A feminist’s idea of “fair speech.”

     You can see it in her own words here.

     Allow me to present my summary:

     Women are a privileged class and are the only ones permitted to make comments.  The humanity of men is not recognized.  (I am aware that she claims that women are underprivileged.  Her claim is just not supported by reality.  I do not find any similar regular silencing of female voices, telling women they have a “read-only” status.)

     Men will regularly be libeled  both individually and collectively.  No defense of the innocent will be tolerated.

     Dissent is not tolerated.  The blog is intended as an echo chamber and she does not wish to be confronted with facts that expose her for the misandrist she is.



     I realize that there are people who will disagree with my analysis.  That’s okay.  But it is my analysis.  However, I do object in advance to anyone saying I am setting up a strawman.  That is a real blog, run by a real feminist.


I would like to eliminate the rhetoric that the Republican party is “anti-woman.”

     There is just no evidence that the Republican party holds such a position.  I have seen no proposals to require women to wear burkas (sp?)  I haven’t seen a woman-only draft proposal.  There has been no legislation that, in the event of a divorce, the man gets everything (the house, the care, the kids) and the woman pay her ex alimony.  There has been no legislation denying women access to colleges and universities.

     Women enjoy a state of privilege in this country.  Really, the rhetoric is saying that the people who use it want women to enjoy even greater privilege than the Republican party supports.

Another site that shows the sickness that is feminism.

     The link is here.

     We see people who would like to forcibly castrate all men and celebrate their pain.  Now, personally, I think these people should be subject to what they are advocating doing to others.  That is to say, they deserve to have their ovaries removed and to be paraded naked in the street so that people can celebrate their pain.  (I do not think all women deserve this.  Only the ones who advocate doing it to men do.)

     Now, not all feminists will come out and say this is what they want.  But, really, it is what feminism is about   They want female supremacy and to turn men into obedient slaves.  This is just a tool they want to achieve that end.

There is a YouTube channel for “Chapin’s Inferno”

     This particular channel seeks to associate feminism with “all things leftist.”  I, of course, think this is inappropriate.  Separate issues should be kept separate.  I think the best way to defeat feminism is to show it as itself without merit and to deny it the ability to attach itself onto anything else to claim the merit of another topic.

     It seems Chapin’s Inferno feels that conservative positions are largely without merit themselves and that he has a better chance of getting people to hold them by creating false associations between the opposition and genuinely discredited ideas.  He throws around the term “Marxism” a lot.  It’s not that anyone on the “left”  actually supports Marxism.  But if he can get people not to listen to what dissenters have to say, he doesn’t really have to support his positions.

It seems some states have started a petition to leave the US.

     I think that Obama should tell the individual states that if any state holds an election on the matter for its general public and more than 2/3 of the voters in that state wish to leave the US, that he will honor the decision and let them depart.  A transition would be required to remove any military equipment and the like.  But we do not want to hold states that are so convinced that we work against their interests.

      Now, I would require a supermajority because I wan t the state to be in solid agreement that this is the right course of action.  When the colonies separated from England, they did not do so lightly.  I suspect some of the states are simply unhappy that their preferred candidate lost the election.  That is a very shallow reason.  It is also a reason that will likely to result in internal strife within the state after separation.  People don’t agree on everything.


I would like to talk about some of the things Dan mentioned in his most recent post.

     He talks about the need to cast a vote to “end evil” by deviating from the two major parties.  While I can see some merit in that, there remains a problem.  There is no consensus on what candidate would “end evil.”  I see them all as evil — in different ways.  For his example, what he calls “end evil,” I call “evil C.”  It’s not very useful.

     The real problem is that our elected officials haven’t been working for the benefit of the general public in a long time.  They work to the interests of those who keep them funded.  Really, they are all throwing the public “under the bus.”  Yes, Dan, that goes for your guy too.

I found one guy who claims the electoral college “betrayed the people” in this last election.

     No, he is not suggesting that we should go to a popular vote.  That would have made Obama the winner, too.  He wants to go to s “county by county” system.  That would let Romney win.  There are more individual rural counties in the country   And they tend to vote Republican.  But most of the people are in the major cities.  I wouldn’t want to give more weight to 10 counties with a combined population of less than 1,000 more weight that a single large city with a population over 10,000,000.