More on Women at Work

Via Tim Almond, this Tweet:

There are a few comments which could be made here. Firstly, what’s the women’s body language like when they talk to the men, especially those they find attractive? How does it differ from when they are flirting? I’ve noticed if a pretty young woman wants something from a man she doesn’t know – information, help with something, a favour – she’ll turn up the charm to 11 and approach him in a way which (quite deliberately) mimics seduction. Most tone this down when they have some experience in a professional environment and get to know their colleagues (it generally only works on strangers), but these women are 18-22. I expect a good few of them have spent their entire lives smiling coyly, pouting, and twirling their hair in order to get something and haven’t yet learned this isn’t what you should do at a professional event. You can be damned sure they showed up wearing their most flattering clothes, makeup, jewellery, and shoes which made them look taller. They’ll tell you dressing up makes them feel good about themselves, which is only true if other women like how they look. The trouble is, if women think they look good then so will men, and that brings me onto my second point (which Tim Almond makes on Twitter).

Men are biologically hardwired to attempt to impress cute young women, and no amount of reeducation and social conditioning will eliminate this entirely. At the very least, it’s going to take time, i.e. maturity and focused efforts from both sexes to moderate their natural instincts to flirt and find a partner. Of course, the feminist approach is that women, even teenagers, are always highly professional and never flirt and it is men who need to radically change their behaviour and become monks. It’s all very well to say men and women shouldn’t flirt with one another in a professional environment, but when they are entering the workplace at the precise time their bodies are screaming at them to find a partner how can you possibly stop it? I don’t know what percentage of people meet their future partners at work but I know it’s substantial. As Tim Almond remarks, if a single woman meets a man she’s attracted to at work and he starts flirting, she’s not going to complain about unprofessionalism.

As I said in a recent post, paraphrasing Jordan Peterson who was engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum, if this really is the problem feminists are making it out to be, then perhaps segregated workplaces are the way to go; it’s either that or fight biology. Of course, the problem isn’t what feminists make it out to be. All that’s required is for common sense to be applied, e.g. by rooting out the genuine sex pests, banning employees from sleeping with their subordinates, and understanding that human nature, especially among youngsters, doesn’t stop because you’re wearing a lanyard with a badge on it.

Of course, it’s hard to apply common sense when a subset of women insist on being victims:

As women, we want to have it all — a career, a fulfilling social life, a satisfying sex life, a healthy family. And we are told that we can have it all if we just work hard enough, if we can just sustain the pressure long enough to become dazzling gems. Often, that means taking on extra responsibilities at home or at work, while sacrificing basic needs, wants, and important self-care practices.

In the United States, women are more likely to experience stress than men, and it’s largely a societal problem. Women are just expected to do more, and to do it without complaining.

Women are expected to land the great job, nag the ideal partner, maintain meaningful friendships, and keep a healthy body that adheres to narrow beauty standards.

As I’m fond of saying, one of the arguments against women working was they would not be able to cope with the stresses of the professional environment, and they are physiologically better suited to staying at home. Second-wave feminists vehemently opposed this, insisting women were mentally strong enough to cope with professional roles hitherto deemed only suitable for men, and they eventually got their way. Now here we are a generation or two later and modern feminists are complaining women’s lives are too stressful in part because of unreasonable work demands.

What is plainly obvious is that just as some men are unsuited to working in demanding professional roles, so are some women. But modern feminism insists all women have a right to demanding roles, and when the unsuitable suffer, the role must be changed rather than the person filling it. Of course, this doesn’t happen because there are enough capable women who don’t need the whole world dumbed down to make their lives easier, thus validating the concerns of the misogynistic dinosaurs of yesteryear. The result is less capable women becoming increasingly stressed, which is a bad thing but I’m struggling to see what any of this has to do with men:

Just think about how fathers are never guilted for focusing only on work and financial stability, while women are pressured to raise their families and provide for them financially.

Sorry, who puts pressure on women to financially provide for their families? It’s not conservative men, is it? Here we have radical feminists blaming the Patriarchy for the stress exerted on women by radical feminist policies.

If sensible professional women want to continue in their roles, their voices must prevail over those of feminists who are doing everything they can to set their cause back half a century or more. From what I can tell, they’re currently being drowned out.


Orders Given

I can’t seem to get off this topic. Here’s a story from yesterday’s Telegraph:

Companies in the UK must undergo a “genuine culture change” to get rid of alpha males and promote women, government ministers have said.

Ministers John Glen and Victoria Atkins have called for “greater diversity” in the workplace, adding that companies should “call out” non-inclusive behaviour.

They particularly highlighted the “woefully low” number of women in senior jobs the City, which is both “morally wrong” and affects the sector’s productivity.

“We have a problem when it comes to the representation of senior women in the financial services sector,” the ministers said in a letter to MPs.

There is just so many things wrong with these four paragraphs it’s easier to make a list than fisk it:

1. Why is it assumed alpha male traits are bad for business? Are companies filled with beta males more profitable?

2. Why are Conservative MP’s calling for culture changes? What, if anything, are they interested in actually conserving?

3. Why is “greater diversity” assumed to be better for businesses? If this was the case, why are they not doing it already and reaping the rewards?

4. Why is the number of women employed in the financial sector a moral issue? As I’m fond of saying, these people would be better off going to church rather than haranguing the public.

5. What is the basis for the claim that putting more women in senior jobs in the City will increase productivity? And why are firms not doing that already if this is the case?

Responding to the Treasury Committee’s Women in Finance report, the Government accepted MPs’ calls to abolish “alpha male” culture, remove the stigma of flexible working and encourage senior men to lead by example.

Its letter says there is still a “long way to go” for the financial sector to become diverse. “This includes encouraging gender balance at all levels of seniority and focusing on other forms of diversity,” it said.

This story says far less about the role of women in London’s financial sector than the role of women and wet beta males in politics. If politics is downstream of culture, then business is rapidly becoming downstream of politics. And if this is what passes for a Conservative government, there is absolutely no reason to vote for them. None at all.


Women in the Military

One of the strongest objections to allowing women to serve in every branch of the military was not regarding their competence, but of the fact that mixed-sex crews serving in close proximity will inevitably result in liaisons which breach codes of conduct and damage operational effectiveness. Last year we had this story:

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine commander who took part in cruise missile strikes during the Libya campaign has been removed from his vessel amid claims of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.

Cdr Stuart Armstrong was taken off his Vanguard class submarine and relieved of his duties as a precaution while naval chiefs investigate the allegations.

Naval sources said the investigation had been launched amid suspicions Cdr Armstrong’s relationship with an unnamed female officer was “closer than it should have been”.

Just as it is highly inappropriate for a department manager to start shagging members of his or her staff, it is equally the case in the military chain of command, if not more so:

Navy rules forbid any relationships between sailors in the same chain of command for fear it would lead to favouritism and undermine orders.

Relationships outside the chain of command are allowed, but there is a strict “no touching” rule during deployments.

Sources said the rules were considered particularly critical on submarine missions where sailors work in cramped conditions underwater for months at a time.

It seems as thought the Royal Navy put in place robust guidelines which the submarine commander broke, and he got fired for it. This is fair enough, but it is also inevitable: if you put servicemen on ships or submarines with servicewomen then relationships will develop, and often this will involve officers who in theory should know better. The Tailhook Scandal in the US involved numerous allegations of navy and marine officers assaulting and harassing servicewomen. A popular theory is that many of the allegations arose from women who were spoken for fearing their partners were about to find out what they got up to on deployment, so claimed coercion. The Tailhook Scandal rocked the US Navy and brought about sweeping changes in the culture, which mischievous types cite as the reason US Navy ships now seem to be crashing with alarming regularity.

Today, via Kevin Michael Grace on Twitter, I came across this story:

One of the first women to enter the Marine Corps infantry is being discharged from the service after admitting to having an intimate relationship with a subordinate — a fellow Marine she eventually married.

On their own, the legal charges against Cpl. Remedios Cruz, 26, are not uncommon in military investigations of American troops. But they highlight the struggle the Marine Corps has had in integrating women into jobs that were only open to men before 2015.

It is not inevitable that every woman who enters the military will enter into an inappropriate relationship. However, if enough women enter the military it is inevitable that inappropriate relationships will occur. No amount of training, hounding, threatening, and cajoling is going to stop men and women in close proximity from having sex; those who take the issue seriously, such as conservative Muslims, do so by maintaining segregation, because it’s the only thing that works. It’s up to the government to decide whether the drawbacks of having women mixed with men in the military outweigh the benefits, but they ought not to deny that drawbacks exist.

“The biggest mistakes I’ve made in the infantry were from my personal relationships,” Corporal Cruz said in an interview. “I really want to move on.”

As part of a deal to avoid going to trial, Corporal Cruz pleaded guilty to fraternization in July and decided to put the Marine Corps behind her. She is awaiting her final separation from the Marines.

It’s rather difficult to see how admitting Cruz to the US Marines has been a benefit to the organisation, who didn’t want her in that role in the first place:

Corporal Cruz, of Fleischmanns, N.Y., joined the Marines as a supply clerk in 2013 and completed infantry training in 2014. Two years later, she requested to transfer to an infantry unit after then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter ordered that women be allowed in all previously restricted combat roles. The Marine Corps vehemently opposed the change.

So it was a political decision foisted on them by an administration more interested in social engineering than governance. This probably doesn’t help, either:

She was accused of three charges — fraternization, adultery and accessory to larceny — in separate investigations that would have been sent to court-martial in June.

I suspect we’re going to see a lot more of this sort of thing, and as the numbers increase there will be calls for the rules to be changed so that such conduct is no longer prohibited. As I’ve said before (1, 2), modern militaries serve a different purpose than that which they claim.


Women at Work

Staying on the subject of empowered women, there’s a lengthy video over at Breitbart showing senior Google managers talking about how they reacted to Trump’s election. The video is generating a lot of comments because people see it as proof that Google is so much in bed with the Democrats they might as well be considered part of their campaign; presumably we’d see equal numbers of comments if Sir Alex Ferguson was suddenly revealed to be a Manchester United fan.

My interest, however, is in this segment:

Here we have the CFO of one of the world’s largest and most powerful companies breaking down in tears at the recollection of the night a presidential election didn’t go the way she wanted it to. It would be bad enough if she started snivelling at the result, but to start welling up at the recollection of it, as if she were talking about the time she had a miscarriage or her sister died? This woman is mentally unstable, there’s no other way to put it, yet here she is at the head of a giant corporation.

I’ve mentioned it before, but one of the arguments misogynistic old dinosaurs used to make when women were first proposed for higher management was their minds were too feeble to handle the pressures and gravity of the job. Well, judging by Ruth Porat’s performance, perhaps they were onto something. Did John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Richard B. Mellon, and Henry Ford hire CFOs who broke down in tears when discussing the previous presidential election? No, because they were serious men living in serious times. Not only are today’s supposed captains of industry unserious people, but we are no longer living in serious times. This isn’t to say women shouldn’t become CFOs of major corporations of even CEOs, but women who lack the mental fortitude to cope with election results have no business occupying such roles. You can be damned sure Pepsi’s Indra Nooyi doesn’t behave like this.

Which brings me onto this, which popped up on my Twitter feed now I’m in Australia:

Now I know this is a promoted Tweet from some grifting law firm looking to fill its pockets with taxpayer cash, but let’s take the ludicrous claims at face value and see where they lead us.

1. Sexual harassment at work has been banned for thirty years, but hasn’t reduced.

2. Women have no faith existing structures will protect them from sexual harassment at work.

3. Half of all women experience sexual harassment at work.

What this is telling us is that men and women cannot work together, something Jordan Peterson rather mischievously suggested in an interview with Vice. If a minority of women were being harassed but otherwise the existing structures were fine for the vast majority of both sexes, then the solution would be to deal with the handful of offenders. But if half of all women are being sexually harassed at work despite it being illegal for thirty years, the solution is obvious: keep men and women separated for clearly they cannot work together. Of course, the shysters in the video think the solution is to restructure society in a manner which makes them richer and more powerful, which is why they’ve exaggerated the problem to an absurd degree. But if the problem is what they say it is, then we need segregated workplaces. Women can still hold the prestigious professional posts they believe they’re entitled to, but it will have to be in the company of other women; the men will be over there, isolated from any opportunity to sexually harass a co-worker.

As someone who has no problem with smart, capable women holding down professional positions in any field, I find it difficult to see how the behaviour of women like Ruth Porat and campaigns such as We Fight For Fair do anything other than set their cause back years, if not decades. If women want to advance and be taken seriously in professional fields, they need to distance themselves from this sort of lunacy.


Women Attacking Men

In August last year I spent a few days on the Greek island of Mykonos with a couple of Greek fellas (ooh-er). Mykonos is a popular holiday destination for mainland Europeans, particularity young Scandinavians, and at one point I was propping up the bar in a crowded nightclub when a small but angry-looking woman around 20 years of age tried to jam herself into a space beside me. I suppose I could have stood elsewhere but there was very little room where people weren’t jostling one another or leaping about to the music. Her first approach was to try to shove me out the way, and when I didn’t budge (I’m around 90kg) she snarled in a Scandinavian accent: “Can you move, I’m trying to get a drink.” If she’d said “excuse me” to begin with I’d have given her all the room she needed, but her whole attitude reeked of Nordic feminism and the delusions of power which many young women have, born of their ability to wrap their male peers around their little fingers.

So my response was to say “You need to learn some manners,” and stay where I was. She immediately started elbowing me and shoving me, and eventually I shifted six inches to the right, not being willing to let this nonsense continue any more. She squeezed into the space I allowed, and simmered. From what I could tell she was in the company of a few young men and women, the former of which looked like replicas of Owen Jones. And as I sipped my drink I wondered which idiotic society teaches young women to get into physical confrontations with large men in foreign bars. I suspect she knew I wasn’t the type to belt her one, and the club we were in not the sort of place where such men hang out, but still.

I was reminded of this incident when I saw this video:

Whatever the woman’s grievance, and regardless of the wimpishness of the bloke she’s up against, striking the first blow in what was up until that point a verbal confrontation is astonishingly stupid. Clearly she was confident that her homeboy would jump in as soon as it kicked off, and indeed he did, but she can perhaps count herself lucky she’s not needing reconstructive surgery.

Grown men are dangerous beasts, and really shouldn’t be provoked. Most men know this which is why they avoid physical confrontations as soon as they’re old enough to possess a smidgen of wisdom. A grown man, even a late teen, is capable of battering another man to death and in the overwhelming majority of cases a man could easily kill a woman with his bare hands if he so desired. At the very least, he could beat her to the point she’d carry the physical and emotional trauma for the rest of her life. The reason why domestic violence against women is so abhorrent (leaving aside, for now, the fact that many men are also victims) is the disparity in physical power.

Yet there is an increasing number of women who seem to think provoking, or even initiating, physical confrontations with strange men is a good idea. Judging by the videos that circulate on social media, sassy young black women in the UK and US enjoy threat-laden shouting matches with men on public transport, followed by a fight  where they throw the first punch or slap. Although it’s interesting to note, they only do this with white men, never blacks or hispanics. I also noticed that while Nigerian women didn’t mind yelling at their male counterparts in public, you didn’t see them looking to provoke a physical confrontation: there was no getting in their face yelling threats, and the verbals were carried out without entering the man’s personal space. I expect this is because any Nigerian woman who goes around picking fights with men would wind up dead in short order. Russian women are also fully aware of how dangerous their menfolk can be, and few are stupid enough to start a fight in public. It’s almost as if men in London and New York, particularly white men, can be relied upon not to kill or maim a woman who’s attacking them and this has given violently aggressive women confidence.

I expect this is what was behind the Scandinavian girl trying to barge me out the way. She’s used to dealing with men who’ve been emasculated by several generations of hardcore feminism, demanding her own way and getting it every time. TV and film doesn’t help: seemingly every other production features a slip of a woman beating up men three times their size with a series of deft martial arts moves, and I’m wondering if the new generation of empowered young women are starting to think it’s real. If their fathers and brothers had any sense they’d be teaching them to never, ever get into a physical confrontation with a man because with relatively little effort he could put her in hospital for weeks. Women used to know this, and now they don’t; it will cost some of them dearly.


A sacred act within hours of meeting

Via reader Robert Harries, this article:

For our first date, he took an Uber to my apartment through a winter storm. As the snow fell outside, we sat close on my couch while he talked touchingly about poetry. Two hours in, I was hoping he would kiss me, and he did.

Woman invites stranger to her home and within two hours things get physical. Why do I get the impression we’ll shortly learn the man doesn’t consider her marriage material?

We had met on Tinder. I was nearly 30 and he was 24, but our age gap somehow seemed a lot larger than five years.

She’s 30 and this is her approach to dating?

Not because he acted especially young. It was more that when it came to sex and foreplay, he acted so differently from guys my age, asking for my consent about nearly everything.

“Is it O.K. if we go to the bedroom?” he said.

Erm, that’s not asking for consent, it’s a suggestion you stop fooling around on the sofa and get down to business on a bed somewhere.

I smiled and led him there.

Of course.

He tugged at the hem of my sweater and said, “Is it O.K. if I take this off?”

I nodded. Underneath I was wearing a thin tank top.

“Can I take this off, too?” he said.

I laughed. “Of course!”

Jesus wept. Is this how Americans have sex nowadays?

He kissed my collarbone. I breathed into his neck and pulled off his shirt. He fingered the clasp of my bra.

“Is it O.K. if I take this off?” he said.

I think I snorted. “When you asked about the sweater, that was my yes from the waist up.”

“Just answer the question, ma’am,” said his lawyer, standing at the end of the bed holding a video camera.

He looked scared. Somewhere in our five-year age gap, a dramatic shift must have taken place in sexual training. I sensed this would be a different kind of hookup than I was used to, but I couldn’t predict how.

For his part, he was surprised they’d not discussed money.

I lay down on my bed, and he lay beside me.

“Is this O.K.?” he said.

“I invited a guy from Tinder to my empty apartment on a snow day,” I said. “Let’s just assume you have blanket consent.”

So where does this leave the feminist argument that consent is an ongoing process and can be withdrawn at any time?

“I’m not comfortable with that.”

I looked at his earnest eyes, hair flopping into his face,

Unsolicited advice for women: if you want a man to behave like one, don’t pick someone with floppy hair.

Hadn’t I already said yes several times? Wasn’t I lying there with him, my leg tossed over his, my whole body arcing toward him?

Maybe he was having second thoughts? Most sensible blokes would be wondering, with things being this easy, what the catch was.

Then he raised my arm above my head, put his lips to the soft skin of my inner arm, and licked me from armpit to elbow.

This is what happens get when you invite floppy-haired man-children into your bed.

I pulled my arm away.


I had been single and sexually active for more than a decade and considered myself to be sexually liberated,

Single for more than a decade? Colour me surprised.

but I could not remember anyone having done that to me. “It’s just really intimate,” I said.

She sounds as though she’s more used to being bent over a dumpster in a back alley.

Now he was the one who laughed. “That’s intimate?” he said.

“Yes,” I said. “It is.”

He and I seemed to have such different understandings of which acts were assumed to be acceptable and which required voiced consent.

It’s almost as if getting to know one another a little before having sex might be a good idea.

At one point, he put his hand on my throat and asked if the pressure was O.K.

WTF? This on a first date? Perhaps things have changed since my day after all.

“I’ll tell you if I die,” I joked.

There’s a strange man in my bed with his hand on my throat. Time for a joke!

At another point he kissed me from forehead to toe and said, “I think that’s everywhere.”

He’d grown tired of his choking-the-new-date routine when you started joking instead of getting wide-eyed with terror.

At the end of the night, he said, “See you soon,” and took an Uber back to his apartment through the snow.

He didn’t even stay the night? Oh dear.

I just wasn’t used to being taken care of in that way.

There are low bars, and then there’s this.

Sex makes me feel unsafe, not because of the act itself but because my partners so often disappear afterward, whether I waited hours or months before the first time.

Imagine my shock.

Yet something else about his asking also made me uneasy. It seemed legalistic and self-protective, imported more from the courtroom than from a true sense of caretaking. And each time he asked, it was as if he assumed I lacked the agency to say no on my own — as if he expected me to say no, not believing that a woman would have the desire to keep saying yes.

Well, yes. Feminist have set about to destroy the relations between men and women and this is the result. Take it up with Laurie Penny and her ilk.

Still, I liked that he was trying to keep from hurting me unawares. He texted that night, reassuringly. I decided I would call his asking lovely. I decided I would try to learn.

Reminder: this is a 30 year old woman.

The second time he was in my bedroom

You almost whooped for joy?

“Because I’m the one who could make you do something you don’t want to do,” he said. “Not vice versa.”

But that wasn’t what he was trying to do. He and I were enjoying a mutually desired sexual experience, and by making that distinction he was importing the language of coercion and assault into sex that was healthy.

There’s something very Darwinian about this, isn’t there? I think we can safely assume neither of these two are going to reproduce.

While he was waiting for his Uber to arrive…

…having wiped his knob on my curtains…

I did not see him soon. I texted him a few times in the days that followed, playfully at first, then more pressing. He ignored me.


At first I couldn’t believe he didn’t answer, and then I was devastated. My roommates didn’t understand why I was so much more hurt than usual.

“Because he kissed the soft part of my arm,” I said. “And then he disappeared.”


They looked at me blankly.

Yeah, I’m with them.

“Because he asked for my consent, over and over. So sex felt like a sacred act, and then he disappeared.”

“A sacred act?” one roommate said, laughing. “Girl, you sure don’t treat it like one.”

Heh, I’m beginning to like her friends.

When he asked so many times about my desires, when he checked to be sure he was honoring and respecting me, then sex, however short-lived, became a reciprocal offering. But the moment we pulled on our jeansthat spell of reciprocal honor and respect was broken.

He was covering his arse, my dear, making sure you weren’t going to cry rape and go running to the police. No respect was broken because there was never any in the first place.

And she was right, in a way. Asking about my feelings during sex didn’t extend to caring about them after sex. Consent is not a contract of continuation.

Nor is any relationship according to some feminists, even a marriage. Should we therefore be surprised that men aren’t showing much interest in commitment once the sex is over?

But in the days and weeks after, I was left thinking that our culture’s current approach to consent is too narrow. A culture of consent should be a culture of care for the other person, of seeing and honoring another’s humanity and finding ways to engage in sex while keeping our humanity intact. It should be a culture of making each other feel good, not bad.

Oh, so there are benefits to entering into relationships with mutual obligations after all? How does this square with feminists who thinks “nobody owes anyone shit” and that women have the right to abandon a relationship on the spot and cut off all communications with their former partner for any reason, or even none at all?

And if that’s the goal, then consent doesn’t work if we relegate it exclusively to the sexual realm.

I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person, the entire person, both during an encounter and after, when we’re often at our most vulnerable.

Well, yes. There was a time when men were expected to demonstrate good character, compassion, and a willingness to engage in a long-term commitment before women slept with them, but feminists decided that was too oppressive.

Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”

Which is why it’s not a good idea to have sex with strange men before you’ve ascertained their intentions. As Rob Harries remarks, the author of this piece went to Yale; I’d be willing to bet her grandma was much, much wiser.


FGM and Forced Marriage in Britain

Yesterday I received a useful demonstration of how much trouble Britain is in if things don’t change soon. It started with this:

With the inevitable exception of some freak outlier cases, FGM is practiced by two groups of people:

1. Certain Muslim cultures (but not all).

2. Certain non-Muslim African cultures (but not all).

Outside of those, FGM doesn’t happen. Insofar as forced marriage is concerned, this can be found among Muslim and non-Muslim cultures in the Middle East and Asia. Does it happen in non-Muslim Africa? I don’t know, but one thing is certain: neither FGM or forced marriage is native to British culture, and both are present in Britain purely because immigrants have brought the practices with them. The reason this special protocol has been established in Birmingham is because of the number of people living in that city from cultures which practice FGM and forced marriages (although whether male chaperones allow girls to take mobile phones to the toilet at the airport is doubtful, doubly so now they know this system is in place).

But of course, nobody wants to actually say who is committing these barbaric acts, it’s easier to pretend everyone does it:

The problem of FGM and forced marriage is worldwide only insofar as the cultures which practice them have spread beyond their geographical homelands. This is the equivalent of saying Turkish is a worldwide language on the basis that no matter which city you’re in, there’s likely someone who speaks it. It’s nonsense of course, as is the claim that FGM and forced marriages are a worldwide problem, but those who claim to be trying to solve it want to pretend otherwise:

Here’s what’s happening. Either sincerely or in order to virtue-signal, young women have taken to Twitter and possibly other platforms to discuss and campaign against FGM and forced marriages. However, they’re either unwilling or unable to bring themselves to admit who is actually doing it, so they simply pretend everyone does – hence the moronic claim “cultures not yet identified” might be mutilating the genitalia of young girls. One person even linked to a Guardian article citing a single instance of it happening to a white American girl in 1947, as if that was relevant to Birmingham in 2018. Alas, things didn’t get any better from there as more millennial feminists joined in:

This sounds more like someone who wants to be seen talking about the problem than someone interested in solving it. Virtue-signalling, in other words.

Then “the problem” is widened by someone else to include spousal abuse, presumably to give the “worldwide” claim stronger legs:

Every single culture suffers from issues involving child sacrifice, devil worship, and increasing housing costs too.

I wonder how many places Madelaine Hanson has lived in, being 22 years old? Not many, judging by this:

Forced marriage in Russia? I know some Caucasian peoples practice it, but ethnic Russians on a widespread basis? In all my time in Russia and speaking to Russians I never heard of a single instance of a woman being forced into a marriage, even among the Sakhalin Koreans who were subject to more pressure than most. This is simply nonsense, and although we knew this already, it tells us that brainless airheads are inserting themselves into matters such as FGM and force marriage. Consider this:

She’s a 22 year old feminist writer and comedian from north London, almost certainly middle class. What actual, tangible help do you think she’s provided to women facing FGM or forced marriage? Do you think she’s even met one face to face?

The most charitable thing which can be said about these empty-headed young women is they mean well, but I suspect that might be too generous. The less charitable version is they’ve adopted FGM and forced marriage as a vehicle for advancing their western feminist ambitions, haranguing ordinary men while making sure they say nothing which may identify the backgrounds of the actual perpetrators. Not content with a wall of silence over Rotherham, British feminists are determined to be wilfully blind on these issues too:

So those who’ve taken the most interest in protocols at Birmingham airport to prevent women being trafficked for FGM and forced marriage are Muslim women? How dense do you have to be to tweet that while claiming it’s widespread across all cultures?

And just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse, Plod shows up:

No, it’s specific to certain cultures which are not native to Britain, hence my incredulity that such measures are required. It’s worth reminding ourselves that whenever we see blithering idiocy from our police or government, there are far too many people who endorse it. The reason why there has been only a single, solitary prosecution for FGM in the UK is the authorities and campaigners don’t actually want to tackle the problem, and are only using the issue for their own ends. Ultimately, the failures of Rotherham and whatever the hell is going on as regards FGM and forced marriages lie with the British people.


When violent assault becomes mere harassment

It’s pretty common these days for feminists to pretend everything is sexual harassment or sexual assault in order to exaggerate it’s frequency and accrue more power and influence for themselves. For example, the BBC breathlessly tells us that, according to a survey, one in eight Frenchwomen have been raped. This is the same rate at which women report being raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Is Paris the same as the worst parts of Africa? Actually, now you mention it…

However, in order to maintain the narrative they have taken this into a bizarre reversal, as the reporting of this story shows:

A French student has spoken out after she was harassed by a man in a Paris street and then hit in the face when she told him to stop.

At that point the man became angry and threw an ashtray, missing her by inches, she added.

After exchanging insults, the man walked towards her and was captured striking her on the cafe’s video.

“I know he’s going to hit me. I could have run off but there was no question of that. I wasn’t going to look down and certainly wasn’t going to apologise,” she said. He hit her forcefully on the cheek and continued shouting at her.

This is an assault, pure and simple, by someone with deep-rooted anger issues and a penchant for violence. A short time ago this would have been seen as a violent assault, but nowadays it’s reported as mere sexual harassment. Now I don’t know what was said in the initial altercation, but any young man will know there are men who hang around the streets looking for a fight and will find one on any pretext, usually after attempting to speak to you: if you ignore or rebuff them, that’s a green light for them to start swinging. Every man has had this experience (it tends to disappear as you get older), and I suspect the man who attacked this woman in Paris is someone with a history of violence against both sexes. In short, this is less a story of sexual harassment which women must face but one of assault by a common street thug (judging by his appearance, he’s one of Paris’ many homeless). Ah, but tackling that doesn’t get the SJW crowd all fired up, so:

The equalities minister told Le Parisien newspaper she was outraged by the attack and said the aim of the new law was to impose a clear social ban on harassment.

Presumably there are laws on the books which make hurling ashtrays and slapping people in the face a crime already. Do they not suffice?

Offenders will have to pay between €90 (£80; $105) and €750 under a package of measures that was backed by French MPs in May and is set to complete its passage through parliament this week.

Ah yes, French Twitter has been all over this:

“Regards appuyés” loosely means “suggestive looks”, or perhaps “aggressive looks”. How a judge determines whether such looks were given when handing out fines I don’t know, but this is where SJW lunacy has led us. “Sifflements”, by the way, means whistling. Meanwhile, violent men roam the streets hurling ashtrays and belting women (and probably men too) in broad daylight, seemingly unconcerned with the law. Now some of the men in the cafe remonstrated with the woman’s attacker, but nobody went and filled him in – which is certainly what would happen in some countries I’ve been to. This is partly because Frenchmen are generally not aggressive types, but also because of what I wrote about here. Whatever the case may be, squawking about sexual harassment and bringing in stupid laws which make middle class feminists feel good and risk making criminals of ordinary men will not get violent thugs off the streets – nor will they protect women from them.

What should have happened is this man be beaten unconscious by nearby men the moment he threw that ashtray, the police show up and after a cursory review of the CCTV they drag him off to the cells after wishing everyone bonne continuation, and the BBC writes a robust article praising the intervention of decent chaps for saving this woman from a violent thug. Some hope.


Attention seeker gets attention, doesn’t like it

Sorry, but it would take a heart of stone:

Standing in the middle of Times Square, it wasn’t super hot, but the pressure of what I was about to do was making me sweat. My fingers slipped against the fabric of my maxi skirt as I fumbled with the tightly-knotted bow. My outfit fell away, revealing my pink bikini beneath it. I heard hollers from strangers, but their words blurred into an indecipherable mess as I tried, unsuccessfully, to remain calm. A sliver of sun peeked out from behind the skyscrapers, reminding me we were about to lose the light. No more time for nerves — it was now or never.

“Let’s do this,” I said out loud. My clothes dropped all the way to the ground, and the voices around me became clear.

No, not that. This:

“I want to suck on them tasty toes.”

“Hey baby, let me butter them biscuits for you.”

I looked up to see three men with camera phones filming me. Our eyes met, and one uttered, “Twerk for the camera baby, show them how that ass clap.”

Tears began to well up. I was prepared to be pointed at, shamed, and called fat. I didn’t expect to be fetishized.

It’s New York, you have to be a certificate weirdo to live there. Well, in Brooklyn anyway.

The world only really sees plus imagery that is perfected and somewhat vanilla — usually that of smaller, perfectly proportioned curvy women. It didn’t need another stock image of an hourglass figure, in an indiscernible space, wearing a one-piece. I wanted to make a statement and I wanted to be seen — I’m more than my body and I deserve respect and human decency.

Respect is earned, and it comes a lot easier if you first show some self-respect. Standing in a bikini in Times Square is a sign you don’t have much, regardless of what you look like. For example:

Fifty feet to my right in the busy, tourist-filled space were two thin, large-busted women, wearing only g-strings and some body paint. I watched them with envy. Nobody yelled at them as they worked to hustle up a few dollars selling photos with eager tourists. They were just another part of New York.

Here’s a pic:

Harmless enough, but probably not something you’d want your daughter doing. The bloke dressed as Elmo has more self-respect than these two – or the author.

My mind jolted back to my reality as a man reached forward to hand me his mixed CD.

As you do.

As I pushed it away, he tried to grab hold of my wrist to talk to me. I yanked my hand back. “Hard pass,” I screamed with the toughest face I could muster. “No thank you. Please leave me alone.”

Hard pass? What the hell does that mean?

He stepped back into the crowd that was slowly forming, and his friend then began to call out to me. “I’m just showing love for a BBW, baby. I want you to know that men want you. We love them big booty queens like you. Show off for your fans, baby.”

My tears turned to anger, and the words began to fly out of my mouth: “It doesn’t make it OK. You’re disgusting. Please stop. Please just stop…” The man justified his response by saying that plus women “don’t know they’re f*ckable.”

So men are supposed to approve of big women…but not that much.

A plus-size woman’s worth, or any one woman’s worth for that matter, is not contingent on someone wanting to have sex with them.

The world might be a nicer, sweeter place if this were true, but it patently isn’t: hot women tend to be valued more highly (by both men and women) than swamp-donkeys. Marilyn Monroe didn’t get rich and famous because of her brains, did she?

You don’t exist to pleasure someone else … you exist to change the world.

Oh really? By standing around in a bikini in Times Square?

My rant was interrupted as another man carrying a “Give me cash for weed” sign passed between us.

Hillary’s base, people.

He looked at me, grimaced, and shouted out an uninspired fat joke, grinning proudly. Little did he know he’d just done me a favor by silencing the other men and causing a distraction.

Some heroes wear capes, others crack fat jokes while begging for weed.

A crowd fully formed after that, and the men who had made the lewd comments remained relatively silent. The film crew told me I should only do what I felt comfortable doing, and that we could stop if I wanted to. A few minutes passed, and I was able to reset myself and push away my experience with the lewd commenters. Now I was safely in model mode. Pose. Click. Pose. Click. Magic.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Eye Bleach.

Still, as I turned around for some side-angle shots, I noticed one of the men had continued to film me from behind.

Was it David Attenborough?

In nearly every image I have, you can see him standing there, holding his camera-phone up at the perfect height to capture my backside. I was faceless to him. I was just a body he wanted to exploit and use. My feelings didn’t matter.

You’re standing in Times Square in what amounts to a colossal display of attention-seeking and you’re upset people are paying you attention? Isn’t that the idea? And since when have people been obliged to consider the feelings of exhibitionists?

I felt humiliated and questioned why I was even enduring all of this.

Something which no doubt occurred to those unfortunate enough to pass by.

I considered stepping down and ending the shoot early — it only had been about 15 minutes — but just when I was about to give up, my eye caught sight of a little girl in a red tank top and denim overalls watching me.

I waved at her, and she returned my gesture with the biggest grin.

“You’re pretty,” she whispered.

I realized in that moment, it had all been worth it. I had been seen.

Can you imagine if a man had gone to Times Square, put on a pair of budgie-smugglers, and written an article exclaiming it was worth it only once a child had signaled their approval?

This woman is clearly insane; little wonder she headed to New York.


Headcases make bad law

There are several good arguments for not overturning Roe v Wade

…I’m just not sure “I’m in a relationship with a rapist and might get pregnant” is one of them. And besides, wouldn’t this be covered under a rape exemption?

There seems to be a school of thought – another example is here – that US society and the entire legal system should be arranged primarily for the benefit of women who have found themselves in bad relationships.