaming that it’s racist to shut down the discussion.

As to whether it’s racist to point out that someone does or doesn’t “looks Indian”, and more importantly, whether someone actually is Indian before they can get benefits, as Trump was pointing out… need I remind you:

Rachel DolezalEven if you don’t remember her name, you certainly remember her face.  Rachel Dolezal “looks black”, but isn’t black, and caused an outrage among liberals.  Funny how the question of whether or not you actually are the race you claim to be suddenly matters whenever you want it to.  If I said she doesn’t “look black” – then later it turns out she actually isn’t black – is that still racist?

Yes.  Of course it is.  Because literally everything is racist.

Long story short – Trump questioning whether or not someone “looks Indian” isn’t racist, since most people absolutely are aware that there is a certain appearance that “looks Indian” (just like there’s such a thing as “looks black” or “looks white”).  As was pointed out earlier, “racial expectations” are not racist.  If you’re black, I expect you to have black skin.  If you have white skin, well, you don’t “look black”.


46. He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment

Source: Here.

Sweet!  I came back to this after a few weeks of break, thinking I was going to have a tough time researching the ones still remaining.  Thankfully, this one has absolutely nothing at all to do with race, so it doesn’t even require research.

You can even see the actual ad itself here, which was hyperlinked in the original source.  In it, Trump very clearly says “New York Families — White, Black, Hispanic and Asian — have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the Park at dusk“.

He never once mentions the race or colour of the criminals.

He even talks about “the noble pursuit of civil liberties”.

For f*cks sake, he is being as non-racist as a person could possibly ever get.  I challenge you to think of a LESS RACIST way of putting this ad.


47. He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester

Source: Here.

Because I actually care about accuracy, I went ahead and watched the little video clip on the webpage.  Reading just the headline, I had no idea what race the person in question was.  I mean, are you assuming that he’s black just because he’s a BLM protester?  That you can’t be white and do that?  I’m sure that’s not a racist assumption because “racist” is clearly a word that means whatever you want it to mean, and it’s meaning can change whenever you want it to.

According the an article specifically on this event, CNN reported: “At least a half-dozen attendees shoved and tackled the protester, a black man, to the ground as he refused to leave the event

Well by golly, will you look at that.

Someone goes into a Trump rally, starts chanting a slogan that’s at odds with the rally, takes off his sweatshirt to reveal a shirt with the slogan, gets told to leave – he WON’T leave, then people start pushing and shoving him, and he starts fighting back.  And you really believe this *only* happened because he was black, and it would not also happen if he were white.


48. He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”

Source: Here.

Awesome!  Another one I don’t have to research.

Okay so … “passionate” is the wrong word here?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion <– this is terrible news for our legal system.  Someone better call up the justice department and tell them to stop being racist.

I mean if “passionate” isn’t the right word here – what is?  Calm?  Rational?  Level-headed?  Especially if you don’t know the details of what happened, “passionate” seems like a pretty blanket term that you can use without saying anything too pointed.


49. He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic meme

Source: Here.

I’m so glad these have started to get back to the normal rhetoric of “everything-is-racist”, as it spares me from having to do anymore in-depth research on complicated topics or read court transcripts to find out what was actually said.  Some of those above took a lot of work!  But we’re back to the brain numbing routine we started out on.

Quote: “I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” – said by Trump, followed by – “But that wasn’t even the most offensive thing Trump told his Jewish audience.

Yes.  That’s right.  “I’m a negotiator like you” is so terribly offensive.

How is Family Guy even still on the air by this point?

^^^ Seriously, someone please explain to me why the same liberals and SJWs who are constantly on about Trump’s “racism” don’t seem to mind literally every episode of Family Guy.  They can make hundreds of jokes on racial stereotypes, but Trump dares to mention “negotiations” in front of Jews, and it’s considered to be nearly “the most offensive thing”.

Unbelievably, this same article states:

Ironically, Trump has many close Jewish family members. His daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism in 2009 before marrying the real estate mogul Jared Kushner. Trump and Kushner raise their two children in an observant Jewish home.

…………………… and yet, in the paragraph just above that one…. he’s racist.

I guess it’s the same way I – a trans woman – sometimes get called “transphobic” when I don’t agree with a liberal.  These words really are meaningless.  The article doesn’t even care if Trump’s daughter is Jewish, or that he has Jewish family members.  Hell Trump himself could be Jewish and I’ve no doubt that it still wouldn’t matter.


50. Laziness is a Trait in Blacks

Source: Here.

This statement comes from a book written by John O’Donnell, a former employee of Trump who quit to avoid being fired, and who had a personal vendetta against Trump.  Nearly all of the claims in O’Donnell’s book come just from O’Donnell himself, with absolutely no way to confirm or verify any of them.  Moreover, many of his claims simply clash with what we would expect from Trump.  They sound nothing like him.

“I worship Satan.  He’s a great guy.  Sacrifice goats to him twice a week.  And I pray for the downfall of mankind.  When the world is burning, I’ll be king.  I like that.” <– If this appeared in O’Donnell’s book, no one would question that either, even though that sounds just as ridiculous as some of O’Donnell’s claims on the page and sounds equally out of character for Trump.


At long last, this list is complete.  We’ve covered 50 accusations so far on racism and sexism, and absolutely *none* of them hold up.  A few I had to actually sit down and research, but most fell immediately on their own.  I’m still not able to get over calling someone a “good wife” being sexist.  It’s been almost a month since I started working on this, and that one in particular still blows me away.

This is easily the largest single post I’ve ever made, and I’ve learned two things.

1 – The left will call absolutely anything racist or sexist.  In fact, it’s gotten to where if I hear either of those words used – especially if they’re coming from a leftist – I immediately assume the person in question probably did nothing wrong.  If Steve Jones is sexist, probably he was arguing with a liberal, and the liberal was losing the argument.  I didn’t think this way before doing this list.  I do think that way now.

2. – The absolute only counter argument anyone has ever provided for this page is not clicking the link, then using not-clicking-or-reading as a form of argument.  I’ve literally posted this link twice in a thread before, then had someone say ask about calling Mexicans rapists.

first one^^^ I’ve actually had to resort to taking screen shots of numerous items on the list, and posting them as pics in threads, because people just refuse to click the link.  Even when the featured image is of two women engaged in some BDSM stuff that the left loves, they simply avoid clicking on anything that might possibly contain information that threatens their little bubble (then claim republicans are “immune to facts”).  I’ve not yet had anyone offer anything besides their complete ignorance as a counter.  This is why I’ve decided to cut the list off at 50, rather than continue.  Most people won’t read this page at all, and even Trump supporters have told me that this page was a bit too long for them to appreciate, way back when the list was only at around 40 or so.

And what happens when they ignore the link, mention something in the list, then I post a screen shot?  They either go quiet and leave the thread, since I’m clearly a racist (as if that word means anything), or they block me.  What these folks haven’t counted on is that I’m now starting to attend rallies where there’s no block button.  That’s lead to some hilarious results so far.  But in the meantime, I guess all I can do is hope that this page has at least some effect on people before the election.


Black Lives Matter and Racism

Today we’ll be looking at #blacklivesmatter (BLM) – the movement, what it stands for, and it’s claims.  As is usual with 4th Wavers, we’ll be covering tons of studies, statistics, data, facts, evidence, so you can link this post as a final resource anytime you find yourself in an online debate.

As most of us are aware, the BLM movement is primarily concerned with the treatment black people experience from the police, from experiencing violence to being unjustly shot and killed. But the movement also puts forward claims that go much further than that, and suggests that blacks are *disproportionately* targeted by the police – and mistreated by society at large – as a result of racism and racist beliefs on part of the people taking such actions. As stated on the BLM website:
—— —–
Black people are not inherently more violent or more prone to crime than other groups. But black people are disproportionately poorer, more likely to be targeted by police and arrested, and more likely to attend poor or failing schools. All of these social indicators place one at greater risk for being either a victim or a perpetrator of violent crime. To reduce violent crime, we must fight to change systems, rather than demonizing people.
—– —–

^ Now this is the official position put forward by the movement, so keep this in mind.  We’ll come back to it later.

We’re also familiar with the long list of names of black people that were targeted and killed by the police, as well as images like this one.

But the central question here, and the point that is causing all the commotion, is whether or not black people are being targeted simply because they are black.  The official position of BLM hints that they actually aren’t – they’re targeted because they’re disproportionately poorer, which is a “social indicator” that places them at greater risk.  Again real important to keep this concept in mind, because that’s the central point that’s causing the argument, especially when it comes to #AllLivesMatter .

There is some truth to the idea that black people are poorer due to laws and decision making policy that was in place during the earlier part of the 20th century, and there are some specific examples of “white privilege” which are associated (white privilege is extremely rare, but individual examples do exist). But the movement isn’t only addressing evidence based critiques like this.  Again, there are some extraordinary claims that come from the movement, linked with hashtags like #walkingwhileblack , #drivingwhileblack and #handsupdontshoot .

Research shows some surprising figures.
A study conducted by the Washington Post found that white officers shooting unarmed black men accounted for only 4% of fatal shootings. Moreover, in 3 out of 4 fatal shootings, the police were under attack, or defending someone else who was. They also performed a painstaking case-by-case analysis of the most widely publicized incidents of this nature that have occurred: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2015/12/26/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/
A study conducted by The Guardian shows over twice as many whites have been killed by police in 2016, casting serious doubt over the “shot because they’re black” claim.  That’s a hell of a lot of white people also being shot. You can see the study here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database . “Proportionally”, however (blacks counted “per million”), we see that blacks are over twice as high as whites (we’ll see why in a second). It’s interesting to see that Native American ranks highest of all in terms of “proportionate”, because they make up only around 2% of the population, according to the Census Bureau. Blacks make up only around 6%.  Yet for some reason, saying “all lives matter” – which include Native Peoples, Latinos, and Asians – all of which are linked here to pages demonstrating that they also are victimized by the police – is criticized as being racist.
all lives matter cartoon

Take a look at those stats we just covered. Now you really gonna pretend like your house is the only damn one on fire?

A common argument against “all lives matter” has often been comparing it to houses that are on fire.  http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter <— see for yourself.  This argument against “all houses matter” indicates that no other houses, except this one specific house or group of houses, experiences any fire.  So is BLM just not understanding that other races exist and also experience these issues?  Because every other race most certainly *does* experience police brutality (which here is the “fire”).  The analogy simply does not carry over, since twice as many whites are shot by police according to the data we have on the subject, and the original argument was focused on blacks being targeted for being black, not simply being the only ones that ever experience this issue.

Moreover, no one is saying #BlackLivesMatter can’t be used, or isn’t valid.  It’s perfectly fine to develop your own special interest group that focuses only on one given demographic.  The problem is being told that #AllLivesMatter is racist and can’t be used, because blacks are targeted only for being black, and everyone else is targeted for some other reason.  That just isn’t the case, which we’ll see in a bit.

And not to get into a point-by-point response with Vox (I think we all have better things to do), but in reply to number’s 4 and 5 on the Vox list linked above:

>> Do people who change to run thru a cancer fundraiser going “THERE ARE OTHER DISEASES TOO”

^^^ No,  because other diseases also receive funding, and are being addressed at their own unique fundraisers.  For example, there’s myasthenia gravis fundraisers, cystic fibrosis fundraisers, and so on.  But imagine if you weren’t even allowed to *suggest* that one particular disease is a problem worth addressing, much less receive it’s own fundraiser or awareness, without being denounced for saying so.  Or imagine if you couldn’t say “all diseases matter” and feel concern for anyone who falls ill or becomes sick, because doing so would make you a “diseasist” or whatever.

And again, no one is saying Cancer doesn’t matter, or you can’t have cancer awareness.  But you *are* saying other diseases can’t be given their own consideration, or that we can’t show equal amounts of concern to others who are sick and dying.

>> WTF is the impulse behind changing to . Do you crash strangers’ funerals shouting I TOO HAVE FELT LOSS

^^^ ……………. actually yes.  That is precisely what I would say.  I would approach the people who are feeling bad, and tell them “I’m so sorry, I know how hard this is.  I too have felt loss, so what you’re going through must be terrible.”

It’s not the #AllLivesMatter people who are turning this into a denouncement of others, as though social movements were analogous to a football game, where if someone isn’t routing for your team, then they have to be against you because they’re on a different team.  This nonsensical “us vs them” mentality seems to have hijacked every social cause.  It’s very possible to be concerned about other groups and also be concerned about your group.

I swear it’s like the people at Vox, Buzzfeed, and Cracked think this grade-school level wit is just so incredibly golden that there’s just *NO* counter argument that a person could think of within just a few seconds of thought.

Anyway back to those studies from earlier – now lets look at the reason *why* blacks are shot disproportionately more often.  Is it “because they’re black”?  If we look at the charts again (hopefully you still have them open in another tab), in 2015 we see similar numbers; almost twice as many whites as blacks shot and killed by the police, though the “proportion” is higher for blacks, as they make up less of the population.  (Also, this refers to all whites and all blacks taken together as demographics.  That’s really important, so keep that in mind, we’re going to come back to that in a second.)

Okay, so… why is that?

Remember that thing about how blacks live in poorer neighborhoods in the original BLM statement?  Well this is unfortunately true – and it’s due to racist decisions that were made in the earlier part of the 20th century.  These were things like what neighborhoods blacks could or couldn’t live in, and yes, that was definitely motivated by racism.  As it turns out, those neighborhoods happened to end up a lot more poor, since society was “separate”, but certainly not equal.  Many of these neighborhoods remain affected to this day, and according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, households at or below the poverty line will be involved with over twice as much crime. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137 – it also shows blacks and whites have similar rates of violence when below the poverty line.

So this really isn’t about being black, it’s about being poor – just like we saw indicated in the original BLM statement.

This makes perfect sense. If black households are more often poor, and live in poorer neighborhoods, then crime will obviously happen more often in those areas, and provide more chances for police encounters.

Percentage of poor

Aside from addressing the obvious problems in this graph, how about programs aimed at getting police involved with the community they protect? How about an advisory board made up of members of that community to help facilitate relationship building? That might that be slightly more effective than chanting “pigs in a blanket – fry em like bacon”.

Now before we move on, 2 things.

1) Yes, you could argue that the current situation was created by racism that existed in the past, and is still a problem today.  But this is a *lot* different than saying “police officers shot him because he was black”.  I hope it’s clear now why that narrative, perpetuated by BLM, is simply not true.

2) Despite having more police encounters, when comparing encounters between each demographic (everyone who experienced a police encounter), rather than the entire white population vs the entire black population (the demographics mentioned earlier), we find that blacks are still not shot more often than whites.  Again, this is comparing all police encounters with whites, and all police encounters with blacks, rather than “all whites” and “all blacks” everywhere.  A meta analysis involving FIVE MILLION CASES – by a black researcher (if that matters) now reveals this to be the case.

You can see this analysis here: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fquantifyingblacklivesmatter – and yes, I’m leaving that great big ugly URL there because I don’t want you to miss it.  This demonstrates that blacks *ARE NOT* shot by the police more often, when all arrests are compared. The use of more frequent physical restraint against blacks can be explained by the fact that blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, as we discussed earlier, where crime is higher, and this would of course affect the vigilance in police perception.

Now that’s not downplaying the use of force, which is still definitely a problem.  But the claim here was that they’re being targeted because they are black – and that’s simply not true.  They are being targeted, but it’s *not* for being black.

Now lets touch again on the whole blacks-being-poor bit, which is the real story here, because it actually goes a hell of a lot deeper.

As mentioned, in the earlier part of the 20th century, racist housing policies controlled where blacks could and couldn’t live, thus forcing them into areas where they had fewer opportunities, and these areas became economically depressed. This in turn lead to a number of other important factors that persisted long after the original racial policies were changed. Blacks, as a demographic, now have a more difficult time getting into college or finding work opportunities – like the original BLM statement pointed out. Combine this with the lowered property value of black residential areas, and a black person will end up having a lower credit score, which severely affects several other parts of a person’s life, including the value of their savings and eligibility to receive a loan, which in turn affects how easily they can purchase a house or car. The key importance here is that while the system inadvertently makes things more difficult for black people, it is very possible that no one *IN* this system is actively racist, neither consciously nor subconsciously!!

SJW (social justice warrior) morons point to the higher asking price of a vehicle that a black person is trying to purchase and claim that it’s somehow “subconscious racism”. Right. As if the sales person is, on some subconscious level, thinking to himself “Oh boy! Blacky wants a car! Imma ask him for more money than he reasonably has because he’s black and doesn’t earn as much, and this makes perfect sense, given that I’m trying to make a sale and a higher asking price makes achieving that sale more difficult! Mwahahahaha!!!!” – and the sales person does this even if they’re black. Because of “internalized racism”. Or whatever cockamamie intellectual-sounding buzzword 3rd Wavers and SJWs are using to cover obvious plot holes in their “theory”.

The fact of the matter is, the sales person doesn’t care about skin colour, they care about credit score and other factors that go into buying a car, which are set by the bank.  The bank doesn’t care about skin colour, they care about where you live, how long you’ve been employed, how many payments you’ve missed, etc.  The housing authority doesn’t care about your skin colour, they only care about previous evictions, landlord-tenant law, and related considerations.  Each person in the system is only doing their job.  None of them are aware of the larger systemic problems.  They are not themselves racist.  They don’t hate blacks.  They aren’t trying to keep whites in control.  There is no secret agenda.  It’s screwed up, but it’s not caused by white people secretly hating blacks and needing to “check their privilege”.

That nonsensical narrative that whites are the problem is only fostering an ideology of hate, rather than unity.  That’s why we keep seeing crap like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xNxoeqf0Ws – “Pigs in a blanket – fry em like bacon”.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/751236850799374336 – advocating gun violence against anyone who disagrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_2tmieafYY Give it a watch.  This one’s pretty damn out there.

So the problem with BLM comes down to two things.
First, the usual rhetoric nearly always ignores the very highly complex reality surrounding blacks and how their lives are affected by systemic disadvantages.
Second, aside from rarely ever addressing those problems, we get the impression that the solution is merely for every white person to hang their head in shame and constantly apologize for being white (“White people, appropriately take your place in the back”).  It creates the narrative that the actual reason for all the shootings and other problems have nothing to do with what we discussed here, and is all simply because someone with white skin decided to shoot someone who had black skin, and for no other reason.
I mean, there *are* actual people associated with the movement that are at least trying to make sense of all this, but we rarely ever hear these voices over the screaming accusations of white people being the problem.
This in turn makes every white person sick to f*cking death of hearing about how they’re part of a problem merely for existing.  The vast majority of white people aren’t racist at all.  They’re normal human beings who just want the best for everyone.  But I’ve even been told I’m racist just for *being* white, and I’d place a wager that most people reading this have been told that at some point too.
Pretty soon a black person gets angry because they’re convinced every white person is somehow at fault.  Type “white people inherently racist” into google and look at how many results come up that I honestly don’t think are even worth replying to.  This kind of mindset does nothing except create animosity and hatred, and makes the problem worse, not better.
This is exasperated even further by telling a person with white skin that they’re somehow not allowed to have an opinion – unless of course their opinion just happens to agree with you. Remember when whites said that to blacks? Remember how frustrating it was, and how there was a word used to describe that kind of sentiment? Began with an “R”?  Take all the time you need.
This is ultimately where the problems originate with #blacklivesmatter .  People aren’t disagreeing with your movement because they’re racist.  You’ve simply turned disagreement into a qualifier for being racist.
Whites are not racist by default. They’re just sick of being told they are.  And the problem here isn’t “because you’re black”.  And it isn’t “because they’re white”.  It’s because of complex multifaceted socio-economic causes that too often end up getting ignored.  And instead of actually thinking your way through it all, you find it easier to stick to your hateful and simplistic blame-people-who-aren’t-like-me narrative.

you can sway men by prejudice before logic

North Carolina’s Executive Order – Does It Change The “Bathroom Bill”?

Is Governor Pat McCrory rethinking his position on the HB2 bill?

Last week, we addressed North Carolina’s HB2, or “bathroom bill” as it’s become affectionately known.   Click the hyper link and give it a read if you’d like to catch up a bit on what that’s all about (you don’t have to read the entire post, as the first section explains what the HB2 bill actually says).

The bill was signed into law on the night of March 23, 2016, and in that time, public outcry against the bill has been strong.  According to multiple sources, numerous companies have spoken out against the bill, including Google, Facebook, Apple, American Airlines,  and even the NBA.

So what affect, if any, has this had on the governor?

On April 12th, the Governor signed into law Executive Order 93.  According to CNN, the governor said the order “expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity” and “seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination.”  And according to the Washington Post, “McCrory said he was expanding protections for state employees, which would prevent these workers from being fired for being gay or transgender. He also said he would seek legislation restoring the right to sue for discrimination.”

Hey, fantastic!!  He’s finally getting the message!  Maybe a certain someone who battles me constantly over facebook on this issue was right, and things are improving now.

Yea, not so fast.  Lets look at what the actual order itself says.  You can see this order here: https://ncgovernor.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/documents/files/McCrory%20EO%2093_0.pdf

Summed up, the order says

In the provision of government services and in the administration of programs . . . public agencies shall serve all people equally, consistent with the mission and requirements of the service or program.

— and —

I hearby affirm that the State of North Carolina is committed to administering and implementing all State human resources policies . . . without unlawful discrimination on the basis of” – then goes on to list a number of protected groups, which this time includes the LGBT community.

However, the order does not reverse HB2, and only emphasizes that LGBT people will still “receive services” from state agencies.  It goes on to state LGBT people will be provided “reasonable accommodations of single occupancy restrooms”, but that order only applies to “cabinet agencies”.  It does nothing to change – and the even lists them – “private businesses, non-profit employers, local governments, cities, counties, the University of North Carolina system, and the North Carolina Community College System”, stating that these are merely “invited to make similar accommodation where practicable”.

“Where practicable” is nice.  Because what happens if you just don’t have single occupancy rooms?  “Welp, not practicable then, LOL!!!”

The order goes on to emphasize that private businesses are still completely allowed to discriminate.  And if a private business leases state property?  Yep – still allowed!

Section 6 of this order states that the governor encourages the state to take steps against “wrongful discharge based on *unlawful* employment discrimination”.

Cover my assHowever, discrimination against LGBT people is not unlawful.  Remember bill HB2?  It specifically omits LGBT people from such protections, and the order itself only stipulates that “state human resources policies, practices, and programs” will be administered without discrimination against LGBT people.  Therefore this does nothing to protect us from any unlawful discharge.

So what does this order actually do then?  What’s the point?

The only real elements of note here are that “cabinet agencies” are required to provided single occupancy restrooms to trans people *if they are available* (and if they aren’t, tough luck), and that LGBT people will receive state services.  It still allows pretty much everything else.

However, because these changes are mentioned, the governor can now claim that he’s backing up on his earlier decision and is now protecting LGBT people.  It’s a classic move of CMA (Cover My Ass) and an attempt to take some heat off him and his state.  What’s more, any future complaints can be answered by saying “Well there’s an executive order!” – keeping in mind that most folks are not going to actually read the order itself to find out what’s in there.

Nice try, McCrory.


Response to Paul Joseph Watson on Transgender Bathrooms

You asked for it, baby cakes.

This is a response post to a video released a few days ago by a youtuber named Paul Joeseph Watson.  Here’s the vid:

This video is a fine compilation of misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding the “bathroom bill”, so go ahead and give it a watch before we break this down.

1. What The Transgender Bathroom Bill (HB2) Actually Says

Paul’s first point is that according to the bill, only state and public restrooms are regulated by the HB2 bill, and private businesses are unaffected, so that trans people entering a private business “can use either bathroom”.  But that’s not what it means at all.  You can see HB2 here: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf .  The bill does more than just prevent trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity on state property; it also specifically omits discriminatory protections for people of the LBGT community, and also overrules any local or municipal ability to pass any alternative form of legislation.

So in state and public restrooms, discrimination is mandatory.  In private businesses, it’s optional.  This is not okay.

When we say “state and public”, we’re referring to quite a lot of different places, yet Paul speaks of this like it’s no big deal.  This includes all public schools, for instance, and public parks, and any state run agencies.  Private businesses have the option to discriminate, and again it’s not just against who can use their restrooms, but also regarding who they will hire.  People can now be terminated from their place of employment for being an LGBT identified person.

A little bit of background is also important here: as of February 22 of this year, the city of Charlotte in North Carolina had passed an ordinance that would have *expanded* discrimination protection to LGBT people, which also would have allowed them to use the restroom of the gender they identified with.  What’s important to note here is that the law was an expansion of protections, and not merely granting the right to use the proper restroom.  The HB2 bill passed by the state was made primarily as a response to this move by the city of Charlotte.  Religious conservatives, like the state’s governor Pat McCrory – who has a history of opposition against the LGBT community – wanted to stop the city’s ability to expand discriminatory protections.  This is why everyone is up in arms over North Carolina’s decision to go forward with this.

Is this beginning to make sense?

This also completely defeats the notion (as has been argued by a certain someone) that businesses can simply deny anyone the use of a restroom, because while it’s true a business can turn down service to any individual customer, they *CANNOT* turn away someone just because they belong to a minority group.  You can’t say blacks aren’t allowed to use your restrooms, for example, and treat that as your right to refuse service.  The bill restricts who’s entitled to protected from discrimination, specifically omitting LGBT people, and so it allows businesses to target transgender people.

At around the 00:20 mark in the video, it’s stated that private businesses can allow transgender people to use whichever bathrooms they choose – but again and just to clarify, this isn’t the issue.  It’s possible that private businesses *might* do that, but it’s also possible that they can now target trans people specifically and disallow them from using the bathroom on the grounds of their trans status, or, allow them to use the restroom, but force them to use the bathroom corresponding with their biological birth and not with the gender identity they have now.

Now you might be wondering what ought to happen if a person who is born male and identifies as female, but clearly doesn’t look female.  In this case, we would say she doesn’t “pass”.  “Passing” is a term that means your appearance matches your gender identity.  Some of us have to work at it more than other.  This comes up again in a bit, so hang in there.

2. Who Should Be Protected From Discrimination, and When Does It Not Matter?
The next point Paul brings up in his video is that 0.3% of population is transgender, and therefore wouldn’t affect enough people to matter.

Yea, that’s really an argument being made here.

First, I’m not sure if we had an all-white town, that it would be okay to have discriminatory policies against black people just because there’s not enough of them to “matter”.  According to information from the Census Bureau, Native Americans make up only 2% of the US population: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2014/cb14-ff26.html – yet we wouldn’t dream of saying an anti-discrimination ordinance on their behalf simply “doesn’t matter” because there’s not enough of them.

To put this in perspective, the 0.3% number comes from the Williams Institute, which performed a study on LGBT demographics in 2011: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/ .  In that same study, it was also found that only 1.7% identified as gay or lesbian.  So that’s clearly not enough to matter, and we don’t need to, say, legalize gay marriage, right?

Quite frankly, if 1 single person in the entire United States of America is gay, I want that person to have the same exact protections that all the rest of us have – and no, it is *NOT* too much trouble to expand the language of the Civil Rights Act to protect them.  You could slip that in rather easily between some of the other classes that are protected: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm .

And as far as state law goes, if you can pass a state law saying it’s illegal to take a lion to the movies http://www.examiner.com/article/seven-of-the-craziest-laws-on-baltimore-s-books, you can’t walk backwards and eat a cheeseburger http://www.examiner.com/article/strange-ways-to-get-sent-to-jail-oklahoma-city, and you can’t have a gorilla in the backseat of your car http://www.dmv.org/articles/bizarre-driving-laws/, then I doubt it’s too much trouble to draft up some legislation protecting an LGBT person.

Back to the video, we hear Paul say that a few people may “be embarrassed for a few minutes” by requiring individuals to use the bathroom of their birth.

Paul doesn’t seem to consider that a fully passing trans-man, who has to use the women’s bathroom, is going to embarrass a lot more than himself every time he goes in.  Everyone else is going to be bothered by this too.

Imagine your husband using the same bathroom as the woman, or your girlfriend in the same bathroom as the dude. This is what HB2 would mandate. No one wins here.

Imagine for a moment your husband using the same bathroom as the woman, or your girlfriend in the same bathroom as the dude. This is what HB2 would mandate. No one wins in this situation.

Remember, for *state and public properties*, this kind of thing would actually be required, and private businesses can require this as well (if they decide not to outright refuse service outright).

Another point brought up here is that “trans women who make the effort to look like women won’t get noticed”.  That is, if you’re a trans woman, and you’re trying to “pass” as we mentioned earlier, then no one’s ever going to suspect that you were ever anything but a non-trans woman.

That’s just not how it works.

Trans women do make the effort, and still get misgendered sometimes.  In fact, according to a study from the DC Trans Coalition, up to 70% of trans individuals surveyed reported having problems using the restroom, with 68% reporting having been denied access, or verbally and/or physically assaulted.  You can see that report here: https://dctranscoalition.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/our-survey-results/ . This also happens to non-trans women:  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/detroit-woman-mistaken-man-thrown-eatery-lawsuit-article-1.2254972 (expanded upon here: http://www.peacock-panache.com/2015/06/cortney-bogorad-mistaken-for-man-kicked-out-of-womens-bathroom-11127.html) .

It is simply not the case that everyone who tries will pass, will pass so well that no one else notices.  I don’t want someone violently trying to “out” me when all I want to do is use the bathroom really quick and not bother anyone, especially after I *do* go through all the effort needed to pass.

Hey, here’s an idea!  Lets write some sort of law that says if my gender ID is female, that I can use the women’s room and not have to worry about my safety!  You know, like the city of Charlotte was *going* to do before the state legislature enacted the HB2 bill.

3. So What If Perverts / Pedophiles / Offenders Pretend To Be Trans?

At around 00:55 mark in the video, the issue is brought up regarding a pervert putting on a dress and walking into the girl’s locker room.

First, if you want to talk about rarity, this is where we should start.  If you’re familiar with my Response to Rape Culture series, you might be familiar with some actual statistics on rape and sexual assault.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2013, the prevalence of rape and sexual assault in America for college aged women was 0.43% (for not-college aged women it was 0.14%).  *NONE* of these cases, to my knowledge, involved “a pervert putting on a dress and walking into a girl’s locker room”.

So far I’ve not found a single incident of someone pretending to be trans in an effort to commit rape or sexual assault in the women’s room.  But have there been any incidents of men trying to do this in an effort to sneak in and commit other indecent acts?  I’ve been working on this post for about 2 days now, and I’ve done so many searches that my eyes are starting to cramp.  But yes, as a matter of fact, I was able to find a few cases, and the author of this vid does mention a few of these.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cross-dressing-man-arrested-for-exposure-at-walmar/nQddG/ <– This 51 year old went into the women’s room of a Walmart and began undressing in front of children.  This individual reportedly has a history of exposure issues.

http://komonews.com/archive/police-man-in-bra-and-wig-found-in-womens-bathroom <– This 18 year old reportedly went into the women’s locker room, wearing a wig and a bra, to gratify himself.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/04/01/california-man-dressed-woman-busted-videoing-womens-bathroom/ <— This man put on a dress so he could film from inside the locker room.  However, it is already illegal to video record anyone in a locker room, so a non-trans woman could very well have tried the same thing.  Moreover, this person didn’t need to be trans to try doing this, which brings us to our next example.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/02/01/mcmorran-locker-room-filming/79631876/ <— here’s one of a non-trans male simply going into the women’s locker room and attempting to film women from a stall.  Just so we’re clear, it’s not just people dressing up like women.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wa-man-women-bathroom-test-transgender-ruling-article-1.2535150 <– Then there’s people like this.  Apparently this guy wanted to test the limits of the law, and decided to go into the women’s locker room and simply undress in front of everyone.  Although this person wasn’t pretending to be trans, so again this isn’t really the same thing.
Finding such incidents is not easy, because they’re so exceedingly rare.  And finding a person pretending to be trans that does this is so rare that its difficult to find any more than a handful of examples.  In a country of 300 million, this would account for something like 0.00001% criminal acts (have no idea what the actual math is here, but it’s somewhere close to about that low).
But we do have to admit that this has happened, and may at some point happen again.  There might at some point be a guy thinking it’s a thrill to put on a wig and walk into the women’s room to see if he can get away with it.  So lets entertain this possibility for a moment.  What if, somehow or another, a sudden outbreak of people pretending to be trans decide to start using that as a cover to infiltrate women’s locker rooms so they can see someone getting undressed, not unlike what they could see at home with a simple google search.

Personally, I’m not against having a staff person simply by ask for ID, and going by whatever the ID shows.  Now before my trans friends grab their torches and pitch forks, let me finish.  I don’t see this as unreasonable, and it would also quell the fears of anyone on the other side of this issue who points to the above cases and asks “what if”.  This provides them a better answer than “it probably won’t” and “it’s frequent enough to worry about”.  After all, we check IDs for alcohol purchases.  I remember working in Georgia, where we had to ask the person’s ID on every alcoholic purchase they made, no matter how old or young they looked.

And since I’m probably going to get asked “So you’re saying we have to show our ID every time just to use the bathroom?” – Consider that if I wanted to use the bathroom at Safeway right now, I would have to ask an employee to unlock the restroom anyway.  So having my ID in hand and pointing to the F doesn’t seem like it’s that much extra trouble, and again, this does answer the concerns of those on the other side of this issue.
In conjunction with this, however, states need to allow a person to go through a fair and demonstrated process of changing ID to match their gender.

As most of my regular readers know, I’m a trans woman. I had to have my condition diagnosed by a psychologist, and then needed to begin living full time as a woman (at this point, I couldn’t use the other locker room just yet – which was fine because I wasn’t fully passing yet either). After a few months and more therapy sessions (not that I was in need; these were basically check ins to see how I was doing, if I had any questions, needed any help, that sort – although some people *do* need therapy during this time to help with adjustments), I then needed to get written affidavits from at least 2 social service agencies stating that I had been living full time as a woman, and fill out forms for a legal name change. I then had to post public notice of my name change, and then I had to wait 2 weeks.  Once that time had passed, I came back and signed my papers for my new name.  Next, I had to bring my affidavits, my name change paperwork, and a signed letter from my therapist to court, and swear in front of a judge that I was going to legally change my gender identification, and henceforth live my life as a woman, complete with all the ongoing hormone / medical treatments I chose to take (as there are a number of options).

After all that, I had to make a trip to the DMV, bringing all my papers along, and get a new state ID made!  (And also of course go to the bank and have my records changed, then head down to the post office and do the same thing, etc etc etc to each place individually until I had everything changed.)

…….. **THEN** …. I could use the women’s locker room.

See, I agree that you can’t just say “I’m a woman”, put on a wig, and that’s it.  The hoops I had to jump through were tough, but I think they were fair. Because if you really are transgender, then it shouldn’t be a problem to keep all your appointments and go through the process.

I still remember the day before I was to show up in court, by the way.  I stayed up half the night crying, because this was going to be the biggest day of my life, and I was going to become a completely new person the following morning.  I would live the rest of my life as Athena.  “Miss Athena”.

Again I want to emphasize this process ought to be “FAIR!”  A standardized, federal process should be in place that anyone could reasonably achieve.  If you leave this up to the states, some conservative governor somewhere (you all know what I’m talking about) will make up requirements deliberately designed to prevent anyone from ever being able to transition.

But that’s how you would settle the issue.  You go by what the gender ID states.

As for passing – this would become a common decency thing.  Much like not chewing with your mouth open at a restaurant, you’d want to make sure your face was prepped before heading in the locker room to change.  I go to 24 Hour Fitness pretty regularly, and if I’m too lazy to shave and put on eyeliner, well then I’m too lazy to go to 24 Hour Fitness, aren’t I.  Not everyone can afford the laser surgery that permanently removes facial hair forever, but we can still afford a basic razor.  And if I need to change clothes while I’m at the gym, I go into the bathroom stall and change there.  Respect is a 2 way street; I’m doing my part to make sure everyone else feels comfortable with me being there, and the people who suspect that I’m trans are willing to help me feel comfortable too.

4. A Bunch of Irrelevant Stuff.  Plus, Science!

Between the 1:00 and 1:30 mark, we get some irrelevant stuff.  Pedophilia and it’s definitions are not related to this discussion, and neither is race.  Paul states it doesn’t matter how we identify, because our “chromosomes are never going to change”, and proudly waves his ignorance in the air with “That’s science, bitches!”

Apparently Paul’s understanding of science comes from what his PE coach scrawled across a chalk board in 8th grade gym class.  Women can have a Y chromosome: http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome.  In particular interest from the report: “About 1 in 20,000 men has no Y chromosome, instead having 2 Xs. This means that in the United States there are about 7,500 men without a Y chromosome. The equivalent situation – females who have XY instead of XX chromosomes – can occur for a variety of reasons and overall is similar in frequency. ”  There are a number of other studies on this subject: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141105165209.htm .  There’s also another condition where sexual development does not match chromosomes, called Swyer Syndrome: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome .

That’s SCIENCE, bitches!

Ultimately, none of this matters, and is still irrelevant.  How many men / women did you talk to today?  And how many times did you stop to check their chromosomes?  Do you carry a DNA scanner around with you everywhere you go so you’ll know how to treat someone?  Probably not.  And chances are, you don’t check everyone’s genitalia either.  You simply treat someone as female when they present as female, and treat them as male when they present as male.

The fact that you have this “idea” of femaleness and maleness based entirely on how someone looks is why gender is a “social construct”.  There are lots of things we consider “male” or “female” that are not inherently male or female.  Men can wear earrings.  Women can wear flannel shirts.  Once upon a time, men wore high heels, dresses, and skirts.  Look at King Louis XVI.

King Louis

Sorry your Majesty, you might like wearing wigs, dresses, and heels, but your chromosomes will never change!  THAT’S SCIENCES, BITCHES!!

What we consider masculine and feminine changes with time, and it has nothing to do with chromosomes, DNA, or anatomy.  This change happens because gender is a social construct.  Now that doesn’t mean it isn’t important!  The idea of money is a social construct too; there’s nothing inherently valuable about green inked pieces of paper.  Yet the concept associated with that paper is so powerful that people are willing to risk their lives if enough of it is offered.

It’s extremely important you respect a person’s gender identity, by treating them as the gender they identify as.  Ask any trans person how much it seriously hurts to be misgendered.

5. Hypocrites and Double Standards?

The final point brought up that’s worth answering is regarding how Ringo Starr won’t hold a concert in North Carolina, but he’ll tour Russia where LGBT rights are condemned.  Brian Adams likewise won’t show in the state, but he’ll tour Egypt.  Companies like Paypal threaten to pull out of the state, while still doing business in Saudi Arabia.  So why the double standard?

This seems rather perplexing to ask… we protest events that happen in the US, because this is the country where we live.  No one asked Obama to forego healthcare reform because Pakistan doesn’t have a similar measure.  That wouldn’t make sense.  I can’t think of any law or social action in this country that had to pass through a checklist of other countries first to see if it was okay.  We can’t control how life works in other countries, and just look how hard we’ve tried.  We’ve done a hell of a lot more than just withholding a business deal.  For example we had sanction imposed on Iran or ages, and this did very little to change any of their policies in the middle east.  Cuba had sanctions for 40 years?  They successfully remained communist the entire time.  So while we may not be able to strongly influence other countries, we can – and should – control how life works *HERE*, in our own country.  We live in a democracy, and we can change policies through direct actions, like boycotting and demonstrating.  That’s why we treat North Carolina different from, say, Egypt.


One last thing I would suggest, and this goes out to everyone who has a concern on this issue…

It seems like a lot of hysteria happening over this is coming from a place of simply not understanding who transgender people are.  Paul speaks of trans people with such admonishment, and even tries to draw parallels between us and pedophilia, so he strikes me as someone who probably has never actually tried getting to know a trans person in real life.  Because if he had, then he wouldn’t think this way.

We are not “men in dresses”.  We are women, but we were born with slightly different anatomy that we did not ask for.  Think of it the same way someone might be born with a disability, but then one day science discovers a way around that disability so it doesn’t have to control our lives anymore, and we can finally live the way that feels right.

We aren’t coming into the bathroom to “rape you”.  And we’re not coming in after your kids either – lots of transgender people have kids of their own.  We’re coming into the bathroom, believe it or not, because we have to pee.  That’s probably the same reason you’re there.

At least try getting to know one trans person before passing judgement on what restrictions we need to have because you feel scared of us.  When the apprehension fades, so will the prejudice and the urge towards discrimination.

The Complete and Final Resource on Patriarchy in the US

Decided to make an updated post on this topic.  “Patriarchy” is the cornerstone that most other 3rd Wave circular arguments rest upon.  We know the wage gap is caused by sexism because of Patriarchy = We know patriarchy is real because the wage gap is caused by sexism.  We know male privilege is real because of Patriarchy = We know patriarchy is real because of male privilege.  Etc.  You can find a complete resource responding to all these points here.

This post includes info from another post, but I feel some people are perhaps less inclined to review that one because it takes the form of a debate.  So I’m basically starting with the info from there, and expanding upon it.  I’ll also include the most common arguments I’ve seen, so you’ll know how to respond to them.


Patriarchy corner stone

Patriarchy is the cornerstone for the entire faith-based movement of 3rd Wave Feminism

First we’ll begin by using the absolute loosest definition of patriarchy so that it has the greatest possible chance of survival against rational inquiry; it’s a system wherein “masculinity is favored over femininity”. That’s it! That’s the only definition we’re using, because with that definition, you can build up towards anything you want that’s more specific.

If that were true:
— Why is it totally okay to beat a man in public, but men can’t even LOOK at a woman without it being labeled and denounced? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc – here’s another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOyrYThlOag .
— Why would we have laws allowing women to file charges of sexual harassment because of a swimsuit calendar in your cubicle? http://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2012/06/can-you-recognize-sexual-harassment-when-you-see-it/ – Why would saying “hello” and “god bless you” be considered shocking forms of street harassment?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A .  Shouldn’t men get a free pass if masculinity were valued and femininity were denounced (at least in saying such horrible things as “hello”)?
— Why would we lower the physical requirements of women joining police departments (http://www.pstc.nh.gov/faqs.htm), the military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test), and remove tests for fire departments altogether (http://nypost.com/2014/12/11/fdny-drops-physical-test-requirement-amid-low-female-hiring-rate/), even when it’s been repeatedly demonstrated that women who actually bothered training would have no such need? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3fD-L-Gdjg
— Why would I, as a woman, be allowed to board the bus ahead of someone who was clearly standing in line before me? Why is it when I drop something, three different men reach to pick it up? Why am I always allowed to use the restroom when the sign clearly says “no public restroom”? Why do I not have to pay for my own meals on dates? Why can I use the men’s room if there’s someone in the lady’s room, yet if a man tried that, he’d probably be arrested? http://www.katu.com/news/local/Portland-business-owner-in-battleover-bathroom-access-260064661.html
— Why are convicted killers of women more likely to get the death penalty? In a patriarchy. Where masculinity is more valued than femininity. http://www.presstelegram.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150628436
— Why are women almost never given the death penalty? In a patriarchy. Where femininity is not as valued as masculinity. http://www.businessinsider.com/women-and-the-death-penalty-2013-9
— Why do we punish men just for the accusation of rape with no evidence, but there’s virtually no recourse at all towards women who falsely accuse men of rape? If we valued men and not women, shouldn’t this be… reversed somehow?
— Why would the suicide rate for men be 3 times higher than for women? In a society where they’re more valued? https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
— Why are you able to stand up in public, anywhere in the modern day US, and shout “WOMEN ARE SMARTER THAN MEN!” – and get applause, yet if you did that same exact thing and shouted men were smarter than women, you’d get beaten up? No need for hyperlinks here – just go out and try it yourself.
— Why is it I can walk into a club wearing lipstick and eyeliner and have men fawn over me, yet for a man to have women fawn over him, he’d have to be a billionaire? What does money matter when men are more valued than women?
— Why would the Justice Department have an entire branch set up just for violence against women, even though domestic violence has been shown repeatedly to happen at equal rates to both men and women? http://www.justice.gov/ovw
— Why would we have Rape Shield laws?  http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-shield-laws.html.  How did those get passed in a patriarchy?
— If a building is on fire, how many people would rush in, risking their lives, to save Bob, the big fat bald-headed accountant? How many would rush in to save Tammy, the bikini model? Almost everyone goes for the model – but why, when Bob is more valuable because penis *cough* I MEAN “patriarchy”?
— If a woman is inside her house naked, and a man walks by and looks in the window, he’s a peeping tom, and gets arrested. Yet if it’s a man inside the house naked and a woman walks by, it’s still the man who gets arrested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRdFf8qtSc
— Why are we all okay with men being called nearly ever name under the sun (http://verbalabuseofmen.com/ ), but we need to “ban bossy”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Bossy
— I have a pass that allows me to eat dinner at some of the shelters around town.  Every evening when dinner is served, the women get to go first.  Why?  When we’re not as valued?
— Why does 97% of alimony cases go to women?  http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/ – shouldn’t it go to men?  Who are in power?  Who are in charge?  Who can just FORCE THE WOMAN to hand over her money and belongings to the man after a divorce?  (You know, like they do in the middle east?)
— Why is Hillary Clinton beating Bernie Sanders?  An old and well-off white man?  I mean the patriarchy isn’t just letting her win, they’re letting her cheat her ass off and get away with it scot-free.   http://www.sansmemetics.com/2016-the-year-americans-learned-their-elections-are-rigged/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
If you want to see what patriarchy looks like, just imagine a world where we flip all of these around. Imagine living in a country where is the exact opposite of everything we have in the US now. That might arguably be a “patriarchy”.
Is there any such place on earth that exists right now? Are there places where women are treated like trash just for being women? Why, yes, there is, as a matter of fact, glad you asked!!
hate men is patriarchyAnd that’s probably the best indicator that we DON’T have that in the US. And that’s the answer to the original question put forward; yes, patriarchy is real, but not in any developed first world nation.
The job 4th Wave Feminists have in front of us is to acknowledge legitimate women’s issues and get to work on them, while debunking the myths created by the 3rd Wave that hurt everyone.
The above should be enough to pretty much slam shut the case on patriarchy, but we’re not done.  As I stated earlier, lets go ahead and answer the most popular arguments for teh existence of patriarchy.  Any new arguments I find may be added later.  This will be the final and most complete resource in shutting down this nonsensical claim once and for all.
           Most Common Arguments for the Existence of Patriarchy in he US
1. “What about our all-male congress?  Why aren’t there any women?  Men are clearly in power!”

Probably this is the most common argument and is the immediate go-to point on the subject.  It also reveals just how little thought goes into making this claim. To begin with, we live in a free and open society, where anyone can run for any position in our government.  Men are elected to congress because people vote for them, and over 50% of voters are women.  In 2012, 53% of voters were women, and they backed Barrack Obama.  There were similar numbers in the 2008 campaign, where more women than men voted, and when Obama was first elected.  If you’ll remember, that’s also where Hillary ran her first campaign, and lost the democratic nomination to Obama, because that’s how most women voted.  We currently have an old white hetero-normative male running against Hillary in our current election season, and women plenty of women are voting for him instead of her.  At no point in any election process is being male a requirement.

So we then get the question “Why aren’t women running for office then?”  The 3rd Wave narrative insists that it has to be patriarchy!  But this subject has been very thoroughly researched, and as you might expect, studies reveal a completely different answer.  You can find one such study here:https://annieslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WhyDontWomenRun.pdf

From the study:

—– —–
When we move to the third box in Figure 1 and examine those members of the sample who actually ran for elective office, gender differences again emerge. Twelve percent of the men from the initial pool of prospective candidates actually threw their hats into the ring and sought elective positions; only 7 percent of the women did so (difference significant at p < .01). At first glance, this might seem like a small difference, but, in reality, it reflects the fact that men are 71 percent more likely than women to run for office.
—– —–

Long story short: women simply choose not to run for office.

You can find another study here: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/building-women2019s-political-careers-strengthening-the-pipeline-to-higher-office – this is from a far left leaning feminist organization, which basically reaches similar findings: women simply choose not to run for office, and the ones that do often don’t have the skills to succeed.  Just like at any job, you need skills related to that job, or you probably won’t do well.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12158/full – another study, this one from the American Journal of Political Science.  The study concludes:

—– —–
Even if potential candidates have the same qualifications, harbor the same ambitions, face the same incentives, and confront the same unbiased voters and electoral institutions—in short, encouter identical decision problems—the fact that representatives are chosen by electoral means is enough to dissuade women from putting themselves forward as candidates.
—– —–

– and further –

—– —–
But we also know that when women run for office, they win with at least as much frequency as do men (Darcy et al. 1994).
—– —–

Which just reiterates the point; women most certainly *can* run, and *can* win, but they choose not to put themselves out there and run.  Men face just as much scrutiny and just as many challenges.  The difference lies in personal choice.

Nothing says it better than this line:

—– —–
Women’s entry into the candidate pool increases only if we simultaneously guarantee that campaigns are completely truthful and eliminate the private costs of running for office.
—– —–

Right.  We need to make a bunch of rules!  Everyone has to be COMPLETELY HONEST! (In politics, seriously.)  No name calling!  No mud slinging!  No personal attacks!  Don’t criticize the things I say, or what I do, or where I go, or what I’ve done in the past – then I’ll feel safe enough to run!

Notice how Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren don’t need any of that?  Let that sink in for a moment.  Because *THAT’S* why they made it to the top.  Sarah Palin routinely has her personal and family life attacked anytime she appears anywhere in the media.  Say what you want about her, but I couldn’t do that.  You have to be incredibly damn tough to survive, and even tougher to succeed – just like any man does.

You can find numerous other studies on this subject.  Nowhere will you find “Women are kept out of congress because men laugh at them and send them home” – or any other claim involving patriarchy.

I also have personal experience working with politics.  In 2014, I worked for the Democratic Party of Portland (bet you thought I was a conservative, didn’tcha?)  I got an up close and personal look at just how vicious some of the mud-slinging can be.  If you’re running for office, your opponent has people on their team who will go through your entire personal history and look at every letter you’ve ever written, every job you’ve ever held, and every statement you’ve ever said.  Hell when Ben Carson was still in the 2016 race, journalist went so far as to seek out people he went to grade school with and interviewed them about his childhood!  Utterly nothing about your life will remain private if you decide to run for office.

Most women just don’t want their personal lives in front of the whole world to see.

Most men are willing to to run that gauntlet.

Again, this comes back to personal choice.  If women were being kept out of office “because patriarchy”, how on earth do you explain all the women who *DO* successfully make it in politics?  Was the patriarchy just sleeping when they decided to run?  Did patriarchy leave the door unlocked and the women slipped in, going “SURPRISE!” – then the patriarchy couldn’t kick them out?  Clearly, some women *are* making the personal choice to run, so there goes your “social pressures” argument.  Men face exactly the same social pressures when they run for office (just look at what Obama and others have had to face).  They simply make the personal choice to do it anyway.

Second, women are kept out of power?  Then how do you explain:









Why would this happen in patriarchy

Jokes aside, why would this be so common and so well understood in a patriarchy? Because in an actual patriarchy, the answer to the question would be “No. You’re wearing a blanket.”







^ I mean, how is *any* of this possible if women were “excluded from power”?  Going back to the Why Don’t Women Run study from above, we find:

—— ——
Men are significantly more likely than women to identify a state office (17 percent of men, compared to 11 percent of women) or national office (10 percent of men, compared to only 3 percent of women) as their first choice (differences significant at p < .01). These results mirror those researchers who find that women are more likely to focus their political involvement at the local level or in positions that match their stereotypic strengths.
—– ——

So then it makes perfect sense why we find so many women mayors and governors, but fewer women running for president.  You can see a list of female mayors here: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/levels_of_office/women-mayors-us-cities-2015 (that list is too long to have on this page).  Goes back to personal choice – something 3rd Wavers just hate (given how often we hear the argument “social pressure made me do it / kept me from it!”).

1.5 “Men can’t represent women’s interests / women are under represented!”

First, saying a man can’t represent a woman because he doesn’t have a vagina is like telling a brain surgeon he can’t help a patient with a tumor because he’s never had a tumor.  It also says nothing about how men are supposed to be represented if we let women into congress; somehow or another, women can represent men’s interest just fine? … well, yes, they can.  There’s nothing about lacking a penis that makes it impossible for you to understand how men live.  And vice versa.

Second, how exactly has a mostly male congress *not* represented women?  They routinely discuss and address women’s issues.  For example, even though every study ever published has shown that the wage gap is a result of women’s personal decisions, it still goes before congress and gets discussed anyway.

In fact, here’s a list of legislation passed by an “all male congress” that almost exclusively benefits women:

— The 19th Amendment ratified in 1920, allowing women to vote
— US vs Ballard, a 1946 ruling preventing discrimination of women on federal juries.
— Hoyt vs Florida, a 1961 ruling which extends US vs Ballard over state juries
— Federal Fair Pay Act of 1963, guaranteeing women are paid the same amount for the same work
— Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  effectively making sexual harassment a federal offense
— Executive Order 11375, signed in 1965, which extended affirmative action to women
— Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling granting all married couples access to contraception
— Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 decision that allowed women of any race to marry man of any race
— Executive Order 11246, signed in 1968, which prohibits sex discrimination by government contractors and requires affirmative action plans for hiring women
— Gun Control Act of 1968, which prevents anyone convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm (passed with almost unanimous support from congress, by the way)
— Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, extending affirmative action to college campuses for women
— Eisenstadt v. Baird, a case in 1972, established the right to use contraceptives
— Roe v Wade, a 1972 ruling that has since made it legal to seek an abortion
— Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prevents discrimination based on gender of any federally funded program (signed by president Nixon, by the way)
— Frontiero v. Richardson, a 1973 decision that ruled against the discrimination of military spouses
— The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1974, which eliminates housing discrimination on the basis of sex
— Sprogis v. United Airlines, a 1975 ruling that prevents discrimination against women for being married
— Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, prevents discrimination for being pregnant
— Kirchberg v. Feenstra, a 1981 decision that overturns state laws that give the husband exclusive control over property that’s jointly owned with his wife
— Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, a 1984 decision that required many male-only organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, etc) must allow women.  It’s difficult to imagine this happening to female-only organizations
— Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (or COBRA), in 1985, which allows women to continue receiving benefits from their health insurance policy, if the policy was connected to their job, and they lose that job.
— Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, a 1986 ruling that stated sexual harassment, even if it doesn’t cause any economic loss, is still a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
— The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, allowing women 12 weeks of maternity leave among other things
— Harris v. Forklift Systems, a 1993 decision stating that a woman doesn’t have to show any signs of physical or psychological injury when reporting sexual harassment
— The Violence against Women Act of 1994, which in turn created Rape Shield Laws
— The subsequent creation of the Office of Violence Against Women
— Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which prevents anyone from stopping a woman from accessing reproductive healthcare
— Gender Equity in Education Act, passed in 1994, aimed at training teachers in gender equity, promote math and science for girls, counseling for pregnant teens, and prevention of sexual harassment
— United States v. Virginia, a 1996 ruling that stated the Virginia Military Institute was required to accept women who wanted to enroll (just a side note: the VMI considered going private to avoid this decision, but the Department of Defense threatened to pull all ROTC programs if they did.  Patriarchy?)
— Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, extending statute of limitations for suing over wage discrimination cases.

Keep in mind, these are all only federal laws, and supreme court decisions.  This doesn’t include state laws and state supreme court decisions.

Then we have even more laws, statutes, and court rulings that men can arguably benefit from as well, although if we believed the claims of 3rd Wavers, these would have been passed mostly for the benefit of women.

You can see a few such statutes here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-me/legacy/2012/06/01/Federal%20DV%20Statutes%20-%20September%202010.pdf

Among them:

— Interstate Travel to Commit Domestic Violence
— Interstate Stalking
— Cyber Stalking
— Interstate Travel to Violate an Order of Protection
— Household and Dependent Care Credit Act of 2001, an attempt to offset the cost of raising children through a tax credit
— Apessos v. Memorial Press Group, a 2002 ruling that an employer cannot terminate an employee who requires time off to settle a matter pertaining to domestic violence
— In J.E.B. v. Alabama, a 1994 decision that basically says any challenge whatsoever regarding the participation in the democratic process on the basis of race or gender is disallowed
— The Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) is signed into law in 2010.  Part of this act requires that private health insurance companies provide women with birth control, without co-pays or deductibles.

I actually don’t want this post to go on forever, so I can’t include literally every congressional act, supreme court ruling, and executive order that benefits only women.  You can find another list that goes even further into this here: http://www.nwhp.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/ .  But this claim that women “lack fair representation”, as if our “all male” congress (in a patriarchy) has never done anything for women, is absolutely mind boggling.

Can you imagine for a moment congress passing that many laws and decisions that exclusively benefit men?  Yea neither can I.

…………in a patriarchy.

2. “Wage gap!”

Here’s the link again in case you missed it.

3. “Men hold doors open for you because you’re seen as weak / men pay for dates because it’s assumed you cant pay / men do nice things for you because they’re expecting sex”.

Answered this one in a post you can see here.  But if you want the short version: you can’t read someone’s mind.  You don’t *know* that a man is holding a door open for you because he thinks you’re weak.  He could be just trying to be nice.  He could see you as strong and confident and wants to hold the door for that reason.  He might even admire you, and that’s why he’s doing it.  The same goes for all the other suggested motives – you can’t know those are a person’s reasons within those hypothetical examples.  It’s just a story that you’ve decided to accept and interpret the world with.

I have a black friend who was getting nasty looks from his professor in college.  The professor was nice to all the other students, but always seemed tense around him.  Finally one day my friend called him out on it, expect some type of racist motive (3rd Wavers call themselves “intersectional” when they make up motives based on race).  The professor finally levels with him.

“Ever since this semester started… you’ve been taking my parking space.  Could you please stop doing that?”

My friend began parking somewhere else, and things were fine from that day forward.  “Men only _______ because _______” — When applied to men as a whole, that’s just narrative.  It’s certainly not “proof of patriarchy”.

3.5 “So you’re saying it’s impossible to know someone’s motives?”

Of course not.  It’s easy to know someone’s motives – just ask them!  People are generally open if you approach them in a non-accusatory way.  I know that after spending the evening with someone who’s offering to pay for my meal, it’s certainly *not* because they sees me as unable to pay for my dinner.  We’ve been dating for a while, and we know each other.  I don’t have any reason to suspect a hidden motive.

But that’s not what we’re talking about.  “Patriarchy” isn’t what one person does.  The exact definition of patriarchy changes based on who you ask (as it happens in any faith based movement), but all definitions include some type of prevailing culture or system that operates across the entire country and affects everyone.  So even if you were dating someone who paid for your meal because he thought you weren’t able to due to having a vagina, that wouldn’t be proof of patriarchy.  That’s just proof that you’re dating someone who’s very….. strange.

4. “What about rape culture / thousands of rape kits that are backlogged!”

Here’s the complete and total answer to rape culture.  As for rape kits, a 2011 report released from the Justice Department details exactly why that’s happening – and it has nothing to do with patriarchy, sexism, rape culture, or any other 3rd Waver buzz word.

5. “Women are still battling for reproductive rights!”

Review the list we went over earlier, and look at how many laws and decisions have been made regarding women’s reproductive rights.  You have a dizzying array of rights.  Men on the other hand have virtually nothing in this regard.  How in the world has it gotten this backwards?

reproductive rights of women

(Update 5/13/16: The above meme appears to have been successfully challenged by a number of different people.  You can see the full discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=795018017295411&set=a.409712675825949.1073741828.100003616618834&type=3 .  A review of the facts currently shows that women still do have some advantages over men in regards to child support, but the majority of the points in the meme do not hold.  Thank you for challenging the information you see on 4th Wavers.   That’s how we improve.)

This is not to say the system we have is perfect.  It’s fair to say that abortion clinics in certain states have been unfairly shut down, and this is a serious injustice that should be corrected.  John Oliver does a fantastic job of outlining these issues here.  But don’t pretend like women just have no rights a all.  That’s ridiculous.  And while these are issues that people are becoming aware of and trying to correct, nobody is at all concerned about the man’s rights regarding a pregnancy.

If this were a patriarchy, why isn’t this the exact opposite way around?  Shouldn’t the man have a ton of rights, with the woman left out of the discussion?

You know.  Kind of like it is in *actual* patriarchies?  Like Iraq?  And Saudi Arabia?

6. “Women don’t get maternity leave!”


…. and the reason for this… is because the US is a culture that hates women so much that we just can’t stand the thought of them at home, raising a child?

It might have something to do with the inordinate cost of paying a woman to not show up at work every day for over a year while she stays at home.  That might also be why men aren’t given time off either for having a child.

This is still a problem of course, and one that should be intelligently discussed and considered.  And as a socialist, I’m confident there are solutions that most likely exist outside of the price system.  But this isn’t something caused by men hating women (or femininity being devalued, if that sounds better) so much that they don’t want them to go home and raise kids.

Come to think of it, if the patriarchy’s view of women is that they should stay home and raise kids, then shouldn’t we expect *more* maternity leave?

7. Women are objectified / harassed!

Objectification Theory has been debunked, and women aren’t objectified.  As far as harassment goes, according to 3rd Wave sources, literally anything a man says in public, no matter what it is, can be called “harassment”.  In the 10 hour walk through New York video, which was famously used by the agency Hollaback as solid proof of the “shocking and horrifying” harassment (yes, those were their own words) that women go through each day showed us such horrible catcalls as “Hello”, “God bless you”, and “Have a nice day” (those are some of the first things we hear in the video).

None of these would fit the legal definition of harassment.  And you can’t point to anything someone says that you don’t personally like and claim it’s harassment (well, technically you can, since 3rd Wavers do this all the time – but that doesn’t actually make it harassment).

This isn’t to say that harassment just never happens – of course it does, just like any crime occasionally happens.  Murder, theft, arson, and so on.  That in no way suggests that there’s an entire nation wide culture that thinks these things are okay.  That’s why we have laws against them – and 3 federal statutes specifically against harassment were listed above.

8. Women can’t go topless in public / women are told they can’t breastfeed in public!

I honestly can’t imagine a world where women go topless in public.  As it stands, if you *LOOK* at a woman the wrong way – that’s male gaze.  You try to explain yourself – that’s man-splaining.  You give up and go sit down – that’s man-spreading.  The only way to not “enforce the patriarchy” is to curl up in a little ball, close your eyes, and remain motionless until a woman gives you permission to move.

………… but even then, we’d have “man-breathing”.  Your breathing too hard.  That’s a sign of domination!  It’s patriarchy!

Okay now women are going to go around topless?  Can you just imagine?  Absolutely positively *EVERY* conceivable thing a man does is going to be harassment of one kind or another.  I mean if you think it’s bad now, just wait until the “free the nipple” campaign succeeds.  I’m honestly waiting for rape accusations against men who weren’t even in the same area code.

I’m also not aware of the legions of women who are just dying to walk around town topless.  Like that’s a serious thing all women are wanting to do, and can’t, because patriarchy.

As far as breastfeeding goes – I’d agree, that’s a problem, and personally it’s not one that I understand.  I’ve never really got what people are so hung up about.  Sure breast can be sexual, but that doesn’t mean they always are.  But what does this have to do with masculinity being promoted at the expense of femininity?  It’s more likely just a cultural hold over from more puritanical times centuries ago.

9. Women have to change their names to the man’s after marriage!

This is because marriage used to serve a very different function than it does now.  In fact, marrying someone because you love them is actually a relatively new thing!  Even the practice of getting on your knee and proposing with a ring is a manufactured tradition that started only in the 20th century.

Marriage used to be about alliances during war, land exchange, inheritance, and so on.  If you trace back the original reasons for the name change, it gets rather complex as we go through medieval Europe, and cultures prior to that time.  Marriage has meant different things during different time periods, and the practice of name changing has since gone obsolete.

It had nothing to do with “men are awesome, women are worthless, so you change your name to mine”.  In much the same way chivalry has utterly nothing to do with holding a door open for someone, or treating women in any particular way.  Chivalry was almost entirely about medieval battle etiquette.  The only time it would apply in modern times is if a man were challenging you to a jousting tournament.

10. “The English language is male dominated!  MailMAN, ServiceMAN, etc”.

First, our language has changed over the last few decades, and using gender specific nouns in describing an occupation is becoming less and less common.  That’s not something that should happen in a patriarchy.

Second, gender roles evolved out of earlier survival behavior.  I would like to see the typical modern day blue-haired “I need a safe space” 3rd Waver chop wood, carry stones, then kill a large animal and drag it back to the cave, and see how well she does.  Chances are, she’s not going to do well at all.  Her male counterpart is unable to give birth to children even if he wanted to, and probably also wouldn’t do well sitting around a cave listening to a screaming baby all day.  For survival, they took different survival roles.  These roles eventually became culturally ingrained as gender roles.  It explains why many occupations had “man” in the name for a long while, but it has utterly nothing to do with women being inferior.

In fact, in all ancient civilizations, when these roles were first developing, women were the ones in control of society.  They ran the government, owned all the property, and men were unmistakably second class.  Centuries later, while the man was out plowing the fields under the hot sun in medieval Europe, the women was inside *not* getting sunburned, mosquito bitten, or called off to war anytime the king got bored.

Gender roles are not patriarchy.  And neither is gendered language.


I hope by now the myth of patriarchy is clear, and how it’s ultimately the driving force behind the 3rd Wave agenda.

How can you believe that men run everything just to hurt women (patriarchy), that men are somehow inherently valued over women and are given power over them (another definition of patriarchy), that women are oppressed by men and excluded from any form of power or decision making (yet another definition of patriarchy), that men are given advantages only because they are men (because of patriarchy), that men see women as objects (due to patriarchy), even when absolutely none of these things have any truth to them…

…. and not call that “man-hating”?  How is it possible to believe all that – none of which have any evidence – and not call yourself anti-man?


Simply brilliant, and could not have said it better myself.  As a trans-woman, I’ve also changed, grown as a person, and this really connects with me.  Thank you to whoever made this.

3rd Wave has nothing to do with women’s issues, and sure as hell has nothing to do with equality.  It’s focused around, and centered on, hating men.  It criminalizes masculinity and victimizes femininity.  “Patriarchy” is just an pseudo-academic way of making this look like a social theory from an activist group rather than an ideology from a hate group.

That’s why 4th Wave exists.  We’re checking 3rd Wave back towards reality, and hope that one day we can rescue feminism and return it to what it was originally about; empowering women, and focusing on legitimate social justice issues.

Looking Back

Hey everyone!

This is to let everyone know that I’ll be taken an extended break from making new content, and to explain how all this got started.  This site has come an extremely long way from a year and a half ago, when I first started by writing a response to the male privilege checklist.  But this project actually began well before that.

As I said in the comments section of another post, this project began shortly after I transitioned a little over 2 years ago.  I was getting told all sorts of bizarre things about what life would be like as a woman – mostly from other women. I was told that men were going to “objectify me”, that I had to be careful when I went out at night, that I’d be earning less than men, and all the usual jazz I’m sure you’re familiar with. I was prepared to face these challenges as a woman, as I wanted to be treated just like any other woman… but they never came. Men never “objectified” me. They were certainly attracted to me! They were always so nice, and asked me out frequently – usually working up the courage first, and being all nervous when they finally did… so I started to think, who gets nervous talking to an object?  Who works up the courage to ask a household object out on a date?? This didn’t make any sense.  Also, my paychecks started going *up*, not down.

I started reading about some of these things, and wrote some of my preliminary ideas in an email to another trans friend.  That just opened up the flood gates, because the exchange quickly went south. Very soon after the discussion began, I was suddenly a “rape apologist”, and being brainwashed by this “patriarchy”. That exchange nearly ended a 20 year friendship with this person, and at that point, I was determined to learn all I could, and write an email back responding to all these points.  I still wasn’t sure what patriarchy even was – but I knew I wasn’t brainwashed, I knew I didn’t walk around being oppressed everywhere, and I certainly knew I wasn’t a rape apologist.

The other day, I was reading through some of the very earliest notes I took when I first began studying all this.  I put these notes up for peer review – beginning with my friend of over 20 years – and I got stomped pretty hard in the debate that followed.

But that was a good thing.  I found out where I was wrong, looked again at things I couldn’t answer, and studied more on the areas where I was lacking.

I began taking notes again, and researched further to better understand key terms, and see how they logically fit together.  I wanted to fully explore all the arguments put forth by every side, and went through the trouble of reading the original studies anytime they were cited.  During this time I visited a lot of Third Waver sites, and still didn’t know that there was, in fact, a clear division between the different waves of feminism.  Several months later, I put these notes up for review again, and was soundly whooped again – though this time not as bad.

So I went back to reviewing and researching.  This time I went so far as to start studying ancient civilizations and archaeology… a subject I never had any interest in.  But I seriously wanted the last and final answer in the question for how, when, where, and why this whole “patriarchy” thing got started, because that seemed to be the cornerstone for all Third Waver theory.  I wanted to know at precisely what point a caveman hit a cavewoman over the head with a club and dragged her back to his cave, and then turned that into a system of government.  I wanted to know exactly when it was decided that women were worthless, and forever relegated to scrubbing things – until just recently, when, through centuries of unrelenting hard work, they FINALLY taught those big bad men to stop beating them and treat them like people, all thanks to feminism.

I also wanted to learn about male privilege.  I spent 30 years as a male and was homeless during most of that time.  I faced going hungry over and over again.  I frequently worked 2 or more jobs just to have enough to eat while studying science in a parking lot, hoping to educate myself into something that would lead to me being housed.  I kept myself healthy by never using drugs, drinking, or smoking, and stayed in shape doing pull ups off street signs and pushups with my packs on.  I became suicidal more than once.  And this all changed the day I became a woman.  Suddenly I had housing.  I had people giving me things, and treating me immeasurably better.  So I really was curious about that privilege I was supposedly having!  And that I now do not have.

Finally I also noticed that no one ever tried to rape me.  Like, ever.  According to 3rd Wavers, we have to teach men not to rape, implying that they literally don’t know that rape is bad.  1 in 5 women get raped or assaulted!  Yet over the last 2 years and 27 days, I’ve walked all over Portland, at all times of day and often in the middle of the night.  I’d walk from the Northwest side over near Transition Projects, and walk all the way back home, across Burnside bridge and towards North Portland.  It’s just over 3 miles.  I’d often do that in the middle of the night – between 10pm and 2am.  Never raped.  Never assaulted.  Not even once.  And I could do that over and over and over again and still never be harmed.

Men never “catcalled” me either – until the 10 Hour Walk through New York video showed me that “catcalling”, literally, means saying things like “hello” and “god bless you”.

So this resulted in one final email that I was going to write back to my friend.  I was going to research the living hell out of every aspect of feminist theory, tracking down every study I could find and read every one of them front to back, and I would spend 6 or more hours a day doing this for months at a time.  The email grew larger and larger.  Finally I decided to put it in an MS Word doc.  Then *that* became larger and larger!  Then I sent it off to multiple people across the internets for peer review – and this included every 3rd Waver I could find who was willing to review it (even had an interesting exchange with AronRa when I included him in the review process – but that’s another story).  Only when I was absolutely positive each section was backed by evidence, and had reviewed all the counter evidence, and that the material could survive the maximum level of scrutiny, did I finally send it to my friend.  An entire book written for this one person.

…….. and they only read it half way.  Once they got to the chapter where feminist theory was discussed, they went only a few pages in, then stopped.  They also completely quit talking to me about feminist theory.  I never again heard how the “friend zone” means men think they’re entitled to sex, or anything about objectification.  I’d later see the same thing happen anytime I talked with 3rd Wavers online.

I started transferring the chapters of my book onto 4th Wavers as a means of making the information completely free for everyone.  I never intended on selling the book.  It was originally meant for that one person anyway, but I had put so much time and effort into the research, and I felt that these subjects were important for the ongoing public discussion surrounding feminist theory, so I wanted others to have access, and I didn’t want to hold any of it behind a paywall.

To push the peer review process even further, I would upload a chapter (which always provided a chance to improve it again a little before it was published online), then post the links to relevant topics on 3rd Wave Feminist boards.  Again and again, 3rd Wavers would start popping off in their typical angry fashion, accusing me of the usual routine (MRA / misogynist / rape apologist / etc), but were never able to answer any of the things I wrote.  The material always survived scrutiny, and half the time they wouldn’t even click the link, as they couldn’t bare to have their narrative challenged.  That’s when I started to realize that this was a faith based movement I was dealing with.  Not only do they lack any actual evidence, they behave just like young earth creationist when you challenge religion.  They never respond to the content in what I posted, and often have to resort to deleting comments or banning me from the forums.  I posted a few links on Upworthy’s facebook page a few times, and they’ve since started moderating the comments.  Still no actual challenges to any of the materials.

I kept publishing new articles over the next year, sometimes from my book, and sometimes new content in response to what I found online.  I did this until just recently, when I found that I had covered virtually every 3rd Waver argument.  It was at that point, that I made a compilation page, which you can see here: https://4thwavers.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/how-to-answer-3rd-wave-feminist-arguments/ .  It had become so common to just pick the appropriate link, drop it into the conversation, and watch the discussion shut down, that I made this list so others can do it too.

And with that, nearly all the contents of the book I had written are now uploaded – much of it has been improved to better fit a webpage, and now functions better as an airtight response to any common 3rd Wave argument you might find.

The final and last post I had been working on was how to distinguish between science and narratives – a major part of my book that still wasn’t uploaded.  However, you can now find that part here: https://4thwavers.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/science-vs-story-telling-how-do-you-know-whats-actually-real/ .

At this point, I won’t be sending out copies of the book anymore.  Sorry, but most of the information can now be found on 4th Wavers, plus it’s actually better written here than it is in the book.  The site works as kind of a “second edition”.  I might still come back on occasion and write another article, but I will usually only do this if people ask.  If you have some ideas for an article you’d like to see made, leave it in the comments section and if it gets enough likes, I’ll go to work on it.

For now, I feel like this is a extremely major chapter, that’s finally complete.

Thanks everyone for your support!

Samus Aran waving bye