Response to “I’m Tired of Dating Men Who Think I Hate Men”

I got up super early this Saturday morning and began scrolling through my facebook newsfeed.  I remember back when I was a kid, and getting up early instead of sleeping in meant being able to see Saturday Morning cartoons characters.  These days it’s kinda the same.  I get up early, and I certainly still see characters!  Like this one:

for postSaw this super-easy-to-pwn article and thought to myself, “Ah, why not?”  It’s a cheap and easy opportunity to create new content by aiming at such low hanging fruit, so here goes!


>> When my (now ex) long-distance boyfriend asked me this question during a (literal) Netflix and Chill session, I was so stunned that I nearly dropped my phone.

^^^ First of all, the entire foundation of 3rd Wave Feminism is that men secretly hate women! How is it shocking when that question comes headed back your way?

And second, your boyfriend asked you that? I don’t think this was a question asked totally out of the blue. If he was with you long enough to end up being your bf and having a “netflix and chill” session, there’s probably some history to this question (as we’ll see in a bit).

>> It was not the first time a man had asked me this question.

^^^ Well “hint-hint” baby cakes. If you’ve been getting this question a lot lately, you might wanna clue in.

>> And despite the fact that I’m not one to ever be silenced—especially by such a cheap, clichéd trick

^^^ Yea we’re only like 2 paragraphs in and I’m already starting to see why he might have asked you this question about hating men.  Seriously alarm bells are going off and we’ve only just started.

>> My partner, who’d asked me to teach him more about why women need safe spaces

^^^ Why do they need safe spaces?

Is it because of male privilege / patriarchy / objectification / violence / wage gap / men saying “how-are-you” is cat calling / men looking at you the wrong way is “male gaze” / men hold doors open because they think you’re weak / men feel rejected when you turn them down because they feel “entitled to your body” (because feeling rejected isn’t just a normal human emotion) / a man can’t explain himself or it’s “man’splaining” / a man can’t even sit down without it being “man-spreading”?

holding door openEach individually linked.  Check off all that apply. Can’t *imagine* why someone would ask if you hate men.

(Interestingly enough, men paying for your dinner is rarely called sexist – and according to this article hyperlinked here, acknowledging that women are getting something for free is considered misogyny.  Strange how the script get flipped around like that when it involves women getting free stuff.)

>> “What if most men really are Ben Jordan? ‘Nice’ guys who love their partners but only in ways that keep themselves comfy?”

^^^ How DARE those men want relationships where they’re comfortable!

>> “That’s why The Story of Us is my favorite love story,” he said, beginning the film analysis part of the Chill session. “It’s just so real.”

^^^ For the record, I stopped watching TV about 15 years ago, and have only seen a handful of movies since. Have no idea who Ben Jordan is. Have never seen “Story of Us”.

>> “I think you’re saying that because Ben Jordan (Bruce Willis’ character)

^^^ Oh he’s a character. Okay, thanks.

Here I was actually googling Ben Jordan, thinking he must be some kind of actor.

The next few paragraphs are referring to what happened in a movie of some kind – not gonna bother looking up the movie or reading through the plot, because it won’t make a difference. She’s decided to interpret what she sees through the 3rd Wave narrative. I’ve written on how narratives work before:

In short, if the woman character accepts the man, it was patriarchy making her forcefully accept him when he wouldn’t change. If she doesn’t accept the man, it’s patriarchy punishing her because he won’t change. If the man changes the way she wants, it’s patriarchy being condescending to her because men change to fit her needs (we can even then say “damsel in distress”). If she can’t find a man – oh so women need men? If she does find a man – oh look a man’s right there to solve her problems! If she doesn’t want to find a man – look at how much she struggles because there aren’t any good men! If she does want to find a man – oh so women need men?

Another brilliant and short example of how narratives work, from the link above:

Narratives allow you to superimpose your conclusion onto virtually any situation without needing a shred of facts or evidence. When you repeatedly interpret every situation as being the fault of maleness (‘patriarchy”), then it’s no wonder people ask if you hate men.

Because you do.  You’re just dressing it up with pseudo-intellectual terminology.

>> “What a nightmare,” I continued, “to be stuck in a relationship with someone who will never sacrifice or change for your benefit but will expect you to do so for him while you suffer in silence.”

^^^ But again, if he does change for you, then he’s pandering to your whims and that’s how patriarchy hurts everyone (or feel free to make up your own narrative).

The narrative here is made even more painfully obvious if we switch the roles. What if a man wanted a woman to change, and she didn’t, and he was stuck putting up with her? I can already see Laci Green making a video on why patriarchy expects women to change when a man want’s them to!

>> For all the unpaid emotional labor I spent trying to “work” with him

^^^ ……. so this whole entire relationship, you were secretly acting as his therapist. This guy was just a pet project for you to see if men could be taught and trained properly.

And because you spent your “emotional labor” trying to “work” with him, he’s now supposed to agree with your narrative.

Again just imagine if we flipped the genders, how misogynist that would be.

>> trying to help him understand that the microaggressions I faced in the world weren’t tiny, insignificant problems

^^^ Yea they’re not tiny. That’s why they’re called *MICRO* aggressions. Somebody looks at you the wrong way for a half second, and that’s clearly a sign of patriarchy. A very real thing. Not micro at all.

>> I’m hesitant to apply the law of broken clocks here. In fact, I’m certain there are many men who offer reciprocal love and emotional support to their partners. They exist!

^^^ You know, I’m certain that somewhere out there, there’s a woman who isn’t a fragile little snowflake, who can handle herself in any situation, and doesn’t live off making excuses.

………. now if I posted that anywhere else besides here, how many screen shots of it do you think would be taken of it, and used as proof of misogyny?

>> But on a larger scale, where are these men when romantic love is off the table? Do they get that our society is so deeply invested in preserving patriarchy that groups of old white men throughout the country are succeeding at stripping women of their legal rights to govern our own bodies in the year 2016?

^^^ There is of course no patriarchy in the US.

>> While there are some men who may disagree with anti-choice legislation, who’s ready to grab a pick axe and dismantle rape culture with us?

^^^ For rape culture to exist, it would have to mean that the majority of men are not only okay with rape, but are potential rapists. Tell me again how you don’t hate men? Also:

>> While some men may think Black women making $0.64 to the dollar of what men make isn’t fair, who’s ready to chip in that $.36 to even it out?

^^^ I like how “black” is capitalized. Also already linked the wage gap myth earlier.

>> Yes, some men think it’s great that the women in their lives have thriving careers and won’t change their names after marriage, but who’s actually interested in doing the hard, long work of decolonizing heteronormative relationships?

^^^ No one. Because there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a heteronormative relationship.

A straight white dude is perfectly fine dating a straight white woman. There’s utterly nothing wrong with that.

Do you just… hate men?

>> The leading cause of death for Black women and girls ages 15-35 is domestic violence or intimate partner violence.

^^^ <– it’s the first google result that comes up.

First result
I literally spent less than 5 seconds finding that link.

Homicide ranks number 2 on the age group mentioned, but this includes *all* homicide – only a percentage of that would be from domestic violence, and not all DV would end in homicide. DV also happens to men at roughly the same rate as it happens to women.

Moreover, many of these homicides are not happening because all men are vicious animals who have to be taught not to kill women.  They’re happening because black’s just happen to live in poorer neighborhoods (a result of racist policies that existed in the 1930s and 40s – one of the few actually demonstrable examples of white privilege), and poverty-stricken areas have higher crime rates. <– Another page that took just seconds to find.  If you live in a poorer neighborhood, then all crimes – including homicide – is likely to happen more often.

>> James Dixon just pleaded guilty to beating Black transwoman Islan Nettles to death because he thought her being trans threatened his “manhood.”

^ Now tell me how my individual examples prove nothing about women, but how your individual example is clearly evidence of patriarchy. That’s how narratives work, after all!

babies in dumpsters
>> It’s denying you’re a misogynist because you “don’t hate women,” without realizing that thinking women deserve less than you isn’t love.

^^^ Irony.


When They Just Can’t Win, Part 6: These Are Getting Predictable

Not much to say in introducing this one.  We all know how this goes – 3rd Waver decides they’re going to “prove” to me in the comments section of a post that women are oppressed, they end up not being able to do that, then rage quit.

Bowing out from a discussion you’re clearly not qualified to have is always acceptable.  Trying to block or delete the entire discussion gets you a place on 4th Wavers.


Some Guy shared Cheech and Chong‘s photo.
Cheech and Chong's photo.
LikeShow more reactions



Haley Renae [This is the little bundle of joy that we’re dealing with today] Fuck you. Don’t be disrespectful to women, tell them what to do to/with their bodies, and then tell us to calm down when we get pissed. We have a right to be angry mr male privilege! Either deal with women getting pissed at you when you say disrespectful stupid shit, or stop saying disrespectful stupid shit.

Wanna learn about feminism so you can not be a dick? Feel free to visit my feminist page with over 10,000 followers that will agree with me! We talk a lot about not sexualizing women, maybe you can learn a thing or two.

Cause · 10,039 Likes
'Thank you to our supporter Michael for creating this new cover photo for us!!'
Hide 21 Replies
Athena Brown

Athena Brown The post isn’t telling you what to do with your body. It’s simply informing you that most men don’t find this particular thing attractive. You’re still able to do what you want.

Also there is no male privilege in the US, and I wouldn’t mind joining your page to discuss that, but I’m approximately 100% certain that I would be banned in less than a day for posting stats and statistics that you don’t agree with.

Haley Renae

Haley Renae I don’t ban people for disagreeing with me, i ban people for being disrespectful assholes who don’t follow the rules.

One example of male privilege

President Obama and the Administration have made significant progress to bridge the gender pay gap, but there’s more to be done.
Haley Renae

Haley Renae Oh and it is telling women that if they have those nails, men won’t find them attractive, and that they shouldn’t wear them so men can sexualize them more

Athena Brown

Athena Brown Nowhere on the post does it say you cannot wear them. It only says they’re not attractive to men – you can still keep wearing them.

If I said “These are not attractive to Athena” – then I would only be telling you the opinion of Athena. That’s not an order to stop wearing them.

Also, women get equal pay for the same level of work. They make less at the end of a fiscal year because of decisions they make regarding their careers.…/the-wage-gap-myth…/

(Update: thanks to some persuasive criticism from Free Thinking Atheist Females, which…
Haley Renae

Haley Renae I just gave you a government link, and you send me a wordpress. Impressive… Lol

Athena Brown

Athena Brown Yea, your government link only says “the wage gap exists”. No one’s arguing about that.

The link I gave you provides no less than 11 different links to various peer reviewed sources, including a link to 50 peer reviewed studies on the wage gap, all of which uniformly reach the same exact conclusion. Lol

Haley Renae

Haley Renae Maybe you should explore my link a tad more. Or go ahead and check the US DOL because they say the same thing

Athena Brown

Athena Brown Okay then, not a problem. Lets check your link a LOT more.

From your link:

>> Equal pay is a family issue. Women make up nearly half of the U.S. labor force and are a growing number of breadwinners in their families. More women are also working in positions and fields that have been traditionally occupied by men.

^^^ Completely true. Nothing wrong so far.

>> When women are not paid fairly, not only do they suffer, but so do their families.

^^^ Also true – but if you’re making the claim that women are paid UNFAIRLY, you now carry the burden of proof to present evidence for that claim.

Because we have over 50 peer reviewed studies demonstrating this not to be the case, it’s an extraordinary claim, and will require extraordinary evidence. But back to the link:

>> Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that men and women in the same work place be given equal pay for equal work, the “gender gap” in pay persists.

^^^ Correct. It persists for reasons outlined in the 50 peer reviewed studies I linked you too earlier.

>> In 2014, the typical woman working full-time all year in the United States earned only 79 percent of what the typical man earned working full-time all year. Phrased differently, she earned 79 cents for every dollar that he earned.

^^^ Correct again – and this hyperlinks to another page which says the exact same thing.

Again, the pay gap is real, and no one’s disputing that. It’s caused by women’s personal decisions.

>> Decades of research shows that no matter how you evaluate the data, there remains a pay gap — even after factoring in the kind of work people do, or qualifications such as education and experience

^^^ Correct, because even when they’re doing the same job with the same qualifications, women are twice as likely to work part time, 3 times as likely to call in sick, much more likely to take time off, much more likely to choose shifts that fit their lifestyle, more more likely to choose work within a field that they prefer, etc etc etc etc etc.

>> and there is good evidence that discrimination contributes to the persistent pay disparity between men and women.

^^^ To date, there has never been a single paper published anywhere in the world, concerning the pay gap in the US, that demonstrates a link between discrimination and the gap.

Alright, now your turn.

Examine *my* link a little more closely and see what you come up with.

Haley Renae

Haley Renae So the government pages are wrong because you say so? Women choose to earn less for same work?

Athena Brown

Athena Brown I just finished explaining how those pages are almost entirely right.

I get that you still haven’t clicked the link I provided, for fear that it contains evidence that refutes your narrative, but are you not even reading what I say here?

Haley Renae

Haley Renae Yes i looked at it, yes I’m reading. Yes you’re being a fucking ignorant pompous ass.

Haley Renae

Haley Renae So not all of my government links are correct, but all of your word press link is. Cute

Athena Brown

Athena Brown Okay if you looked at it and you’re reading, it should be obvious what I said. The government page you linked to is mostly correct. The wage gap is real, but it’s caused by personal decisions.

Think of it like this:

If you’re a man, and you work in the medical field:

– If you work as an orderly…………lol omg loser!
– If you work as a nurse’s aid…….lol omg loser!
– If you work as a nurse………….. lol omg loser!!!
– If you work as a doctor………… Okay, acceptable. But only as long as you keep working yourself to the bone, non-stop, to prove your worth.

And then something interesting happens when this social stigma finally pushes more than a few men to the forefront: “Typical! Men are always in charge!”


If you’re a woman, and you work in medicine:

– If you work as an orderly……….. You go girl!
– If you work as a nurse’s aid…… You go girl!
– If you work as a nurse…………… You go girl!
– If you work as a doctor………….. You go girl!

^ Now if you do not have that kind of social pressure, and you’re fine no matter where you land along the job hierarchy, then you’re far less likely to push yourself as hard. That’s what every paper ever written on the subject has concluded.

>> So not all of my government links are correct, but all of your word press link is.

^^^ Most of your government link is spot on. However, there has never been a paper ever published demonstrating a link between discrimination and the wage gap. So it’s simply not true to say that there’s evidence of that discrimination when there isn’t any.

The wordpress page links you to numerous studies and pages. Like I said there’s no less than 11 links – one of which is a report compiled by the Department of Labor specifically for the White House. I not only linked the study, I pasted the highlights of the study – it concludes that the gap is caused by women’s personal decisions.

You’re very welcome to read the study! If you find it’s in error, please copy-paste the paragraphs containing the errors, and explain how they’re wrong. That’s basically what I did with your government link. I read the entire link, and acknowledged that the entire link was correct, but pointed out precisely the part that was in error. You’re very free to do that as well and show me how the wordpress link is incorrect on any of it’s claims.

It’s not incorrect simply because it’s a wordpress. Surely you’re not going to ignore the contents of the link and resort to such fallacies.

Haley Renae

Haley Renae Oh so toxic masculinity and gender roles are to blame for the wage gap because women are turned away from sciences and men are made to feel like less of men for being in anything less than macho careers.

Those aren’t seriously personal decisions. Those are society’s traditional roles being pushed on people at early ages. Something feminism fights to end btw.

Haley Renae

Haley Renae Meritocracy huh?

Athena Brown

Athena Brown ^ Not sure what post you’re replying to, because I never said anything about toxic masculinity, nor that women are turned away from sciences. Also not sure how STEM is a “macho career”.

Again, virtually every study on women in STEM fields is concordant to what every other study now says – women choose not to enter STEM fields, and instead enter other fields. For some strange reason no one has a problem that there aren’t as many women garbage collectors, and everyone’s okay with women not choosing *that* field.

It doesn’t matter if you played with barbies or tanka drugs as a kid. Your decisions as an adult is your own choice and responsibility.

Haley Renae
Haley Renae
Dude own it. You said if a man is seen in a “woman’s role” that they are made fun of and made to feel like less of a man. That is toxic masculinity!
And society pushing stereotypical gender roles cause women to turn away from stem.…

Athena Brown

Athena Brown So anytime a woman is shamed for not following a female role, that’s toxic femininity?

The first link you provided also links to a study which you can find here:…/01/double-jeopardy-report.pdf

Straight from that study:

The conventional wisdom is that women haven’t
progressed in careers in STEM due to the pull of children
and early choices not to pursue math and science careers
(Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman,
2012). Some studies conclude that the relatively low
percentage of women stems from these factors and “is
not caused by discrimination” in STEM (Ceci, Williams, &
Banett, 2009; Ceci & Williams, 2011; Ceci et al
., 2011)

^ It’s pretty common to see a webpage link to a study where the study refutes the webpage. You can see another such instance of this here:…/the-new-york-times…/ . The narrative that women are victims is so powerful, that it simply doesn’t matter if the study you link to refutes your claims. Most 3rd Wavers are only looking for confirmation, and aren’t going to read the actual studies anyway.

But back to the study, you occasionally do find anomalies like this one:

Yet three recent studies found that gender bias also
plays a role
. One found that, even when math skills were
identical, both men and women were twice as likely
to hire a man for a job that required math (Reuben,
Sapienza, & Zingales, 2014).

You can find a step-by-step answer to exactly why this result is occasionally found here:…/the-stem-fempire…

Then you have this one:

third double-blind randomized study gave science
faculty at research-intensive universities application
materials of a fictitious student randomly assigned a
male or female name, and found that both male and
female faculty rated the male applicant as significantly
more competent and hirable than the female with
identical application materials (Moss-Racusin, Dovidio,
Brescoll, Graham & Handelsman, 2012)

^ What’s interesting is that the study they are referencing actually explains it’s own findings – and it has nothing to do with discrimination. <– go ahead and read it yourself.

—– —–
However, from their first year in college, women are much less likely than men to choose a STEM major. College-graduate men outnumber women in nearly every science and engineering field (1).
—– —–

– and –

—– —–
In a controversial speech, Larry Summers (3), then President of Harvard University, advanced three hypotheses for this underrepresentation of women in science: different innate aptitudes among men and women at the high end of science-based fields; different career-related preferences among men and women; and discrimination. Although there is mounting evidence against the aptitude-based hypothesis (4⇓–6), it is difficult to show the existence of discrimination if we allow for the possibility of a sex difference in preference;
—– —–

^ One more time on those last 3 words, so that it sinks in:

—– —–
** difference **

** in **

** preference **
—– —–

When I tell you that there has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE PAPER PUBLISHED demonstrating a link between discrimination and the wage gap, I really do mean it. And if you’d like, I’ll even create a special 4th Wavers post where I will go through each and every individual study referenced on that link and show you, in step-by-step fashion, exactly how none of them provide any evidence that women are kept out of STEM fields due to discrimination.

It will be helpful the next time someone brings this up, and once again I can just drop a link into the discussion. As always they’ll resort to attacking-the-source fallacy with “just a blog” – and of course we’ll go through the exact same motions as we’ve gone through here. But at least the matter will finally be settled.

Haley Renae
Haley Renae Are you reading what you type? Willful ignorance isn’t very becoming. By the by, where did you get your male privilege. Remember i said i don’t ignore people for disagreeing with me, but i do get rid of assholes. Your holier than though condescending bullshit can kiss my ass


^ Well, darn.  Somehow as a woman, I managed to pick up male privilege?  I guess disagreeing with her is fine, as long as you eventually lose the discussion that follows.  If not, you’re “holier than though”.  I’m sure she meant “thou”, but was in too much of a rush to reach for that block button.  Probably triggered.

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:

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: .  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: – 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: .  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: .

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, you can’t walk backwards and eat a cheeseburger, and you can’t have a gorilla in the backseat of your car, 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: . This also happens to non-trans women: (expanded upon here: .

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. <– 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. <– This 18 year old reportedly went into the women’s locker room, wearing a wig and a bra, to gratify himself. <— 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. <— 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. <– 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:  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: .  There’s also another condition where sexual development does not match chromosomes, called 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? – here’s another example: .
— Why would we have laws allowing women to file charges of sexual harassment because of a swimsuit calendar in your cubicle? – Why would saying “hello” and “god bless you” be considered shocking forms of street harassment? .  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 (, the military (, and remove tests for fire departments altogether (, even when it’s been repeatedly demonstrated that women who actually bothered training would have no such need?
— 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?
— Why are convicted killers of women more likely to get the death penalty? In a patriarchy. Where masculinity is more valued than femininity.
— Why are women almost never given the death penalty? In a patriarchy. Where femininity is not as valued as masculinity.
— 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?
— 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?
— Why would we have Rape Shield laws?  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.
— Why are we all okay with men being called nearly ever name under the sun ( ), but we need to “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? – 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.
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:

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: – 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. – 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:’Connor

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: (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:

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: .  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: .  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.

Why are Rape Kits Getting Backlogged?

If you’ve been keeping up with the news lately, you might have come across this little jewel:

Where Samantha Bee comes to the aid of 3rd Wavers everywhere, reinvigorating their faith in the myth of rape culture by bringing up a topic that is years old, and of course presenting it the way that fits the narrative that most of us are familiar with at this point.

Lets get straight to it.

Why are there so many untested rape kits?


The US Department of Justice released a study in 2011, produced in part by the Attorney General, detailing the problems surrounding the use of rape kits in criminal prosecution. You can see the report here: .

The opening line of the report…

—– —–
Untested sexual assault evidence is being discovered in police evidence rooms all across the country.
—– —–

Straight away, this establishes the issue. The report goes on to discuss the particulars, but just as we’ve seen in the wage gap myth, the question of “why” can very seriously change what this all means. So what’s really the cause of this?

There are a few reasons why rape kits (referred to in the report as sexual assault kits, or SAKs) are handled so poorly.

From page 6 of the report:

—– —–
It is unknown how many unanalyzed SAKs there are nationwide. There are many reasons for this, but one of the primary ones is that tracking and counting SAKs is an antiquated process in many U.S. jurisdictions. A recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ) survey found that four in 10 of the nation’s law enforcement agencies — 43 percent — do not have a computerized system for tracking forensic evidence, either in their inventory or after it is sent to the crime lab.
—– —–

Also, from the same page:

—— —–
Not all evidence collected in an alleged sexual assault is going to be probative. In cases where “consent” is an issue (the suspect admits sexual contact but maintains it was consensual), detectives may conside that the SAK does not add any important information to the investigation. Evidence also may not be sent to a lab for analysis if charges against the alleged perpetrator have been dropped or the suspect has pled guilty.
—– —–

Some additional reasons:

—– —–Rape kit
Forty-four percent of the law enforcement agencies said that one of the reasons they did not send evidence to the lab was that a suspect had not been identified.
—– —–

– and –

—– —–
Fifteen percent said that they did not submit evidence because analysis had not been requested by a prosecutor.
—– —–

It’s also important to point out that during this same investigation, it was found that the police had also not submitted forensic evidence, including DNA, fingerprints, firearms (that’s right, actual weapons) and tool-marks to crime lab in 18% of unsolved rape cases, but also in 14% of unsolved homicides, and 23% of unsolved property crimes. This very heavily blurs the possibility that police are selectively not submitting SAKs involved in rape cases, and strongly implies that it’s due to a systemic failure and points to administrative issues.

The report goes on to list numerous other causes for why SAKs sit idle. Over 20% of officers surveyed said evidence was not submitted because they didn’t know if or how the evidence would help. This came from mostly very small departments (having 25 or fewer officers – think Andy Griffith and the town of Mayberry); in other words, the cops were just stupid, and lacked proper training. They literally may not have understood how DNA evidence works, and that the crime labs have an interconnected computer system that can identify suspects without an identity already at hand.

Case in point:

—– —–
Policies and practices for evidence retention vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with one in five agencies saying that they were not sure whether they had such policies.
—– —–

When a department doesn’t know what it’s own policies are, you’re not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed.

Back to more reasons: 11% said they didn’t bother because the crime labs could not produce results in time, and 6% said the crime labs wouldn’t accept new evidence due to backlogs. In fact, the National Institute of Justice has provided a block grant to the Los Angeles police department just so they could have money to start processing some of these SAKs!

But but but…. PATRIARCHY RAPE CULTURE PRIVILEGE MEN HATE WOMEN BECAUSE PENIS!!! – Yes, we know, facts for 3rd Wave Feminists are like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway. “Welcome to 3rd Wave, where shit’s made up and the facts don’t matter!”

As for the issues with rape kits, it’s all pretty f*cked up, and I think we can agree on that. However, nowhere in the report is it found that any significant portion of these SAKs were left sitting on the shelves in a deliberate effort by police to avoid prosecuting rape crimes. I mean there are almost as many homicides and property crimes have been treated the same way, because the same problems within the system are causing those too.

And why on earth, as Samantha Bee pointed out, are police departments DESTROYING rape kits???!! – it’s simple. Cases can be canceled for any number of reasons. Sometimes the victim withdraws the charges. Sometimes the suspect is found innocent through other means without using the rape kit. Other times the suspect is found guilty through other means without using the rape kit.  Still other times the investigators simply conclude that no new information will come from the SAK, and then there’s other outlying reasons – like maybe the rapist dies.  Whatever the reason, you do not need to keep the rape kit FOREVER. There’s limited space on the police evidence room shelves, so when a case is ended, the evidence is generally cleared out.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing plenty more discussions on the interwebs where 3rd Wavers decry living in a horrible hell hole like the United States, where 5 out of 1 women are raped every 20 minutes (or whatever crazy statistic they come up with next) and “rape kits aren’t tested because patriarchy!”  Go ahead and link this page into the discussion, sit back, and watch he heads explode.

When They Just Can’t Win, Part 5: And They Come After Your Job!

Okay so I’m sure many of you are familiar with some of the stories shared by Thunderf00t and others, where 3rd Wave Feminist have tried to get people fired from their jobs just for disagreeing with them, and I’m sure Sargon of Akkad and others on youtube have covered this topic before.  If anyone can link me to a list of such videos that cover this topic in the comments section, I’ll be happy to hyperlink ever one of them into this opening paragraph.

I’ve seen and heard a lot of this sort of thing, but I never thought I’d actually be targeted!  Below is the entire debate, which I’m *positive* Rebecca won’t mind me posting, considering how she’s announced her intention to make the thread public and get me to lose my job.  So I figured I’d go ahead and make it public here.

Below is the exchange.  Enjoy!


RUSH LIMBAUGH: First lady Michelle Obama has been the victim of sexism she said Wednesday, because men used to whistle at her while she walked down the…




Athena Brown

Athena Brown Nearly everything in Michelle’s speech is based on narrative, devoid of supporting evidence, and can be immediately countered with another narrative spun the other way. It was an eye-roller and I didn’t bother to listen to longer than 20 seconds of the original speech. It’s the same sappy story of “women are victims” that the left seems to wave around with pride.

As far as Rush’s commentary goes, there’s some fair points, and some strawmen…

Rush is categorizing Michelle’s speech as being nothing more than “childhood grievances” – although this is not what Michelle was getting at. Her point was to try to draw this mythical picture that women were “kept down” and “oppressed” with all of these unfair “social expectations” and so on… it wasn’t so much her own personal childhood memories. She was trying to convince the listener that during her youth, America was a place that was unfair to women.

Rush actually does make a point in saying that Michelle lives in a country where women are deeply privileged – and Michelle herself was even MORE privileged – and yet she’s trying to find commonality with the legitimate sufferings of people in a 2nd world country.

At the 3:05 mark, Rush says “Do you know how many women would LOVE to be whistled at walking down the street???”

There’s actually nothing wrong with this statement. If you object, are you putting forward that every single woman in the United States, ubiquitously and regardless of their own personal history and the context of the situation, MUST – as part of a mandated order – HATE being whistled at?

Okay so lets say you’re a lower income, disadvantaged, single woman.

Brad Pitt rolls up in a Ferrari. He rolls down the window, checks you out…. WHISTLES…. then opens the door and offers you a ride.

This point immediately illustrates that there are plenty of situations where a woman would absolutely fall head over hills if she got whistled at by the right guy. It also illustrates that there’s nothing at all wrong with being whistled at. Men have every right to express themselves as women do.

Like · Reply · Just now


Jaline Williams
Jaline Williams Yo Athena, come hop on my bike, we’ll go ride down the coast, not the west one tho, just the east one.
Athena Brown

Athena Brown Babycakes liked my comment – and she NEVER likes comments! Not only that, she wants me to hop on her “bike” and give me a ride.

Feeling pretty damn epic right now. (⌐■_■)

Rebecca Loos

Rebecca Loos “Rush actually does make a point in saying that Michelle lives in a country where women are deeply privileged – and Michelle herself was even MORE privileged – and yet she’s trying to find commonality with the legitimate sufferings of people in a 2nd world country.”

Ahhh, the old “you shouldn’t complain about abuse because other people have it worse” argument. It’s a pathetically sucky argument.

“There’s actually nothing wrong with this statement.”

Actually there’s a LOT wrong with that statement beginning with the fact that it doesn’t matter if some other woman might like being catcalled (although I must say in my 53 years on this earth I’ve never met one who said she did) because that in no way makes it okay to catcall a woman who is far more likely NOT to like being catcalled.

“This point immediately illustrates that there are plenty of situations where a woman would absolutely fall head over hills if she got whistled at by the right guy.”

Your “point” is bullshit and relegates women to a role of being gold diggers. I would be just as offended by a celebrity catcalling me as I am by any other dude catcalling me.

You’re really a guy, aren’t you? I don’t know any women as actually clueless about our own experiences as you’ve come across. Also, you’ve got the logical capacity of an inebriated snail.

Rebecca Loos
Rebecca Loos Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is a misogynistic jerk and so are you, “Athena”.
Athena Brown

Athena Brown

>> Ahhh, the old “you shouldn’t complain about abuse because other people have it worse” argument.

^^^ No, you shouldn’t complain about abuse if you *weren’t*actually*abused*.

>> because that in no way makes it okay to catcall a woman who is far more likely NOT to like being catcalled.

^^^ So men aren’t allowed to express their sexuality in public? Because last I checked, women certainly are. Women can express their interest in a man, but men can’t do this to women?

I mean a woman wants to feel sexy, so she puts on a low cut tight fitting blouse before she goes out. She’s expressing herself. Now a man might find that really uncomfortable and tell her to cover up. But he’s still wrong then too, right? Because the feelings of a man don’t matter I guess.

>> Your “point” is bullshit and relegates women to a role of being gold diggers.

^^^ That’s a pretty sweeping assumption you’re making there about women – calling them all gold diggers, when that’s not what my statement implies at all. Women are attracted to handsome, successful men, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. Calling them sexist for having such a normal attraction sounds rather sexist.

But then the flip side of the coin is men who like women with big breasts and a narrow waist, and if we want to criminalize THEIR very normal sexual attractions, then for it to be “equal” (and hence, “equality”) we need to criminalize women’s sexual attractions too?

>> I would be just as offended by a celebrity catcalling me as I am by any other dude catcalling me.

^^^ Yea I’m calling bullshit. Damn near any straight woman with a beating heart would enjoy getting hit on by a tall, handsome, successful man.

>> You’re really a guy, aren’t you?

^^^ No, I’m not. Are you? You don’t seem to understand how normal sexuality and dating work for women, so it’s hard to tell if you’re actually a woman or not.

(Oh I’m sorry, was that offensive?)

>> Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is a misogynistic jerk and so are you, “Athena”.

^^^ First, I never said Rush wasn’t misogynistic. It’s possible that he is, as I don’t listen to his other broadcasts. I’m only saying I haven’t found much wrong with what he’s saying in THIS broadcast, and I certainly didn’t hear him say anything misogynistic HERE.

And why is my name in quotes? Athena is my real name.


Rebecca Loos

Rebecca Loos “So men aren’t allowed to express their sexuality in public?”

No person has a right to impose their sexuality on another person without that person’s permission whether it is public or private. Catcalling is imposing their desires on non-consenting passers-by. No, that is not acceptable behavior out here in the world of people with consideration for others.

“No, you shouldn’t complain about abuse if you weren’t *actually*abused*.”

Catcalling IS abuse for me. It triggers the sexual assault my grandfather perpetrated on me. In fact it is remarkably similar to that assault.

“Women are attracted to handsome, successful men, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that.”

Women are attracted to considerate, mature, and emotionally responsible men — which lets out those who catcall — and there’s nothing at all wrong with that.

“…we need to criminalize women’s sexual attractions too?”

Any woman who is imposing her sexual attractions on another person without their consent is absolutely being disgusting and needs to face the consequences of that action.

“Yea I’m calling bullshit.”

Call it what you like — it’s true. I guess that’s the difference between being mature enough to value substance over window dressing.

“No, I’m not.”

Well you’re a piss-poor woman who endorses misogyny with abandon. What a sad statement that makes about you.

“You don’t seem to understand how normal sexuality and dating work for women, so it’s hard to tell if you’re actually a woman or not.”

Catcalling has nothing to do with “normal sexuality and dating”. It really doesn’t. It’s men acting aggressively in public against women when they think they can get away with it. Do you HONESTLY believe women say: “Oh, how attractive — you’re whistling at me and you don’t even know me. We should date.”

Utter bullshit.

“…and I certainly didn’t hear him say anything misogynistic HERE.”

Both you and he were being misogynistic. It’s not my fault you don’t know misogyny when it’s shoved in your face.

And your name is in quotes because I don’t actually believe it is “Athena” nor do I actually believe you’re a woman. You’ve expressed some seriously deluded opinions about how women respond to catcalling so at this point, I’m actually wondering if you’re a human being at all. You’ve certainly shown no indication of anything resembling empathy or compassion.

Athena Brown

Athena Brown >> No person has a right to impose their sexuality on another person without that person’s permission whether it is public or private.

^^^ Right, but whistling is no more imposing upon you as your tits hanging out are imposing upon them.

>> Catcalling is imposing their desires on non-consenting passers-by. No, that is not acceptable behavior out here in the world of people with consideration for others.

^^^ Well, the way you dress is imposing your sexuality on me. So I suggest you cover up.

>> Catcalling IS abuse for me.

^^^ “For me” is the key term here. Saying “hello” and “god bless you” has been cited by 3rd Wave agencies like Hollaback as a form of catcalling. Making sounds with your mouth like “psst” has also been cited, and is put in the same category as “public masturbation” for no other reason than a woman *MIGHT* feel abused by someone going “psst”.

For me, the way your dressed is imposing your sexuality on me. How is that not just as offensive?

It’s not of course because women have the right to express themselves, while men don’t, because when they do it you’ll say it’s “imposing” (unless you like the guy – then it’s suddenly stops being catcalling).

>> It triggers the sexual assault my grandfather perpetrated on me. In fact it is remarkably similar to that assault.

^^^ As a mental health worker, I would suggest that you seek therapy for your triggers and previous abuse, rather than expect the entire world to stop doing the thing that triggers you. Saying “hello” may just as well trigger a person, and it honestly would not surprise me at all at this point if someone launched a social justice campaign to stop people (read: men) from saying “hello” because it might trigger someone.

>> Women are attracted to considerate, mature, and emotionally responsible men

^^^ Oh, so *THATS* why the prettiest girl in school is always dating the nerd with the taped glasses who makes good grades – and not the bad boy on the motorcycle.

>> Any woman who is imposing her sexual attractions on another person without their consent is absolutely being disgusting and needs to face the consequences of that action.

^^^ Alright ladies! You heard her. No more hitting on dudes, that’s off limits from now on.

It’s not like any straight men out there actually *WANT* you imposing yourself on them. I mean just imagine the horror they must feel! A woman in a skin tight t-shirt walking up to them out of nowhere… telling them they’re hot??? Do you think men WANT that??? You think they WANT hot attractive women winking at them and asking for their numbers???

……. seriously.

>> Do you HONESTLY believe women say: “Oh, how attractive — you’re whistling at me and you don’t even know me. We should date.”

^^^ Take a look for yourself: <— now, imagine if a guy did this. We’d have nothing but horrible things to say.

But when a woman does it, it’s totally fine.

If I were attracted to men, and a good looking man standing next to an Aston Martin whistled at me and asked me to come over and talk to him, why on earth would I not?

>> And your name is in quotes because I don’t actually believe it is “Athena” nor do I actually believe you’re a woman.

^^^ See pic.

Now, prove to us that your real name is Rebecca, and that you’re not actually a man in a dress.

Athena Brown's photo.

Like · Reply · 5 mins


Rebecca Loos

Rebecca Loos “Right, but whistling is no more imposing upon you as your tits hanging out are imposing upon them.”

YOU are the one who claimed catcalling is “normal sexual behavior”. I am merely the one pointing out that it isn’t consensual and that makes it wrong. My body coverings are not equivalent in any way to someone catcalling another person. You can look away from something you find visually offensive. You cannot unhear a catcall.

“Well, the way you dress is imposing your sexuality on me. So I suggest you cover up.”

I exposed that for the bullshit it is above. (Besides a skin condition means that I AM covered up whenever I am outdoors and that doesn’t stop catcalling in the slightest so grow up you pathetic excuse for a human being.)

“As a mental health worker, I would suggest that you seek therapy for your triggers and previous abuse, rather than expect the entire world to stop doing the thing that triggers you.”

Thank you for posting a copy of your license online. I will be contacting your employers with a screenshot of this conversation so they know exactly how dangerous you are for women with your misogyny and, frankly, how unprofessional you are to be recommending treatment to someone you know only through an online conversation. What’s more — HELL YES I EXPECT OTHER HUMANS TO TREAT ME WITH COMPASSION AND RESPECT. What the hell is wrong with you that you find this so difficult. WHY do you hate women so much you nasty, vile, piece of scum?

And now, I’m done with you — but I’m sure your employers will be thrilled to learn what a piece of shit they have working for them. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expose an abuser like you. You have no business working with vulnerable people at all.

Athena Brown

Athena Brown >> YOU are the one who claimed catcalling is “normal sexual behavior”.

^^^ Right, when catcalling involves things like “hello” and “god bless you”, then I’d call that pretty normal.

When every possible expression a man can make in the opposite sex is called “catcalling” – I’d call that pretty normal sexual behavior.

>> I am merely the one pointing out that it isn’t consensual and that makes it wrong.

^^^ If a man’s sexual expression needs consent, why doesn’t yours?

>> My body coverings are not equivalent in any way to someone catcalling another person.

^^^ Why not?

>> You can look away from something you find visually offensive. You cannot unhear a catcall.

^^^ Well if men have to cover their eyes to not be offended by you, you can plug your ears to not be offended by them.

>> Thank you for posting a copy of your license online.

^^^ Uh, sweety… that’s my government issued ID. Not my license.

It’s the ID that shows Athena is my real name, and that I’m really a woman.

>> I will be contacting your employers with a screenshot of this conversation so they know exactly how dangerous you are for women with your misogyny and, frankly, how unprofessional you are to be recommending treatment to someone you know only through an online conversation.

^^^ And I’ll be posting this to 4th Wavers. Because really, I’m posting my ID on what is a PUBLIC facebook thread, so clearly I stand by all of my statements and I’m not afraid about who sees them – including my employers. Nothing I’ve said here has been sexist or misogynist.

But thanks for pointing out that as a 3rd Waver – and as people like Thunderf00t have highlighted numerous times – you’ll actually try to get someone who disagrees with you fired from their job. I bet you wonder why people hate feminism.


^^^ Well so far you’ve been full of only piss and vinegar, so I wouldn’t count on it.

>> And now, I’m done with you — but I’m sure your employers will be thrilled to learn what a piece of shit they have working for them.

^^^ Well, go ahead! And good luck on finding out where I work, since I didn’t post any employment related information, and you’re having trouble telling apart a government issued ID apart from a mental health license.

Plus you still haven’t proved to us that Rebecca is your real name, and you aren’t just a man in a dress!


Rebecca Loos
Rebecca Loos Your government ID is even better. Now I know you live in Oregon and work for the government. I’m sure they’re going to LOVE this conversation. It’s all copied and saved now. Thank you, Athena. I don’t care what they do with the information but it’s my duty as a decent human being to try and protect vulnerable women from someone in the mental health field who wants to normalize abuse and blame victims for what is done to them. Have a WONDERFUL day now.


And at that point, I really didn’t know how to respond.

She….. she thinks I work for the government.

I… you… just…. you do not understand how government issued personal identifications work.  Okay.

Also, you forgot to offer any proof that your name is Rebecca and you’re not a man – but hey I guess questioning someone’s name and gender identification is only valid when you’re the one doing it.

So anyway!  Go ahead and share this page on your social media, let everyone know 4th Wavers belongs to Athena Brown.  You even got a picture of my ID so you know it’s me!  4th Wavers has been public for a while now, and I generally use one of the links from this page anytime I get one of the same old tired arguments as always.  Hopefully we’ll get me fired from my top secret government job I’ve got here in Oregon, which you can evidently see from the ID I got down at the local DMV.

That everyone gets.

Because that’s how IDs work.