Author: the1984projectblog

Why I Am A Men’s Rights Advocate

The Men’s Rights Movement is seen as a toxic group of sexist and misogynistic men who hate women and see any progress in feminism as a threat as they don’t want equality. However, these are false. To understand the men’s rights movement is like trying to understand a snowstorm, one snowflake at a time. The Men’s Rights Movement (MRA’s) campaign against the inequality for men that feminism and the media attempt to silence by spreading the well-accepted myth that males have all the power, are the most privileged and are the oppressors. These inequalities are issues facing men in the biased family court system, they are the majority of the homeless, the majority of suicides, the majority of drug addicts, the majority of the unemployed, the majority of school drop outs and the majority of those in prison. And when these issues are brought up, feminists either drown them out with the words “patriarchy” and “sexism” and “oppression”, typical buzzwords or blame men for those issues but won’t help to fix them.
Even though they, rarely, give MRA’s a platform to speak, in which all their points are ignored and are painted at sexists, they are also violently protested by feminists who have even resorted to violence to stop them speaking publicly. Funny how feminists say they are oppressed but when they protest, everyone is behind them, especially the media who say how amazing the “Slut Walks” and “Women’s Marches” are. But when men do the same, they are protected, labeled as sexists and ultimately shut down. They also spread lies about the men’s movement, saying how it’s been classed as a hate group which is a fabricated lie and say how violent they are and pro-rape, which again, completely fabricated.

Some of the best people to research about the men’s rights movement are people like Erin Pizzey, Dr. Warren Farrell, Paul Elam, Karen Straughan and The Honey Badgers. However, don’t expect any public appearances from them as they always get picketed, protested and shut down by feminists who wanna silence them, even feminist forms of media like ‘Ms.’ Magazine, encourage the protests. If they are just sexist liars, why not encourage them to speak so people could see their lies and expose them? Because what they say is truthful and logical and makes the argument for feminism almost pointless. And they don’t want that. To me, anyone deserves a platform to speak how they feel, whether its feminism or men’s rights, both can have a platform so when I see people wanting to silence another, it’s sickening to me.

Some issues that feminists either ignore or silence is that 95% of workplace fatalities are men, 4/5 suicides are men, more men are dropping out of higher education as 38% of college students are make in the US and is continuing to drop every year. 1 in 4 men experience physical violence by an intimate parter in their life time, men are sentenced to 63% longer prison sentences then women for the same crime and if you include prison, more men get raped then women. They are less likely to see a doctor, less likely to get health insurance, the pro-choice movement is exclusively for women as men almost have no say in that, and the family court system is heavily biased against men. And when feminists hear this, they simply say “Cry me a river and grow up” because they don’t care. They only care about women’s issues and about painting society as sexist and a patriarchy so more young women, uneducated on this issue, which believe it.

While society does see women as sex objects, it also sees men as success objects. People attack men for dating women for their bodies yet are more quieter when women date them for their money and power and if men are poorer or not very successful, they are seen as less desirable in society’s eyes. Also, they are seen as strong and brave, willing to sacrifice themselves. Like, on the Titanic, they had the infamous decision of “Women and children first” because men should sacrifice themselves for the women and children, even if they didn’t want to and even today, that practice still happens. In WW1, women gave men, like their father, brothers, uncles, and husbands, the white feather as a sign of cowardice if they didn’t go to the front lines to be slaughtered in the trenches. Because it’s almost like men are expendable, they’d rather send them to die because men are the protectors and if they didn’t wanna stay on a sinking ship in the middle of a freezing cold ocean or didn’t wanna get mowed down by German machine guns by the hundreds, you were no man, you were a coward.

One example of seeing men as expendable is Boko Haram, an Islamic terrorist group in Nigeria, who became well know after kidnapping over 200 girls from school. Politicians, celebrities, The United Nations and the media said that this group wanted to deny girls education, which sparked protests world-wide and started the popular hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. However, that was not the reason why they kidnapped those girls. It was for attention because, they aren’t against girls being educated, they are against anyone getting a western, secular or Christian education and, for a long time, they had slaughtered men and boys and let the women go and no one cared as the mass murders were barely reported. When they attacked villages and killed hundreds of men and couple of women, they were called “people” or “villagers”. And when they attacked school previously, they let the girls go by separating them and telling them to live by Allah, get married and have children. The boys were all burnt alive. And no one cared. And this wasn’t an isolated incident, this happened all the time and thousands of men and boys were killed, one year they killed 2,037 men and boys, and we only cared when the girls were kidnapped. That is what sparked them wanting to send aid, equipment, and resources to help find these girls and stop Boko Haram. Well. Maybe if they cared and did something the first time they struck, those girls would have been safe in their beds. But they didn’t. They didn’t bother with the campaign #BringBackOurBoys because they were already dead, so never mind. If those girls were boys, they wouldn’t have been kidnapped and sold into marriage or slavery, they’d be dead.

I mentioned before that 1 in 4 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner in their lifetime and with women, its 1 in 3. So the numbers are very similar. In fact, in 2014, the CDC released a report revealing that 5.4 million men and 4.7 million women had experienced physical violence by an intimate partner within the past 12 months. However, physical violence is painted a women’s issue inflicted by men. In the US, there are over 2,000 women’s shelters which, combined, get $1.5 billion dollars in funding per year. Feminists say this is nowhere near enough shelters, which I do agree with as the numbers don’t reflect the demand. However, there is only 1 shelter for men, which was protested by feminists who saw it as cheapening violence against men. And for a long time, there were no shelters for men and no women’s shelter would help men. The first women’s shelter was opened in 1971 in Cheswick, London by Erin Prizzey. However, she saw that 63% of the women she helped had been just as violent towards their husbands and violent towards their children. She said this was an issue about violence in their childhood and not a men’s problem and even wanted to make a shelter for men. When she announced that, she was kicked out of her refuge and banned from all feminist conferences and other refuges and even had to leave the country due to the death threats she and her family received. Feminists have turned physical violence against women into a business and they refuse to share that with men because, to them, men are the problem.

Feminists use just one thing to remain relevant and needed and something to convince other women and even men to become a feminist; Patriarchy. The invisible force that is ruled by men and is used to rule women’s lives and dictate everything they should do, the root cause of women’s oppression and suffering. The enemy of not just feminism, but all women. Their Devil. And they describe feminism as the liberating force of good and justice that’ll show you the way to live. It sounds like a cult, a fundamentalist religious cult that brainwashes you into hating the outside world. They say feminism is all about ‘equality’, they sure do blame men for everything and women are always the innocent victims in any situation. They name the force of oppression after men (patriarchy) and the force for good after women (feminism). It’s a movement very concerned about language like if you call a firefighter a “fireman”, you are somehow discouraging little girls from aspiring to be firefighters. But they can call the force that causes women’s oppression after men. Feminists don’t wanna blame men, they just named everything bad after them.

I agree that both sides need a dialog and a platform to speak, both feminists and men’s rights activists, to vocalize their concerns and bring light to issues bother genders face. But it’s the feminists who are stopping that, the ones who only want their issues to be heard and if they admit there are issues men do face, it’s somehow linked to patriarchy.
Feminism is what is really holding women back, not patriarchy or men. It’s feminism. Feminism is the force of oppression women wanna fight.

That is why I am not a feminist. I am a men’s rights advocate.

Why You Are Wrong About The 2nd Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As someone who is British and doesn’t live in America, you may wonder why I even care about the 2nd amendment. Well, I am so sick and tired of people attacking it and trying to change it after something like a mass shooting, ignoring any other problem or issue. Here is some of the most common arguments against the 2nd amendment and why they are dead wrong.

“The 2nd amendment was for things like single shot muskets, not assault rifles.”

Wrong. To even accept this argument, you’d have to think that the founding fathers were idiots, never thinking that weapons could become more advanced. Weapons have advanced since the dawn of mankind. So they knew weapons have gotten more advanced and knew that they would continue to do so in the future, but they wrote the amendment anyway because they wanted America to have access to those weapons and protection against anyone who would stop them from doing so. Also, people forget that there was a lot more than just single shot muskets back then. They had Belton Flintlocks, which could fire 20+ rounds with the pull of 1 trigger in roughly 5 seconds. The Girandoni air rifle, which 22 rounds could be fired in 30 seconds. The Puckle gun, an early machine gun that held 6 to 11 shots and pepperbox revolvers which held anything from 5 to 20 shots. And the founding fathers knew these gun existed as they had used them in the Revolutionary War, don’t forget that the founding fathers debated the Constitution endlessly, if they wanted to exclude these guns, they could have but didn’t. Also, the 2nd amendment didn’t just apply to guns, but full on artillery, President James Madison allowed a private ship owner to own cannons in case of piracy, and the founding fathers agreed with it.

“You only hear ‘the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ Why do you always forget the part about the militia?”

I doubt they forget as the people who will mostly likely have read the 2nd amendment a lot are gun owners who are required to learn about their 2nd amendment rights if they want to be licenced and they are even given pocket Constitutions on concealed carry and firearms courses . Wouldn’t it stand to reason that they do know the whole amendment and in fact, the entire Constitution then you do? Stop talking to these like they’re idiots because it just makes you look like the dumb one.

“The founding fathers meant to give the right to own guns to the militias, not the people.”

The founding fathers debated this amendment to no end and they carefully put in both clauses, one for the militia and one for the people. If they didn’t want the people to own guns, why did they leave that in? Also, who was the militia in that time? The people. They had just fought a tyrannical government for the past two years and to ensure that there was no more tyranny, they gave the people the right to bare arms to they could protect themselves. Sometimes, those militias rebelled against the government and George Washington had to fight them, what would have been an easy way to stop this from happening? Ban guns. But, Washington knew that this was needed to stop any kind of tyrannical government in the future. Also, some may argue that the militia is now the police, who are armed. Firstly, they did have police back then, not like today but they did have people who would punish you if you broke the law. Second, I think its funny when people say the police should be armed as they are the militia but then say they should be unarmed after a protest by BLM.

“The government was actually giving itself the right to own guns with the 2nd amendment.”

…What? Why would a government need to give itself the right to own anything in a founding document? Wouldn’t this mean that the government also gave itself the right to free speech, not the people?

“Screw the 2nd amendment, that was written in the 18th century, we need new laws.”

So you only wanna get rid of parts of this 18th founding document that you don’t like? Also, because of the way it’s worded, the people given the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated state militia and nothing else, if this was scrapped, it would mean a complete ban on guns. Not a blanket gun ban or banning assault weapons, a complete ban on all weaponry. This would be wildly unpopular and this might be interpreted as government tyranny by the people and many people would defend their guns with their life, possibly leading to an overthrow of that government. People could say that the government could give people the right to own guns to some but the actual right itself would be non-existent. Liberals don’t want people to know this as it would totally destroy their gun-control argument and they’d lose too much support for it to continue.

Please, for the love of god, stop trying to mis-inform America, you filthy hippies.

People Don’t Understand The Men’s Rights Movement

Men’s Rights Movement

A group similar to the Nazis, according to some feminists, The MRA’s are often victims of assault, whether it’s physical, verbal or online, every gathering of their members are protested aggressively by feminists, who label them as sexist. misogynistic bigots who think that women deserve rape and women are men’s property. Now, is that true? No, you idiot. That is what they’ve been labeled as by feminists, ask anyone what the Men’s Rights Movement is about and they’ll say some rant by a misinformed feminist they read on a Facebook post. I’ve asked people this question and they say the same thing, sexist liars who hate women. However, some of them have admitted that MRA’s have good ideas and are well informed. How can you call a movement who raise good arguments and have good ideas on issues like gender inequality ‘misogynistic’? Wouldn’t that make you a misogynist for admitting that? Really, MRA’s make very good arguments and are very intellectual when it comes to discussion, but suffer from actual sexists who claim to be an MRA. People get mad when a radical feminist says something like “Every man should die” and that is seen as what every feminist believes, so why doesn’t that apply to this movement? That is a massive double standard that is endorsed because no one wants to listen to the MRA’s or their arguments.

Also, a misogynist is someone who hates women just because they are women, like a racist is someone who hates someone based solely on their race. But the MRA’s are seen as being self-centered and only caring about men and men’s issues. Where is the hatred for women? I don’t know if you realize this but most men like women, a lot actually, that’s why they date them, marry them and have families with them and guess what? MRA’s do like women. Just because you disagree with someone or some some group or are more concerned about you then someone else, doesn’t mean you hate them. If I don’t give money to a charity because I need that money to buy food, doesn’t mean I hate that charity. Another argument about MRA’s being misogynists is that they attack female privilege while ignoring male privilege. By what you’ve just said, feminists are just as bad as they attack male privilege while ignoring their own. But they want equality, right? Then they’ll say that women don’t have privilege, then I’ll say that women always get custody of children during divorces, get rape and sexual assault accusations taken seriously and women get 63% less prison time then a man for the exact same crime. Then they’ll either ignore you or admit that is privilege but say it’s not as bad as male privilege, which is such a ridiculous argument because you say there is no privilege then say they do but not as bad because they “rule the world” while 99% of men will never have that level of power and the world has had female leaders.

Another argument is that MRA’s are minimizing concerns over domestic abuse, just because they that men can get abused too, by female partners. I don’t get how that’s minimizing concerns, I see it as quite the opposite as it isn’t letting female abusers get away with it. They then say that, if that is true, that it is a tiny percent and females get it much more. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, to me, it sounds like you are minimizing the concerns about domestic abuse as you only care about the female side of it. There are studies like chapter 4 of http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf that shows the numbers of male domestic abuse victims are at roughly the same number as women in relationships, which mean its in the millions. Not such a tiny percentage now, is it? All we ever hear is the “1 in 4 women in college are sexually assaulted” nonsense which has been debunked many times. Read the report and you’ll see that the numbers of men being abused are roughly the same as women, yet there are no men’s shelters for abuse victims because their told to just man up. People say that women abusing men is extremely rare when in reality, it’s pretty even, it’s just that men being abused isn’t taken seriously by most people so no report is filed. Why aren’t feminists, who want equality, not speaking up about this? Oh right, because really, you don’t care. You wanna be the victims and never wanna lose that. You are minimizing domestic abuse by valuing women’s experiences over men.

Social Justice Is Secretly Winning

As we all know, Social Justice or SJW’s, are a disease plaguing our society and culture, infecting and manipulating it into their own twisted ‘dream world’ where everyone is equal, except “the oppressive white cis male scum” who will become the oppressed while somehow still being the oppressors. Now, it’s easy to look at Social Justice and say that it’s pathetic and transparent and is losing this so called Culture War, looking at their stupidity on their social media pages and their ability to be easy destroyed in any debate as they believe their feelings matter more than facts. On YouTube, there is channels hosted by SJW’s who always get a massive amount of dislikes compared to likes and their comments are full of people debunking every argument they say, which some results in the channel disabling comments and likes. Also on YouTube, there is compilations of SJW’s/feminists/BLM supporters getting “Rekt” as their points and arguments that they assumed were watertight as they’ve never had anyone challenge them, are easily picked apart and they are left in a silent ‘triggered’ mode. So, I forgive you for thinking they are a losing group that no one cares about.

However, the truth is that they are actually winning. Behind the stupidity and triggered, Social Justice is becoming popular in schools/colleges/universities, government and both public and private institutions. Most colleges and universities are catering to these triggered students who have been fed bias garbage by their feminist teachers in gender studies class, shaming both students and professors who don’t fit their agenda. And increasing pressure from these idiots on companies are forcing them to comply with their cult of diversity. I have experienced this first hand, getting punched several times by a group of protesters after I said “Intelligence is more important than diversity.”
And the thing that’s concerning is, no one is challenging it on this level. It’s one thing to call out these SJW YouTubers for the lies and misinformation, but we do that while it takes over our education and employment. Even certain governments like Canada are signing in new laws that forbid you from doing things like criticise Islam or not calling someone by some made up pronoun they found on Tumblr. Our society is slowly what George Orwell wrote about in his book 1984.

The thing that makes me the most angry is that these SJW’s have convinced people who decide who gets into university or people who give you careers and jobs, that they have a unconscious bias towards straight white men and must overcome that bias by hiring more women, gays/lesbians, trans, black and asians etc. Now, on paper this sounds good, just one thing, White people are usually that vast majority in these countries like the UK, USA, Canada and Australia so naturally, the people who are more qualified are statistically gonna be white people since they are 70-80% of the population. This means universities, companies and corporations are taking people who aren’t the best for the job because they want a more diverse group. An example of this was the student who got into university by writing “#BLM” one hundred times on his reference letter, they didn’t care about his grades or education, just that he would fit in with their agenda.

This is spreading throughout the public service and industries. A study has shown that one third or 33% of people being employed are not the best suited for the job. Now, these companies have combated this by saying that the more qualified white males only have “perceived merit” and they are not actually better for the job because that’s how you overcome your bias. This does not just make me mad, it’s very dangerous. Will they be hiring police officers, paramedics and pilots who aren’t fully qualified but their skin is black or they have a vagina so that automatically makes them the best pick? Would you trust a doctor who was hired just because he was black? This is outrageous and dangerous and people need to speak up against this and stop focusing on diversity and hire the people who are the best for the job, no matter what their skin or gender is.

My Opinion On Abortion

This is without a doubt, one of the most controversial subject to discuss. Half of the people think it’s a woman’s right, the other half think its bloody murder. This subject itself to me, is a sensitive topic as I am kinda split down the middle.

I am pro-choice.

I believe abortions should be available, however, not only do I not agree by the way feminists want it normalized, I understand where most pro-life people are coming from. I also think it should only be allowed under certain circumstances, like rape, underage like school girls, the baby has a high chance of dying mere hours after birth or could kill the mother. The main reason I think it should be allowed is that women throughout history have died from getting illegal and dangerous abortions, so a safe alternative should be available. That’s me generalizing a lot of my points so I’ll get a bit more specific.

I believe the fetus is alive after 20-21 weeks, which is when it can survive outside the mother’s womb. After that, its called a ‘partial birth abortion’ as the baby is pulled out in pieces. That I don’t agree with, once you go beyond 20 weeks, you cannot abort it. Now, some feminist could say “Partial birth abortions aren’t a thing!” Except sweetie, they are. They have been a thing for many years. Admittedly, it was made illegal in 2003 but that law was fought by many feminists, and Hilary Clinton. Today, most feminists and pro-choice people would say that was a horrible thing, so they say it isn’t a thing, forgetting that they defended it after it was banned.

Now, they will say that they don’t defend late term abortions but rebuttal that by saying that only 1.3% of abortions are late term, and they are because the baby could have a fatal birth defect or serious risk to the mother’s life. Now, I did defend that but lets look at what a birth defect is. I said that as it may die days or hours after birth, but under the law, a birth defect is a disability. It doesn’t cause a risk to the mother’s life, at all. They just don’t wanna go through having a disabled child to they choose to abort it. That, I do not accept. According to studies, 90% of down syndrome babies in America are aborted. In the UK, 53% of prenatally diagnosed fetuses/babies are aborted. Half of them are aborted because they may have a birth defect. Will they die after being born? No. Would the birth kill the mother? No. So it should be illegal.

Now, what if the baby is a serious risk to the mother’s life? That is a decent point, if they both will die, why not save one? That is something I agree with as a mother shouldn’t have to die to have a baby. Some would do that and some would not. However, what is a serious risk to the mother? To me, its that they will die. But, abortion laws don’t include anything about the mother’s life, only their health. Health is different from life as anything can be filed under health, it can be small things like stress or anxiety or loss of appetite, they could even fake a health risk to get an abortion. That shouldn’t be allowed. Also, lets look at that number of late-term abortions, 1.3%. That is still 13,000 per year, 350+ per day. Doesn’t seem like such a small number now.

Anyway, thats my position. I know its unpopular but it is mine.

My Rant On Anita Sarkeesian

Anita Sarkeesian

One of the most annoying and factually incorrect feminists on the Internet, which is a hard list to crack. The reason why? Her various attacks against the video game industry and gaming as a whole. This annoys me significantly as I love video games, probably my favorite hobby, next to “shoving my opinions down people’s throats”. This isn’t a pointless rant, this is something far more personal to me because of my love for video games. I’m usually able to ignore feminists but when they go after this, I need to say something. Get comfortable, this is gonna be a long one. Not only is it a great hobby that can help you relax at the end of a hard day, I think it is a really important and growing art form, along with movies and TV shows. The visuals, voice acting, storyline, and the gameplay itself can be an amazing experience that can go so much further than we originally thought. Great games such as Bioshock, Bloodbourne and The Last Of Us created absolute beauty in their games and it was an honor to play them. So why would Anita Sarkeesian attack this? Simple.

Sexism.

In 2012, Anita started a YouTube channel called Feminist Frequency and dedicated a large part of it to criticizing video games, a part called Tropes vs Women. I decided to watch a few of these last year and they angered me. They were heavily biased and inaccurate attacks on games where she edited out facts or just simply ignore them. I’m not sure if she deliberately does so it looks like the hundreds of thousands she raised for this show didn’t get to waste or is just really uninformed and has a very narrow view of the video game industry. Now, people attacking video games isn’t new, they’ve been blamed for mass shootings to bad language and every now and again, some feminist would go after a particular video game which they found offensive. But, Anita is different. She dedicates all her time on her show to constantly attack gaming that she is a self-proclaimed ‘expert on sexism in video games’, despite lying to her audience, who gave her their money to start the show, because she said she was always a long time fan of video games and needed the money to play for the consoles and games, when in reality, she had barely, if ever, played games before. The saddest thing is that her attacks have been seen so much that mainstream news outlets are giving her platforms to spew her misinformation in the form of talk show appearances and even a seat at the United Nations. Online news outlets make dozens of articles about her, praising her as some fearless feminist savior for calling out gaming and saying things like “The Gaming Industry’s Biggest Threat has only just gotten started.” I didn’t know fearless people turned off comments and likes on their videos to not hear any criticism.

Before I even did much research into her, I could see that Anita has an ideology view of what sexism is. She has tweeted that women cannot be sexist against men because sexism is prejudice and power and as men are the dominate gender, women cannot be sexist towards them. Of course, this is completely false. If you attack someone based on their sex or favor a particular sex over the other is sexist, no matter who does it. Don’t believe me, simply switch the genders and see if women can’t be sexist. I think Anita says this as a made up defense if someone calls her out for her bias and possible sexism. This defense isn’t based on facts or reality, it’s based on her ideology.

Another example of her ideology is that she believes that every system in the world is sexist, racist and homophobic and someone like her needs to point it all out. You pretty much name something to her and she’ll find some way to make it sexist. She thinks that princesses are part of a deeply authoritarian monarchy, ignoring that most girls choose to wear the princesses outfits. She’s called anime a sexist, disgusting and misogynistic art form that promotes rape culture, catering to perverts and losers. She has even blamed mass shootings on patriarchy. Her entire view of the world is filtered through this lens of sexism, changing everything she sees.

When it comes to video games, her bias is so transparent, it’s almost cringey. What she says is pretty much feminist propaganda and has had no real research involved in it. She made a video attacking game developers for their ass designs, saying that male characters have their butts almost covered while the females are exaggerated for sexual effect. However, if you had done research, you could have found at least a couple dozen examples of that with male characters. Or her video on The Witcher 3, one of my personal favorite games, which had many strong female characters and was even praised by certain feminists for that, not Anita though. In fact, she saw it as sexist as all the other games she’s covered, saying it included all the sexist stereotypes of female characters. Her examples? When you play as Ciri, a female character, the enemies call you gendered insults. That’s it. Also, she says that the insults thrown at the main character, who is male, don’t matter. Or Just Cause 2, where she attacked it for your ability to shoot female strippers but ignores that you can also shoot male strippers. Hey Anita, #StripperLivesMatter, not just women’s. She even goes after games for petty reasons like the way female characters sit in Destiny and the female characters in Saint’s Row 3 had too much sway in their hips and Mass Effect for the nickname the fans gave the female version of Captain Shepard, “FemShep”. I mean, who cares?

Now, sometimes she has been called out for her lies. Like her attack on the game Bayonetta, saying everything about it was made to serve the sexual pleasure of the male gamer, then being told that it was developed by a woman. In response to corrections like this, she now got rid of comments on her videos and blocks anyone who disagrees with her on Twitter. This just shows that she doesn’t care about actually finding the truth in what she says, as long as she can twist it into her propaganda, it’s fine by her. Male gamers are more likely to play games with badass male characters and sexy female characters, but it’s because they are guys. Developers know what sells and they know the majority of the gaming market is male so they appeal to them with badass and sexy characters. It’s perfectly fine to be a male and have interests, same as a female. Gamers don’t care about your race, ethnicity, age or your gender, they just wanna play their games in peace. Check your facts, not your privilege.

I’m not the only one who thinks Anita is spewing out bias propaganda, in fact many other YouTuber’s, including feminist ones for her lying and misinformation. One of these YouTubers is the biochemist, Dr. Phil Mason AKA Thunderf00t on YouTube found Anita and her channel to be so incorrect that he made a video about her. He said that humans are part of a sexually dimorphic species, a species that has significant differences between males and females. This is the reason why men and women compete in sporting events like the Olympics, that have been divided by gender, because men and women are physically different. In fact, on average, men’s upper body strength is between 40-50% stronger then women’s and their lower body strength is 20-30% more stronger. This is why men are seen as the stronger sex, because men are stronger and more powerful while women are more flexible and faster. However, to Anita, this is a “Deeply ingrained socially constructed myth” and “Completely false”, yet provides no studies or anything in her sources in the video’s description, but uses it as an attack against the trope that women are usually damsels in distress in video games.

I know that I could go on and on about how Anita is biased and a liar, but that’s been done. Dozens of videos have been made on her, debunking pretty much every video she makes. I wanna do something a bit different. Anita once said this;
“So why does any of this matter? What’s the harm in sexually objectifying women? Well, the negative impacts of sexual objectification have been studied extensively over the years and exposure to these tropes could reinforce the idea that women are sexual objects, created for a man’s pleasure.”
This is a pretty strong statement as she is basically saying that sexism in games or really, sexism in any kind of media, leads to sexism in real life. Now, I do admit that games, films and TV shows do have a lot of sexualized women and in games with this, violence against them is allowed like in GTA V. If you watch the Tropes vs Women series, you’d think it’s everywhere, almost like we are in a sexist epidemic with games thinking women’s only use is sex. However, if you are a real gamer, you know this is entirely untrue. As the games, she uses these examples are usually repeated, like Hitman: Absolution is shown six times throughout the series. This asks a question, if all she shows is examples of sexism in games but shows the same games over and over, how many games does she find sexist?

From 2012, the year Feminist Frequency started, to October 2016. Anita called out 99 games for sexist tropes. However, this goes through those four years of games being released, you’ll see that 2,716 games were created and released in this time frame. 99 out of 2,716 is just over 3%, doesn’t seem like too much of an epidemic now. Also, that list of 99 contain games she only finds one or two things wrong with a female character only being the main character’s girlfriend and having no real story behind her. The games that she thinks are straight up sexist and misogynistic adds up to 46, less than 2% of the 2,716 games released. Now, I know what your thinking;
“But she can’t possibly play every single game released on every platform, aren’t you being unfair.”
Well, no actually. I’m not asking her to play every single game ever made before saying her argument, plus I know she’d probably find most of the 2,716 games sexist, I’m just saying that the entire gaming industry is full of sexism based off 99 out of 2,716 games is just wrong. She’s painting the entire industry with one brush and lies to her audience to believe that she’s right. And if you do think any of those 46 or 99 games problematic, then you can play any of the other thousands available. Games are very inclusive, something for everyone. Anita is right about one thing. Those 46 games are mostly played by hardcore group of dedicated gamers who are mostly men. But Anita uses this as ‘evidence’ that sexism between gamers is common because of these games and they don’t even know it, saying that it effects them without them even knowing it. Bullshit.

Gamers, however, are used to being branded as horrible people. For years, the industry has been attacked by religious people for inciting the devil and by conservatives for causing violence like mass shootings. One of the most infamous people for this was lawyer Jack Thompson, who for years made the claim that violence in video games made the gamer violent in return, calling them ‘Murder Simulators’. He filed many multi-million dollar lawsuits against video game publishers for inciting violence. In 2007, he tried to tie a mass shooting at Virgina Tech to the video game Counter Strike and threatened to sure Bill Gates. However, these lawsuits ended in the publisher’s favor and Thompson lost his job over them due to studies that proved video games actually reduce stress and violent behavior and showed that as video games became more popular, violence with teens has been doing down steadily and exposed his biased studies that weren’t conducted correctly.

So if people blamed video games for violence but were easily proven wrong, what’s the difference with the sexism allegations? My answer is nothing. Anita is using the same tactics people like Jack Thompson used, viewing games from a narrow viewpoint, lying about games or taking certain scenes out of context and only showing a fraction of the amount of games in their examples, the getting all the media to side with them, leaving the ‘violent and sexist’ gamers to defend themselves. Anita always say that studies have proven the link with video games and sexism, but never shows them in her provided links. So I decided to look myself on her website for these studies and all I found was articles and blog posts, no actual scientific studies. I decided to research this myself and the closest I got was that dedicated gamers are more likely to find sexist jokes funny. So gamers have a sense of humor? These feminists need to play more PS4. What we need is a large study to look into the possibility of sexism in the game industry, just like what was done with the violence in video games.

Oh, wait. There has been one already.

It was conducted in 2011, a year before Feminist Frequency started and covered over 800 gamers for over 3 years and was independently funded. It was based on the theory that long term exposer to video games can change your view of the world. The conclusion found no link between sexism behavior and video games, absolutely none, just like with the study of video game violence. Does Anita know this? I think she does but she doesn’t want you to know it as it makes all her videos pointless and a waste of time and money.

In conclusion, Anita Sarkeesian is no different from the radical Christians who attack video games for violence, never ending with there constant need to be heard despite the evidence not being on their side. She has an extremely narrow minded view of gamers in general and lies and twists facts to support her feminist propaganda. She also lied for donations, saying she was an expert on sexism in video games and has played games since she was a child despite there being video evidence of her saying she had never played them before and hated the idea behind them, which would explain her endless attacks on them. She should re-fund everyone she lied to in order to get the hundreds of thousands to make her propaganda.
Anita needs to go away or just be ignored, to know that we’ve seen through her lies and we don’t care what she has to say. We all need to say night night to our game hating feminist.

The Catholic Church Is Not A Force Of Good

I do not see the Catholic church as a force for good in the world, I actually see them as the opposite. Now, this isn’t me trying to convert you or anything, if you are religious, I have no issue with that. But I am not. I want to find the moral truth in the world, discover the answers of the unknown through studying science and research and there is nothing more that the Catholic church like to do then stop or at least stall the progress of that. Galileo Galilei was tortured by the church for trying to explain his theory of the universe. Now, many would say that was a long time ago and isn’t important now. All that’s important is the billions of pounds this intuition sends around the world to help the poor and the sick. History is irrelevant.

Well, I disagree with that, history is very important in everything, including religion and the Catholic church. History shows us that the church said that babies who were unbaptized would not know Heaven. The proposed the idea of purgatory, which is not in the Bible and no evidence of it exists, but they said its real, that a soul needs to be prayed for to go to Heaven. And over the last thousand years, you’d be amazed at what generous terms those prayers came at, in today’s terms we’d be talking about two-thirds of a years salary so insure that a loved one went into Heaven. Money could make any loved one get into Heaven, in fact, if you were rich enough, they would build chantry and have monks pray for that loved one.

Now again, you can say that this is all irrelevant now except for one thing, this church was founded on the principle of intercession, only through the apostolic succession, past on from a Galilean carpenter, St. Peter, his bishops and everyone who shares this faith have this ability to forgive the sins of the poor who they routinely exploit around the world. Only this church can have these (only) male priests do this. It is well documented that to these priests, there is no salvation outside the church, that is a dogma of the church that has been used to excuse any crime committed by its members. All the rape and torture of the Aztecs, all the horrors in South America, Africa and the Philippines have been excused because of this.

Now, admittedly, other faiths have committed atrocities throughout history all over the world, Catholicism is not unique in this fact and all the other religions must also admit guilt to it. However, this particular exploitation of the poor, the young and the vulnerable is still going on to this day and no one talks about it. I’ve met a few Catholic priests and they are incredibly nice and polite and respectful, unless you challenge them on their beliefs, some have become quite aggressive with me when I bring up the crimes the church has committed and how they have been able to escape punishment for them.

Do you how many people in the past were burned at the stake for reading the Bible in English? It’s uncountable. One of those burners and torturers was Thomas Moore, famous for being burned alive for refusing to betray his faith. Now, again, you many say that was a long time ago, except that in the last century, Moore was made a saint. And in the year 2000, the Pope made Moore the Saint of Politicians. This was a man who tortured people and burned them alive for daring to own a Bible in their own language. Does this sound like someone who you would give a sainthood to? I doubt it. This alone to me, makes the idea that the church wants to disseminate the word of god is nonsense.

And then we come to children. We all know the the scandal of the mass child abuse done by Catholic priests. What did the church do to stop this when this scandal was brewing? Firstly, the told the priests not to talk to the police or anyone else because they wanted the investigation to be “strained by silence”. And some of the priests who were convicted were ‘sentenced’ to a “lifetime of prayer and penance” for “causing suffering to the church” and also said that the answer to stop these acts of child abuse was to stop gays from being allowed into the church. Not only did the church know about the child abuse, they bent over backwards to protect the abusers and only sentenced them