GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Manphobia hits new lows

by

In left-wing Berlin, Germany, we now have a crackdown on advertising that would dare to depict women as “nurturing, happy to do housework, beautiful, addicted to shopping” or men as “rational, aggressive, technologically gifted”.

Get it? Ads must feature unpleasant, unattractive, angry feminists disposing of pathetically weak and foolish men.

Boys must not be shown as “liking sports, the colour blue, and playing with technology”. According to these German feminists(!), girls are so stupid and deficient by nature that when they “see images of heterosexual housewives, the consequence is that they cannot imagine themselves outside this framework.”

Meanwhile in Madrid, they banned ‘manspreading’. Because God Forfend that a man on a bus should sit a bit comfortably. Crowder explains it to women and gets some to admit to the existence of female privilege.

“Shattered” gets it half-right

by

I just finished Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. We’ve been commenting on excerpts from it for weeks. This is my take on the book as a whole.

On the plus side: The subject is delicious. (Reading the story of Election Night was pure Schadenfreude.) Allen and Parnes, the authors, write fairly well. And they don’t blame “Russia, Comey and misogyny” non-stop. They report on actual flaws of the candidate and her staff, and how those flaws kept her from closing the deal with Middle America.

On the minus side: The book is overly-detailed. The authors do blame “Russia, Comey and misogyny” some of the time. In the end, they are liberals writing for liberals. They don’t admit the depth of Hillary’s flaws. For example, they never admit the genuineness of the scandals dogging her: the fact that she broke laws for which other Americans are serving jail time, that she obstructed justice, that FBI Director Comey really gave her kid-glove treatment, etc.

In short, Allen and Parnes miss the larger story of the Clintons’ corruption – and how, in 2016, half of America finally stood up to it and beat it back. Instead, they bury the reader in details about Hillary’s innumerable aides and the in-fighting that she encouraged.

Overall, I enjoyed the book. Some key ideas (probably known to you already): [Read more…]

He’s Baaa-aaaaaack

by

After Milo’s trouble in February, I knew he’d be back. He has a lot to say, he needs the attention, he’s fun and the camera loves him.

Via Breitbart.com, it’s MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK. (I think the all-caps are part of the shtick?)

In light of recent controversies, I am planning a huge multi-day event called MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK in Berkeley later this year. We will hold talks and rallies and throw massive parties, all in the name of free expression and the First Amendment. All will be welcome, regardless of political affiliation.

[…]
During MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK, we will give out a new free speech prize — the Mario Savio Award — to the person we believe has done most to protect free expression at UC Berkeley and its surrounding area. Each day will be dedicated to a different enemy of free speech, including feminism, Black Lives Matter and Islam.

If UC Berkeley does not actively assist us in the planning and execution of this event, we will extend festivities to an entire month. We will establish a tent city on Sproul Plaza protesting the university’s total dereliction of its duty and encourage students at other universities to follow suit.
I intend to return Berkeley to its rightful place as the home of free speech — whether university administrators and violent far-left antifa thugs like it or not.
– MILO

Mario Savio was, per Wiki, “a key member in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. He is most famous for his passionate speeches, especially the ‘put your bodies upon the gears’ address given at Sproul Hall…on December 2, 1964.”

P.S. I respect and admire Ann Coulter, but do you want to know the difference between her and Milo? A penis and $20,000. (My understanding is that she charges 20K to speak to College Republicans, while he charges them zero. If that’s incorrect, I would be happy to hear it in the comments.)

“Danger Spaces” for Free Speech and Open Discourse

by

Liberals (or Progressives, or Leftists, depending on the degree of honesty with which they are willing to label themselves) especially feminists are fanatical about shutting off avenues of Free Speech that questions their dogma. Some feminists demand that, when a speaker they don’t agree with comes to a college campus, they must be given safe spaces with coloring books and stuffed animals, lest the mere presence of such a speaker cause them trauma. Some feminists have demanded making the entire internet a “Safe Space” by outright banning of disagreeable comments from the internet.

The correct response for those of us who cherish open discourse is to label spaces where free and open dialogue occurs as “Danger Spaces.” First of all, it sounds cool. Second, it creates a dramatic contrast with the the prissy “Safe Spaces” demanded by the feminist left. Third, it brands Free Speech as something dangerous and exciting and thereby encourages people to seek it out.

Fourth, and I think this is the most important thing, it points up how idiotic and silly the leftist/feminist notion that free speech is so dangerous they have to create “Speech-Proof” shelters to protect themselves from it really is.

Dangerously-Austin-Powers-meme-collection-1mut_com-13

Protecting Delicate Victorian Feminists from the Trauma of Salary Negotiations

by

According to modern Feminist theory, women are emotionally fragile and delicate creatures who must be treated like children and protected from the harsh realities of life. They tend to be overcome with “the vapors” when exposed to strange, new ideas, and must therefore be sent to “safe spaces” — equipped with Play-Doh, and crayons, and teddy bears — to recover when hearing a politically incorrect opinion leaves them faint.

In this spirit, the new female, minority chairhead of Reddit has decided that since women are too fragile to compete in the business world at the level of men… all salary negotiations will be banned going forward.

As Reddit’s interim CEO, Pao said she wants to eliminate salary negotiations from the company’s hiring process.

In her first interview since the lawsuit, Pao told with the Wall Street Journal Monday that the plan would help level the playing field.

“Men negotiate harder than women do and sometimes women get penalized when they do negotiate,” she said. “So as part of our recruiting process we don’t negotiate with candidates. We come up with an offer that we think is fair. If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.”

An interesting side effect of this is that it puts all the power on the side of the employer. Instead of negotiating a better deal for one’s skills, the employee is stuck with a one-size-fits-all salary, with only the choice of taking it or leaving it. (A lot of “progressive” policies seem to have the side effect of concentrating power in the hands of authoritarian.)

And here’s something interesting. The Reddit Chairhead filed a sexual discrimination complaint against a previous employer … and lost.

Last Friday, a jury decided that the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers did not discriminate or retaliate against Pao in a case that debated gender imbalance and working conditions for women in Silicon Valley.

Just putting that out there.

victorian-lady-fainting

The gender pay gap: a myth?

by

Like others, I don’t care much about the Oscars. But I understand that Patricia Arquette made a stir on Sunday night, with her speech about “All women deserve equal pay”.

Let’s be clear: Women and men absolutely deserve equal pay, when we’re talking about equal work. That is: work of the same category and experience level, that either a woman or man could do, done with equally good results, under equally good (or bad) conditions.

The point of contention is: Are left-wing feminists really talking about that? Are they correct to claim a large gender gap exists? And are left-wing politicians correct, when they claim to be the answer?

Powerline reminds us of research from 2011 about the gender gap being a myth. And also how, on the surface at least, Hillary and Obama are hypocrites – for example, Hillary has paid her women 72 cents on the dollar (compared to her men). While left-wing hypocrisy is a delightfully inexhaustible subject, the first piece is most interesting for the points it makes.

Basically, research supports the idea that men *on average* tend to choose more dangerous (or less popular) careers; more stressful specializations within the same career; and more uncomfortable and undesirable work locations. And tend (on average) to work longer hours including more nights and weekends, and to take fewer lengthy mid-career breaks. When adjusted for such factors, the gender pay gap disappears – or even turns slightly in favor of women.

If you disagree, please feel free to post your facts/logic in the comments.

UPDATE: Peter Schiff makes a good point, that if he *could* pay a woman less for the same work, women would have a competitive advantage. He “would be an idiot to hire a man” – and would gladly hire nothing but women. He doesn’t, because it just isn’t so. (At least in financial services. Maybe, over in show business, George Clooney’s career will indeed age better than Patricia Arquette’s.)

UPDATE: At the same link, Schiff adds, “in adult entertainment [as opposed to Arquette/Hollywood] women are paid much more…this disparity has nothing to do with discrimination…The porn audience cares about the female stars…So pay rates reflect market forces…I wonder if at the next Adult Video News awards a male winner will demand equal pay during his acceptance speech?”

While we’re talking about it…

by

V’s post about the fakeness of the feminist “College is a Rape Zone” narrative is spot-on. Having said that: Assaults on women do happen and let’s look at one, recent, compare-and-contrast example of the media’s coverage.

  • Obscure Congressional GOP staffer, Elizabeth Lauten, happens to notice on Facebook that Obama’s daughters roll their eyes way much: The media makes Lauten into a national crisis, even posting vans outside her parents’ house.
  • Obscure Congressional Democrat staffer, Donny Ray Williams Jr., actually drugs and rapes women: No national crisis. Bare-bones media coverage of him.

It seems to me that, if the feminists really want to publicize the problem of assaults on women and/or to attack institutions that would demean women by their silence on such assaults, they could start by attacking the mainstream and/or left-wing media for its Democrat-rapist-protecting, crazy-double standards.

And if the media were a kitty, she’d say:

crazy-looking cat who says Insanitiez - I Has It

Rape and consent (affirmative or otherwise)

by

Part of what is bad about leftists is that they characteristically offer terrible solutions – the worst possible solutions – to real problems. In doing so, they muddy-up issues, misguide people and actually prevent genuine solutions.

I could talk about gun control – where the leftie “solution” to crimes committed by armed law-breakers is restrictions that effectively disarm the law-abiding victims. (Thus empowering law-breakers.) But another example would be rape.

Like all serious crimes against life, limb, liberty or property: Rape is a real problem. In answer (and as this blog has recently discussed), feminists propose to violate the rights of everyone by abandoning standards of evidence, and to turn normal (consenting) sexual relations into absurd displays of feminist rules.

With lefties, because of the sad-but-simple fact that crimes can’t always be prevented and criminals can’t always be punished, the rest of us are to be punished. Even though we’re not criminals and we stand with the victims. It makes no sense, and usually worsens the problem.

What would be some better answers? Like I said, it is sad that crime can’t always be prevented or punished. Still, the answer is to keep making reasonable efforts at both.

Let people, especially women, carry guns or other means of self-defense – knowing well how to use them. Also, let young women be well-educated on the M.O. of date-rapists (especially the M.O. of powerful older men named “Bill” who want to give them private audiences).

When someone is raped: Let the criminal justice system work; let us all fight to maintain its integrity. Let the victim go to the police as soon as possible. However that goes, let her tell her story often (regardless of whether, or when, others may believe her).

By the way, take a look at the above links on Bill Cosby; they’re pretty chilling. Share with your friends and daughters; not to scare them, but to help them recognize how a “friendly” predator may operate.

Get down, PC-style!

by

From Concordia University (in Montreal) – Politically Correct lefties show how it’s done! Video here.

WARNING: Although it probably rates as only PG-13, it’s one of those things you won’t be able to “un-see”. Words can’t convey the full, un-sexy, un-romantic inanity of these indoctrinated “Affirmative Consent” robots.

Via Daily Caller. DC adds:

Yet in the course of the video, both lovers ask one another whether certain kisses and touches are acceptable only after they have already begun, a clear violation of the need for prior explicit consent.

Heh.

Nick adds: Not sure if it’s because I’m gay in the first place, but… Whoa, I am so flaccid now, dude.