More Evidence Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Is A Sexist

Feminist Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted:

    "Our future is:
    Female
    Intersectional,
    Powered by our belief in one another,
    And we're just getting started."

The American  future is female? Why arent men in the US future?  In Gillibrand's female chauvinist world, men have no future. The Senator does not view herself as a representative of all citizens. She represents only women.

Also note the large number of people that upvoted her female chauvinist tweet. She received 32,000 likes.

Imagine the outrage, if a male politician tweeted: 'Our future is male. And We're Just Getting Started'.

When you vote for a feminist, you get female chauvinism.

Yahoo Sports Uses NFL's Kareem Hunt To Promote Sexism

Yahoo  Sports published an article titled "NFL should leave you feeling sick". The article discussed the recent firing of Kansas City Chiefs running back Kareem Hunt.  In February 2018, Hunt was accused of pushing and kicking a woman during an argument but no evidence of his guilt was produced. On November 30, TMZ discovered video evidence of the incident and Hunt's guilt.

 Yahoo Sports reporter Kimberley Martin writes:

"But make no mistake: Had there been no video of Hunt - procured through TMZ's financial means and motivations - the dynamic running back would still be on the Chiefs'  roster and Kansas City would have no issues with Hunt representing it on the field, despite reports that he punched a man four months after he kicked a woman."

"I'm sick of people acting like they care about domestic violence.

I'm sick of pretending the NFL is committed to uncovering the truth at all times, in all cases.

I'm sick of praising teams for doing the right thing when they are left with no choice but to act.

I'm sick of the same NFL owners who have kept Colin Kaepernick out of the league and grumbled about kneeling players affecting their bottom line, finding ways to rationalize signing players who have put their hands on women.

I'm sick of reminding men that domestic violence isn't a women's issue.

I'm sick of reminding men that you don't need to have daughters, or wives, or sisters to realize that minimizing physical violence against women is detestable."

The first point to be made is that this incident is not domestic violence. The two were not in any relationship. Much more importantly, however, is the journalist's sexist presentation of domestic violence. Her chauvinistic article presents domestic violence as men abusing and assaulting women.  Men are always the attacker. Women are always the victim. Facts however show otherwise.

Research has found that "approximately 3.8 women and 1.3 MEN per 1,000 are victims of intimate partner violence each year".  The National Domestic Violence Hotline states "nearly half of all women AND MEN in the United States have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime (48.4% and 48.8%, respectively)". A University of Cumbria study, concluded "women are more likely to be physically aggressive towards their partners than men" .

Additionally, an Intimate Partner Violence study published in the American Journal of Public Health, by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases".

Lastly,  a recent story from Florida describes a women assaulting her boyfriend because he did not want to have sex with her that night.  There is also a recent report from Utah about a violent ex-wife murdering her ex-husband's girlfriend.

The journalist's views on domestic violence are archaic, sexist and based on feminism.

Ms Martin also stated: "We shouldn't have needed video of Hunt kicking a woman for the Chiefs and the league to be spurred to action".

In her female chauvinist mind, women don't lie thus people should be judged on the basis of their gender. The writer is flat out wrong.  A woman's accusation isn't good enough. EVIDENCE IS NEEDED AS PROOF OF GUILT.  The video is evidence of Hunt's guilt.  The sexist mindset displayed by this reporter is exactly why there are so many false rape accusations on college campus and why so many innocent men are kicked out of school.

Yahoo's article uses Kareem Hunt to promote sexist ideas regarding women, men and violence.

Feminist Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Downgrades Male Voters

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has little regard for male voters.  She has no concern for American men's rights or economic prosperity. Her only interest is the prosperity of women.

For example, the feminist Senator formed a movement called "OffTheSidelines". The movement's website states 

"Off The Sidelines is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's call to action to encourage every woman and girl to make their voice heard on the issues they care about. Raising your voice truly can change the world."

"Kirsten believes that if more women are elected to office and have a seat at the decision-making table, the outcomes will be better."

"Kirsten is continuing to fight for her women's economic policy agenda aimed squarely at giving working women and their families a fair shot in the new economy. "

The website clearly shows Gillibrand is neither interested in representing nor fighting for men. She has no economic policy for men. She sees her male constituents as inconsequential.

She also views women as smarter and better decision makers than men. She told attendees at the American Progress Ideas Festival.

If it weren't Lehman Brothers, but Lehman Sisters, we might not have had the financial collapse,"

Additionally,  the feminist Senator is angered an effort is currently being made to make sexual assault investigation procedures fair for male college students. students.Her statements show she believes all accused male students are guilty, women never lie and Title IX protection applies only to females. She is actively undermining the rights of men in college.

Lastly, her Variety Magazine interview emphasizes she is concerned only about representing women. She said:

"We have 400 women running for Congress right now, which is a record number. Women did very well in recent elections. Strong women candidates are running and winning. I really value women. I believe we have something of value to contribute to our society and government. Look at the lack of movement in Congress on sexual harassment issues. If you had different people [in Congress] making the decisions, you would have different outcomes."

She does not "really value" men.  Only women matter. Additionally, her statements during the interview show she has no interest in protecting men from false rape accusations. Every  accused  man is presumed guilty.

Senator Gillibrand views men as irrelevant.  She has no interest in the welfare of working men or protecting them from false rape accusations.   She is uninterested in protecting the rights of male college students. Gillibrand sees herself strictly as a representative of women. Since she has such a negative and sexist view of men, why should any male voters support her?

Senator Kristen Gillibrand Undermines The Rights Of Male College Students

New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand has been fighting against reforming sexual assault investigation procedures for colleges.

 Currently, investigations operate under the "preponderance of evidence standard". This standard requires only the possibility an accused male student is guilty of sexual assault.  Unless evidence  proves he is innocent, investigators typically conclude a man is guilty of sexual assault based primarily on an accusation from a woman.  Subsequently, the male student is kicked out of school and has trouble enrolling in other schools because he is presumed a rapist.

US Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, wants schools to use a higher standard of evidence for determining a student's guilt.  She is also proposing regulations requiring schools approach all investigations under the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. Lastly, Deovs  recommends both the accuser and accused be allowed complete access to information gathered by universities during their investigation. Some schools currently deny students access to the investigation files.

Senator Gillibrand is angered an effort is being made to make investigations fair for male students.  She stated

"Let's fight back to make sure Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education do not turn their backs on survivors of campus sexual assault."

Additionally,  the New York Senator said

 "This betrays students. Betsy DeVos should be doing everything she can to make Title IX enforcement stronger" 

Her statement shows she believes Title IX  applies only to female students.  Gillibrand  also penned an extensive article  for Cosmopolitan Magazine demanding the "preponderance of the evidence" standard remain in place. 

She wrote:

 "The Department of Education should never turn its back on sexual assault survivors  and I'm ready to fight to make sure they don't. If this also matters to you, then I encourage you to raise your voice and speak out as forcefully as you can about it. We must keep our campuses safe, and to do that, we need good, strong, and fair enforcement of Title IX."

 "By saying she plans to revoke or rescind the Title IX guidelines, Secretary DeVos has shown that she does not take the rights of survivors seriously, but I will do everything in my power as a senator to fight to support our sexual assault survivors. I urge everyone who cares about safety and fairness on our college campuses to join me in this fight and demand that our government officials take campus sexual assault seriously,"

Her article shows she assumes all accused male students are guilty, female students never lie and Title IX only applies to women. Gillibrand  judges students on the basis of their gender rather than their actions. Senator Gillibrand  is a sexist.

When The New York Times recently reported on a draft copy of Devo's reforms, Gillibrand responded by tweeting:

"When has @BetsyDeVosED ever stood with anyone but the powerful? She sides with for-profit colleges over students, lenders over borrowers and predators over survivors. At every turn, she betrays her responsibility to the students she's meant to serve. It's sickening."

Senator Kristen Gillibrand views male college students as predators and rapists. In her mind, these students have no rights and are not protected by Title IX. Any male student planning on voting for her in November should reconsider his decision.

Feminists Are Sexist Hypocrites

Former New York University (N.Y.U.) graduate student Nimrod Reitman accused feminist professor Avital Ronnell of pressuring him into a sexual relationship.

Reitman was required to work with Ms Ronnell in an unspecified manner in order to obtain his Ph.D. Additionally, she was also assigned as his student advisor.  Reitman claimed professor Ronnell emailed and called him constantly. The communication was often sexual in nature and she refused to work with him if he did not reciprocate. He also said she would visit him at his home, climb into bed with him, and force him to kiss and touch her.  Additionally, Mr. Reitman said he was expected to work with Professor Ronell often at her apartment. Kissing and touching would typically occur. Reitman, who is gay, said he continued working with Ronnel because he saw no other way to obtain his Ph.D. from N.Y.U. He had previously contacted University officials about her behavior but received no help.

Reitman provided the NY Times with emails supporting his claims.

Two years after graduating from N.Y.U., Reitman filed a Title IX complaint against his former adviser, alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking and retaliation.

N.Y.U.  dragged out the investigation over an 11 month period. Male students accused of sexual assault rarely receive more than a few days of investigation from the school.  N.Y.U found Professor Ronell responsible for sexual harassment but cleared her of the other allegations. She was suspended from her duties for one year.

Many feminists were angered at the University's verdict. They collectively wrote a letter claiming Reitman  was waging a malicious campaign against her and that there was no actual evidence the Professor was guilty of anything. The entire letter appears below.

Feminist letter (pdf)

One of the signators,  Diane Davis, from University of Texas-Austin,  said she and her fellow feminists were particularly angered Mr. Reitman was using Title IX law. She stated "I am of course very supportive of what Title IX and the #MeToo movement are trying to do, of their efforts to confront and to prevent abuses, for which they also seek some sort of justice, But it's for that very reason that it's so disappointing when this incredible energy for justice is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many of us believe is happening in this case."

This case emphasizes feminist double standard. A feminist was guilty of work place sexual harassment. She preached against sexual harassment of women but had no problem harassing a male student.  Rather than criticize her, fellow feminists attacked her male victim.  Additionally, they defended the female sexual harasser. They were appalled Title IX's code of conduct was being applied to a woman.  They viewed Title IX law as a set of rules only for men.

Also, when Ronnell was accused of sexual harassment, feminists demanded "a fair hearing" for her. However, when any male student is accused,  a different set of rules is applied. Being "fair" is unnecessary.

Gender double standard is a traditional feminist trait.  It was on displayed in Illinois when 100 women proposed a two tiered judicial system based on gender. It was also on display in the Washington Post when a feminist wrote an article titled "Why Cant We Hate Men" .

FEMINISM IS SEXISM. Feminists do not judge people on the basis of their actions.  They judge them on the basis of their gender. 

Illinois Proposes a Two Tiered Judicial System Based on Gender

An Illinois task force, which includes Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke and Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is proposing to release large numbers of female criminals from prison. They claim female law breakers should be treated differently than male law breakers.

The Chicago Tribune writes::

"The number of women locked up in Illinois prisons would be cut by as much as half under an ambitious proposal by reform advocates who argue that the corrections system has largely ignored the needs of female inmates, many of whom suffered years of trauma, abuse or poverty before winding up behind bars."

"With 8 of every 10 female inmates in Illinois a mother and often the primary parent, their removal from society has damaging ripple effects on families and neighborhoods, experts say."

 "a 100-member all-female task force of experts, current and former prison officials and formerly incarcerated women will announce a seven-year effort to bring down by 50 percent the number of women in the Illinois Department of Corrections."

"[The group] plans to consider a wide range of options — everything from changing laws to designing more social service programs."

This proposal - by an all woman task force - is suggesting institutionalizing sexism. These women are proposing incarceration be based on gender rather than criminal actions. Many male criminals also suffered years of trauma, abuse or poverty before winding up behind bars. Many are fathers. Why should they be treated differently? Why should they be given more jail time simply because they are not female? Imagine a task force proposing jail time be based on race. Those of a certain skin color can be released earlier than other criminals. Wouldn’t that be considered discrimination? Proposing a judicial system based on gender is no different. ITS DISCRIMINATION.

The Tribune continues:

"Deanne Benos, a former Illinois corrections official who is leading the effort, told the group. “One hundred women, all women, coming together to build and plan and cut the women’s prison population by 50 percent or more.”

Uh, no Dianne. Instead, its 100 women coming together to demand special privilege.

The Chicago Tribune's lengthy, one-sided article attempts to persuade readers female criminals do not belong in jail. Prison is strictly for males.

Why is holding grown adult women accountable for their actions such a problem in this country?

If Illinois adopts the task force's recommendations of leniency for female felons, then male felons should file lawsuits for civil rights violations and sex discrimination. Lawsuits against a state's Department of Corrections are possible.

For example. convicted felon  Taylor Blanchard sued the Wyoming Department of Corrections  claiming her constitutional rights were violated. A judge had sentenced her to 6 years in prison with a recommendation for boot camp. Felons completing a boot camp program can have their sentence reduced. However, Wyoming only operates a boot camp program for men. 

Blanchard's lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by a judge but only because she completed an out of state boot camp program and subsequently had her sentence reduced. Illinois men will be in the same situation as Blanchard.

There is no valid reason criminals should have their sentenced reduced simply because they are female. Grown women should not be shielded from accountability. They are adults. They should be held responsible for their actions. They should be held to the same standard of accountability as men.

Evidence Feminism Is Sexism

The Washington Post recently published an article titled "Why can’t we hate men?"  The article was written by Suzanna Danuta Walters, a feminist professor at Northeastern University.

She writes:

"it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half."

 Walters then makes blanket statements based on gender:

"[Globally], women experience sexual violence, and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small. In addition, male violence is not restricted to intimate-partner attacks or sexual assault but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence. Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs, local and federal government, business, educational leadership, etc.; wage inequality continues to permeate every economy and almost every industry; "

In Walters feminist viewpoint, if a man does something wrong, anywhere in the world, then men across the globe are responsible. Feminists judge people on the basis of their gender rather than their actions. Additionally, it should be noted, studies show women are responsible for almost half of all intimate partner violence. Two such studies are here and here. Lastly, women's so called 'underrepresentation', at least in the US government, is a result of democracy. Political office is obtained by winning elections. Numerous female candidates have run for political office claiming they support feminist ideas  and demonstrate they are concerned only about women's issues. These candidates are often (but not always) defeated during elections. Perhaps if more female candidates show they can stand up to feminist hate and demonstrate they also represent men's issues, they might win elections.

The writer then cites Iceland as a country where “inequities have been radically minimized". This is an ironic choice considering Iceland has the most depressed and medically doped up population in the industrialized world.

The feminist concludes her Washington Post article by stating:

"So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? For all the power of #MeToo and #TimesUp and the women’s marches, only a relatively few men have been called to task, and I’ve yet to see a mass wave of prosecutions or even serious recognition of wrongdoing. On the contrary, cries of “witch hunt” and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence. But we’re not supposed to hate them because .?.?. #NotAllMen. I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts."

"So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all ....Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win."

Voting for candidates on the basis of gender is what feminism represents. Barring people from political office because they are male is a principle of feminism. 

The sexism projected against men in this article is similar to the sexism displayed in an NBCNews article written by a different feminist. The NBCNews article claimed male brains become damaged when men are promoted into positions of authority such as management.

The Washington Post article is hate speech. It is based on feminist gender stereotypes. Men are characterized as violent, oppressive and rapists. Women are seen as victims, benevolent and harmless. The article is more evidence feminism is an ideology of sexism and hate.

Rose McGowan Shows Female Privilege Is Part Of The #MeToo Movement

Bill Clinton recently stated he believed he did not owe Monica Lewinsky an apology for their consensual affair while he was president. Their affair lasted intermittently from 1995 thru 1997.  Lewinsky was 22 years old when their relationship began.

Rose McGowan, a prominent activist within the #MeToo movement became angered by Clinton's statement. She claimed he ruined Monica Lewinsky's life.

McGowan said "Bill Clinton. Here is the truth of it:  a human life was altered & destroyed due to your selfishness.   Because.     You.    Could.   You not only wiped your semen on a young girl’s dress, you left a stain on society. You actually owe EVERYONE an apology, especially her."

Previously, the #MeToo activist claimed  22 year old Monica Lewinsky  was a kid. McGowen stated "Get real people, see truth. She (Lewinsky) was a kid. Biggest power imbalance ever. The SCARLET LETTER IS HIS."  

Why should an adult man apologize to an adult women for a consensual relationship he had with her? The idea Clinton is solely responsible for their relationship and owes Lewinsky an apology is sexist.

Rose, here is the truth of it. You dont get to claim a grown woman is not responsible for her actions. You dont get to claim a 22 year old woman should be considered a kid in the eyes of the law. Monica was not forced into a relationship. She saw fame and fortune in an affair with a US president.  She made her own decisions as an ADULT. If she regrets those decisions now - too bad. Its still not sexual assault. Its not rape. If Lweinsky had rejected the relationship, nothing would have happened to her. The US is not currently a Soviet police state. She wouldn't have been shot. She wouldn't have been shipped to a Soviet concentration camp. She wouldn't have been relieved of her intern duties. She would have continued living anonymously.

Regardless of whether the reader hates or likes Bill Clinton, the fact remains he owes Monica Lewinsky nothing. He didn't rape her. He didn't sexually assault her. He didn't ruin her life. She made her own decisions as an adult. She alone is responsible for the consequences of those decisions just as Clinton is responsible for the consequences of his decisions.

The #MeToo activist is simply blaming a man for bad decisions an adult woman made. She is asserting grown women should not be held responsible for their actions. She is claiming female freedom from consequences of bad decisions. She is claiming female privilege.

McGowan's comments show the projection of female privilege is a component of the #MeToo movement. If a woman makes a mistake, she can avoid accountability by blaming a man.

Apparel Company Uses Little Boys to Promote Feminist Propaganda.

Apparel company, J. Crew, recently designed a shirt promoting feminism for little boys. A photo of the shirt appears below.

It was designed in collaboration with the extremist website prinkshop. The website routinely designs shirts promoting feminist ideology. J. Crew introduced the boys shirt by stating "Start ‘em young. Shop our exclusive crewcuts collab w/ @prinkshop via link in bio."

Opposition to the boys shirt was fairly strong. One customer stated "You’ve so lost me as a customer! I’ve shopped you all for all my casual clothing since 2000. This poor kid doesn’t even know what he’s representing! You all just had to get political! Well let me tell you what, bye bye good paying customers.”  Another customer stated "Y'all... don't make your children pawns in your political game. It ain't cute." Another patron said "I genuinely hope that no parent would go as low as to use their children to push their political views, no matter what stance they take". A potential client stated "Kids should be kids not political grandstanding tokens. You’re gonna lose $$$$ but you did it to yourself!."

MSM was angered that many customers were protesting against the shirt. The news organization attempted to stamp out dissent by claiming feminism is about equality and the protesters were right wing. MSM journalist, Jacob Shamsian, wrote:

"J.Crew's new politically minded "I am a feminist too" shirt for boys is drawing the ire of right-wing fans of the brand. The fashion brand promoted the shirt on its Instagram account over the weekend, and was flooded with comments criticizing the brand for apparently promoting the political ideology of equality between the sexes."

As stated at the top of the blog FEMINISM IS SEXISM. It is an ideology of female chauvinism. It has nothing to do with equality. For example, feminists have claimed men's brains become damaged when they obtain positions of authority . Feminists have voiced opposition against giving male college students accused of rape a fair hearing.. Feminists have claimed female doctors are better than male doctors..

Putting the phrase "I Am A Feminist Too" on a shirt is the same thing as putting the phrase "I Am A Sexist Too".  J.Crew is donating 10% of the retail price for every shirt sold to the United Nations feminist organization 'Girl Up'. This organization supports girls in developing countries but has refused to help boys.  Don't buy J. Crew.

NBC News Article Claims Power Damages Male Brains

NBC News has published an article titled 'Does Power Damage Male Brains?' The article was written by  feminist Lynn Stuart Parramore. She claims male brains become damaged when men obtain positions of authority.

 Parramore writes: 

"If you get the sense that your boss doesn’t really see you and read you accurately, you may be onto something. And it might be worse if your boss is a 'he'. Because some researchers now think that power may not affect men and women the same way. During his comments at Davos, Dacher Keltner (a male feminist from  University of California Berkeley) argued that power is particularly damaging to men:"

 "If I’m powerful and I’m a man, and I’m interacting with a woman who is less powerful, I’m just going to be feeling more sexually aroused. That’s well documented in a lot of studies. I’ll act on those impulses. I’ll be approaching their space, saying suggestive things, etc. Here comes the problem: I erroneously believe that the woman around me is attracted to me when in fact she’s feeling repulsed or anxious."

"Keltner points to increasing amounts of social science data that suggest women in leadership positions tend to be more collaborative and less prone to corruption and abuse."

In essence, the feminist is arguing male bosses should be replaced by women because female brains are less 'damaged' by power. Additionally, the feminist claims powerful women are more collaborative than powerful men. If this is true, then how come powerful women like NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and MO Senator Claire McCaskill are unwilling to collaborate with US Secretary of Education Betsy Devos about reforming sexual assault investigation procedures on college campuses nationwide? How come these powerful female Senators are refusing any collaboration or input from falsely accused male college students? If powerful women are collaborative then how come powerful female politicians from the Senate and House of Representatives always fight against paternity fraud legislation? What happened to their collaboration skills? Lastly, where is the alleged 'science data' showing women are more collaborative and less corrupt than men?  Parramore provides no links.

The idea female leaders are more collaborative is simply another feminist sexist statement.

Perramore continues:  

 "In the #MeToo movement, there are basically two power dynamics at play: those between employers and subordinates, and those between men and women. Imbalances create potential pitfalls in both cases. But part of #MeToo is about recognizing and speeding up shifts in the balance of power along with the expectations of who wields it — and how they are culturally and legally sanctioned to use it.

"#MeToo has illuminated the need for better protections for employees, more collaborative power models and greater representation of women in management and boards." 

In other words, Perramore wants decreasing numbers of male managers - due to their "damaged brains" - and increasing numbers of female bosses whom she claims are more suited to "collaborative power models" .

Perramore then states: 

"Checks and balances are required so that the less powerful have secure channels to voice concerns and a fair forum in which to be heard."

"One good sign is the first piece of proposed legislation to come out of #MeToo, a bipartisan bill which would help shift power away from management to those who report sexual harassment. The new law would end forced arbitration, a nasty bit of injustice written into the contracts of as many as 60 million Americans. It denies them due process if they are sexually harassed at the workplace."

These are ironic statements for a feminist. She claims she is concerned about 'due process' and a 'fair forum in which to be heard'. Yet, as discussed in a previous post, an array of  feminist groups and politicians stated they will fight against Betsy Devos's reforms giving male college students accused of sexual assault 'due process' and  a 'fair forum' where their defense can be heard.

Perramore concludes: 

"If we know that power distorts, then the solution is to rebalance it and try to ensure that people don't get to wield it unchecked. Shared models of power and consciously reorienting ourselves towards interactions that are more empathetic and mutual are the antidotes to dynamics that are abusive and coercive. Redefining masculinity is also part of the necessary shift. "

The feminist wants masculinity redefined. She wants men molded so that they are more pliable to her will. She wants to control men.

This NBC News article is more evidence that feminism IS sexism. The entire essay is laced with feminist gender stereotypes as well as the sexist claim women are better managers than men.

Cold Hearted YahooNews Journalist

Sports journalist Steven Psihogios writes:

Prior to the puck drop for Game 2 between the Capitals and Blue Jackets, Washington forward Brett Connolly was trying to be a nice guy. During warmups, Connolly was desperately trying to toss a puck over the glass to an adorable little girl who was seated in the front row.

Unfortunately for the little girl, the man standing in the row behind her had other plans. Connolly, visibly trying to get a puck to the little girl, had his efforts denied multiple times by the adult standing behind her. The man caught the first two pucks tossed over the glass and gave one each to the two boys sitting beside the little girl. Finally, after making it very clear who he wanted to have the third puck, Connolly lobbed it over the glass and it was promptly given to the little girl.

There is something seriously mentally wrong with YahooNews journalist Steven Psihogios.

He is angry the man standing in the row behind the kids - who probably was related to the children - gave pucks to two little boys. He makes it seem as if a growm man was trying to steal the puck from the little girl. The video clip, shows Connolly  trying to flip a puck into the stands toward the little girl. However, the adult male - probably a relative - was trying to get pucks for all three children.

Whats wrong with that?

Psihogios could have simply written - 'Little girl overjoyed at receiving puck'. He could also have  written 'Caps player gives children pucks'. Instead he wrote a quasi feminist article needlessly bashing a man and marginalizing two young children simply because they were male.

This is the same news organiztion that claimed both Patrick Kane (Chicago Black Hawks) and Evander Kane (Buffalo Sabres) were guilty of sexual assault allegations in 2015 and 2016 without having any evidence.

YahooNews sports journalists seems to determine right from wrong on the basis of a person's gender.

Six Recent Cases of Female Sex Offenders

In Arizona, 27-year-old Brittany Zamora has been arrested for alleged sexual misconduct with a 13-year-old male student. Mrs. Zamora, a sixth-grade teacher at Las Brisas Academy, allegedly performed oral sex on the young boy inside a school classroom as well as in her car. Police say a parent found text messages between Mrs. Zamora and the male student, indicating sexual activity.

Lisa Kutis of the Goodyear Police Department stated, “The text messages found are sexual in nature that allege an ongoing relationship between the two,” adding, “As a result of an app, which alerted the parents to some keywords, they then checked the cellphone and discovered [sexual] text messages.” The boy said that the sexual relationship started after Zamora started flirting with him in a classroom chat group. She began sending him nude photos of herself.  Police also stated they spoke with a second boy who apparently witnessed one of the sex acts. According to police, the second boy said Mrs. Zamora had also showed him naked pictures of herself.

On March 22, the boy’s father called police saying that Zamora and her husband called him and begged him not to contact the police. Zamora’s husband reportedly stated that Mrs. Zamora made a big mistake but that she loved the kids in her class. The boy’s father added that the husband asked him if they could handle the situation privately, that they should “meet up” and “settle this,” prompting the boy’s father to hang up.

Claiming she mistakenly gave the boy oral sex seems laughable. How does a wife mistakenly give a boy oral sex?   Seems more likely she is shoveling excuses to her husband.

According to KPNX,, several weeks before the alleged sexual encounters, three students wrote to the school principal claiming “elements of favoritism” between Mrs. Zamora and the boy.

Brittany Zamora was booked into Fourth Avenue Jail on two counts of molestation of a child, one count of furnishing harmful material and nine counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

In Iowa, five nursing assistants were arrested. Carolyn Marie Wiedrich, 44; Shelby Mariah Sebring, 24; Jamie Leah Pagel, 32,  Megan Marie Penney 26 and Paige Lynn Johanningmeier 23;  are accused of having sexual contact with patients while working at Prairie View Residential Care Facility. The medical facility treats adult patients with chronic mental illness, intellectual disabilities, or medical conditions. Services include 24 hour staffing, medication management, on site visits by medical doctors and psychiatrists as well as transportation to local medical appointments.

Patients at this facility are dealing with serious mental and emotional issues. The last thing they need is someone taking advantage of them.

Wiedrich is accused of having a patient perform oral sex on her on more than 30 occasions while she worked at the Center. Sebring allegedly had sex with a patient. Pagel allegedly kissed and touched a clothed patient on two occasions court records state.  Megan Marie Penney and Paige Lynn Johanningmeier were arrested for allegedly sneaking patients out of the facility to have sex them. According to the Fayette County Sheriff's Office, all five nursing assistants were charged with 'sexual exploitation by a counselor, therapist or school employee'.

Sheriff Marty Fisher stated “These CNAs have violated the trust of not only their employers, but also the families of these patients who put their trust in these individuals to care for their family members."

The feminist idea of "benevolent women" is obsolete. People should be judged on the basis of their actions not their gender. These six women should not receive public sympathy. In all six cases, grown adult women were looking for someone they could easily manipulate.

Imagine if the genders were reversed. Imagine the reaction if five male nursing assistants were found having sex with patients suffering from mental and emotional issues. Imagine the reaction if a husband / teacher was found giving a 13 year old girl oral sex.

The reaction toward these six female sex offenders should be no different.

Harvard Eliminating Men's Organizations But Preserving Women's Organizations

Harvard wants exclusively male social groups such as fraternities or social clubs eliminated. The University claims they are gender exclusionary.  Beginning this year, undergraduate students of male-only social organizations will be banned from holding athletic team captaincies and positions of leadership in any recognized student groups. They will also be barred from fellowships, including Rhodes, Marshall and other scholarships thereby effecting future job opportunities. Lastly male-only clubs will be slapped with sanctions by the University.

Female-only organizations are currently exempt from coed regulations. Initially, exclusively female clubs would fall under the regulations around the year 2022. However, this plan was changed.  The revised plan states female clubs may remain "gender focused" for the next 5 years. During this time period, the school hopes exclusively female clubs will become coed. At the end of the 5 year period, Harvard will assess the positive contributions of female clubs to the campus community. The school will then decide to either make female-only clubs comply with the new coed regulations or give them a new grace period for compliance. At the end of any new grace period, the school retains the option of issuing a subsequent grace period. This is a sneaky violation of Title IX law.

Additionally, there is a new proposal from several faculty members demanding the expulsion of any student joining a gender exclusive club. Since female clubs are currently exempt from coed regulations, the proposal would only apply to male students.

The Dean of the College, Rakesh Khurana, stated his views on men's organizations in a 2016 letter. He wrote:

"Discrimination is pernicious. Stereotypes and bias take hold, normalizing in a community behavior, which should be unacceptable. In this case the discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances. The most entrenched of these spaces send an unambiguous message that they are the exclusive preserves of men. In their recruitment practices and through their extensive resources and access to networks of power, these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community.”

 Khurana did not state similar views toward exclusively female organizations.

The Harvard Crimson (the University's student newspaper) also expressed a gender double standard. The newspaper said it supports banning students from joining single gender organizations. However,  the Crimson stated   "as we have opined in the past, we wish it was possible for administrators to better distinguish male final clubs and sororities. If the committee seeks to combat exclusivity and foster belonging, arguably sororities can provide a supportive role by giving women a social space on campus." Thus, the chauvinistic Crimson supports banning gender exclusionary groups UNLESS THEY ARE FEMALE-ONLY.

Harvard is located in Boston. Even that city's major newspaper supported the school's policy of sex discrimination.   The Boston Globe stated "But as Harvard attempts to crack down on all-male final (social) clubs, a proposal to ban membership in exclusive clubs could have a disproportionate impact on women, who belong to such organizations in greater numbers." The newspaper quoted a former student claiming "the real world still has ‘old boys clubs’ and that therefore women’s organizations remain necessary balancers and spaces that empower women.” The newspaper asserted that male-only clubs are "all-men bastions" while Harvard’s sororities and women’s final clubs are "an alternative social space to the male final clubs and fraternities". The Globe also wrote "Sororities and single-gender clubs also help women form networks that can help them land jobs, provide recommendations for graduate school, and offer support if they move to a new city, members say".

The Boston Globe sympathizes with female students gaining social support, empowerment and job links from female-only clubs. However, if male-only clubs provide THE EXACT SAME benefits to male students, the sexist news organization implies its discrimination toward women.

This is what happens when feminism becomes part of a University's culture. New ways of sex discrimination are invented, endorsed and then enacted.

Title IX law states “No person in the United  states shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the  benefits  of,  or  be  subjected  to  discrimination  under  any  educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."  "The protection extends to all aspects of these institutions’ education   programs   and   activities." "Title IX prohibits all forms of sex discrimination, including gender-based harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual violence."

Harvard’s current coed policies violate all of these principals. The school is discriminating against male students and harassing male organizations. Both male and female students should fall under the SAME coed policy and suffer the SAME penalties.

Harvard received about $608 million in federal funds during 2014.The school received approximately the same amount of federal funding in 2016.. All federal funding of Harvard should cease until the school complies with Title IX law.

Feminists at other Universities are already watching Harvard's sex discrimination policies. If Harvard can ignore Title IX law without repercussions then feminist groups will begin recommending similar policies at other colleges.

Does Google Distort Its Search Results In Order To Promote a Political Agenda

There have been recent claims Google is biased against certain political groups. One claim stated "I know there are efforts to demote anything non-PC, anti-Communist and anti-Islamic terror from search results." The question arises: Does Google demote men’s rights webpages. Is the Brebeirt article accurate or just extremist nonsense?

To test whether or not Google is demoting web pages affiliated with men’s rights issues, 6 topic were queried. The topics chosen were: men's rights, women's rights, men's rights blog, anti feminist blog, feminist blog and Men going their own way. Google search results were compared with its closest competitor, Bing.  Searches were repeated on 5 different days to assure the results would be reasonably consistent. The web browser Firefox was used to conduct the study. Its cache was cleared after every search.

Google's results from the first query 'men's rights' appears below.

The search engine returned 2 pages discussing men's rights favorably but 6 pages undermining men’s rights. Additionally, there were two other pages that seemed out of place.

Only the 6th ranked site, the Men's Rights subreddit, and the 9th ranked site, a MotherJones article, portrayed men's rights in a positive manner. The other webpages held a mostly negative view of men's rights.

The 1st ranked result is a Wikipedia article describing the men’s rights movement. The article gives equal weight to men’s rights issues and criticism of the men’s rights movement. The article's format creates doubt about the validity of most men’s rights claims. 

The 2nd ranked site is an article from the website MotherJones. The first half of the article offers a reasonable overview of Warren Farewell's rebellion against feminism. The second half of the article devolves into undermining the men's rights movement and stereotyping men's rights activists (MRA's) as violent extremists.

The 3rd ranked site is a page from RationalWiki. The page mainly attempts to discredit the men's rights movement.

The 4th ranked site is an article from the Huffington Post. It seems out of place for a top 10 search result. The article does not encompass an array of men's rights topics nor discuss the men's movement in general. Instead, it only discusses Harvey Weinstein and workplace sexual harassment. The author interviews men’s rights activists about the allegations against Weinstein. She also records MRA's thoughts on workplace sexual harassment. The author then types her counter arguments underneath their statements. How does this weak article rank as number 4 for men's rights?

The 5th ranked site is an article from 'The Cut'. The article stereotypes men's rights activists as right wing extremists. Additionally, the article subtlety promotes racism.

The 7th ranked site is a GQ article. The write-up paints men’s rights activists as angry extremists.

The 8th ranked site is an obituary & tribute to feminist Karen Defcrow. The article discusses her sympathetic views toward men's issues but explains Decrow never fully broke with the feminist movement. While well written, the webpage is only indirectly associated with men's rights. Its implausible Google's algorithms could not find another page more directly  correlated with men's rights. Decrow's tribute seems out of place for a top 10 search result.

The 10th ranked TIME article tries to undermine men's rights by subtlety creating the impression MRA's are violent and sexist.

Bing's results for 'men's rights' were somewhat better. They appear below.

The search engine returned 4 pages discussing men's rights favorably but 5 sites criticizing men’s rights. Additionally, the NPR article ranked 8th, was objective and informative despite not actually promoting men's rights.

The 1st ranked "Mens Rights' website, 2nd ranked 'Men's Rights' subreddit, 5th ranked Brebeirt article and 9th ranked 'Mens Activism' website all portrayed men's rights in a positive manner. The remaining sites undermine, criticize and negatively stereotype the men's rights movement. It should be noted, the 10th ranked result, 'Mens Rights Activism' is a fake men's rights web page. It opposes men’s rights and criticizes the men’s rights movement. Fortunately, its no longer active.

Both search engines returned a large number of webpages undermining men's rights. Google, in particular demoted webpages showing men's rights in a positive manner. Google's treatment of men's rights was then compared to its treatment of women's rights. Would the search engine giant demote women's rights pages in favor of those critical of the movement as it had done with men's rights pages? Google's output appears below. 

As seen, all web pages listed promote women’s rights in a positive manner. There were no articles questioning the women's movement. There were no counter arguments to the movement's accusations. There were no pages critical of the women's movement's conduct. This indicates some level of double standard within Google.  Bing's results for 'women's rights' (not shown) were similar. All web pages discuss women's rights favorably. However, Bing's double standard is not as pronounced as Google's since Bing's output for men's rights was better than Google's output.

The next topic is 'men's rights blog'. Google's results are shown below.

There were 4 legitimate men's rights webpages, 1 page sympathetic to men's rights activists and 4 sites criticizing men’s rights. There was one other site that was hard to classify. Google's output for this topic varied greatly during the study. However, at no time, did Google ever return more than 5 legitimate men’s rights webpages. The sample output shown above was selected as a reasonable representation of Google's responses over a 5 day period.

The first 3 websites and the 7th ranked 'Mens Rights of Edmonton' blog promote men's rights. The 10th ranked MotherJones article is sympathetic toward female MRA's. The remaining sites were mostly negative toward men's rights

The 4th ranked site, from the Huffington Post, is written by a feminist who hates the men's rights movement.
The 5th ranked site, from gwennseemel.com, tries to appropriate the men’s rights movement by claiming feminism fights for men.
The 6th ranked site from 'The Cut' is written by a male feminist who despises the men's rights movement and claims they are right wing extremists.
The 8th ranked site is 'Return of Kings". This is a pick up artist website that was tough to classify. It emphasizes men should seek out women yet claims most western women are toxic.  It recommends men protect themselves from narcissistic women yet expresses hatred toward MRA's for defending male victims of domestic violence. The website is predominately pro marriage yet recognizes western family laws have become anti husband. Return of Kings contradictory articles indicate the website is unsure of its own principles. Thus, it was hard to classify.
The 9th ranked site is from Mel Magazine. It is an anti men’s rights article with overtones of racism.

Bing's results were much better and appear below.

There were 7 legitimate men’s rights webpages and 2 sites criticizing men's rights. Additionally, the NPR article ranked 6th, was informative as discussed above.

Only the 2nd and 3rd ranked pages criticize and undermine men's rights.
The 2nd ranked site from "Cracked' is strongly opposed to men’s rights and negatively stereotypes MRA's
The 3rd ranked site is the fake men's rights web page MensrightsActivism.

Anyone querying Google for the topic of men's rights or men's rights blog will be shown a fairly large number of webpages criticizing the movement. Conversely, anyone searching for women's rights will be shown no pages criticizing the movement. Additionally, Google displays a higher number of pages expressing hostility towards men’s rights than Bing. It does seem Google is de-ranking men's rights webpages in favor of those trying to undermine the movement.

The next topic is anti feminist blog. Google's results appear below.

Google returned more pro feminist pages than anti feminist pages. There were 4 anti feminist oriented sites but 6 pro feminist web pages

The number 1 listed site 'Women Against Feminism' and the number 6 listed site, the twitter hashtag #antifeminist, are anti feminist pages. Additionally, the 9th ranked site, a National Review article, details an example of feminist buffoonery while the 10th ranked site is an article criticizing modern feminism. All other results are pro feminist. The Indiegogo Antifeminist movie is pro feminist. It puts a more pleasant face on feminism.

Bing's results are much better and appear below.

 There were 7 legitimate anti feminist pages and 3 pro feminist pages.

Only the 4th, 9th and 10th ranked sites were pro feminist.
The 4th ranked site, a Washington Post article, ridicules the website 'Women Against Feminism' even going so far as quoting notorious sexist Jessica Valenti
The 9th ranked site is a list of feminist blogs while the 10th ranked site is a feminist website.

Bing's output is clearly more accurate than Google's output. It almost seems as if Google is trying to stamp out any criticism of feminism.

Google's treatment of anti feminism was then compared with its treatment of feminism. The topic 'feminist blog' was queried. The results appear below.

All listed sites are pro feminist. Occasionally, a Slate article may be ranked 10th.  Its author attacks the feminist website 'Jezebel' as petty extremists however the article's writer still supports feminism. There is no other site offering any criticism of feminism. Google's accuracy for 'feminist blog' and 'anti feminist blog' is quite different.

The last topic is 'Men Going Their Own Way (Mgtow). Google's results appear below.

The search engine retuned 5 objective or pro Mgtow pages and 4 pages criticizing Mgtow followers. One page was neutral.

The 1st ranked page gives an object account of Mgtow while the 2nd, 7th and 9th ranked sites are pro Mgtow. The remaining sites mostly mock and dismiss Mgtow men.

The 3rd ranked page is an article from Vice.com. It presents an exaggerated view of Mgtow philosophy and claims they have hateful rhetoric. Vice mocks false rape allegations & attempts to create anger between MRA's and Mgtow.
The 4th ranked page, RationalWiki, dismisses the movement and portrays them as sexists.
The 5th ranked page is an article from Medium.com. The author does a reasonable job describing Mgtow views but then explains why he believes these men are wrong.
The 6h ranked page is from the online news site Independent.uk. Its report criticizes Mgtow and presents them as sexists.
The 10th ranked page is from an Australian news site. This page was categorized as neutral. It recounted real life events that turned men toward Mgtow philosophy and concluded society must focus on creating long term healthy relationships. The article did not offer any solutions to the issues raised by the Mgtow men they interviewed.

Bing's results were somewhat different.

The search engine retuned 5 objective or pro Mgtow pages, 3 pages criticizing Mgtow followers and 1 page that was neutral. One other page was deemed a bad query result.

The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 10th ranked pages are pro Mgtow while the 4th ranked site, a Wikipedia article, gives an objective description of Mgtow.

The number 3 ranked page is an article from the pick-up artist website 'Return of the Kings'. The page mocks and insults Mgtow men.
The 6th ranked page is a Quora question asking for opinions on Mgtow. This was categorized as a bad result. It offers no real information. There are over 40 opinions contradicting each other and making various accusations without supporting evidence. This page would probably leave a user confused.
The 7th, 8th and 9th ranked pages are from Vice, an Australian news site and RationalWiki. They were all discussed above in Google's results.

Additionally, the Australian news site displayed above is sometimes replaced by 'mgtowforums'.  The forum is pro Mgtow, but very few threads are updated. 

Lastlyy, Bing sometimes displays 3 video links. The links are regularly changed. In the output above, all 3 videos were sympathetic toward Mgtow.

The two search engines did not differ excessively for this topic. The only real difference was Bing's video links. The video's Bing displays are usually sympathetic toward Mgtow.

Based on the findings of this study, the Brebeirt article has merit. Across all 3 main topics (men's rights, anti feminism and Mtgow), Google demoted websites promoting men's issues in favor of pages undermining men's issues. Google's output displayed a high number of webpages criticizing men's rights and anti feminism despite the user specifically requesting a men's rights or anti feminist oriented website.  This does not happen when users request a women's rights or feminist website. Additionally, Bing was more objective than Google. Bing displayed a lower number of pages undermining men’s rights, anti feminism and Mgtow. Bing's output more accurately matched the user's query.

Google may no longer be the most accurate or objective search engine on the internet.