Blog Index
The journal that this archive was targeting has been deleted. Please update your configuration.

Feminist Media bias


Irin Carmon vs. Caitlin Flanagan

I have never met Irin Carmon and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends, but her feminism is excessive.


Here are the articles I am analyzing today and where you can find them:

“Girl Uninterrupted.” Irin Carmon. 01/13/2012.

“The Creepy Condescension of Caitlin Flanagan.” Irin Carmon. 01/19/2012.


Both of these articles by Irin Carmon are critical of Caitlin Flanagan's book, Girl Land. You can find an archive of Flanagan's articles at


Carmon – a feminist writing for Salon – is out for blood. She writes that Flanagan has a “professional vocation of annoying feminists” and her analysis is “dangerously nostalgic”. Carmon goes far beyond a normal book review to bash Flanagan because she isn't a hard-core feminist.


Carmon writes:

Flanagan has a retrograde vision of the safe home, guarded by a male protector, that seems utterly ignorant of how lives are more often lived. The most bafflingly terrible portion of the book is a series of tips at the end on how to preserve the endangered Girl Land. Tip No. 3 is “Get her father involved in her dating life,” because that renders adolescent girls “far less likely to be targets of the kinds of boys who become emotionally, physically or sexually abusive.” Really? What if her father, or equivalent thereof, is also any of those things, a sad truth of many girls' (and boys') lives?


Flanagan is providing much needed advice and support for the vast majority of families who are being pushed off the rails by nihilist feminists, but Carmon finds a way to undermine her because she didn't mention sexually abusive fathers, or equivalents thereof.


It is a typical feminist dirty trick, trying to intentionally miss the point by finding an uncommon occurrence and then blaming the author for committing an oversight. Of course an abusive parent is a terrible thing and everybody already knows that, but, again, Carmon is out for blood. Take another look at her description of Flanagan's affirmation of the importance of fathers. A “retrograde vision of the safe home, guarded by a male protector”.


Here is another example of Carmon finding a small percentage of exceptions in an attempt to undermine the book, “it's worth mentioning that non-heterosexuals do not exist in [Flanagan's] book.” You see, Flanagan spends way too much time focusing on non-gayers.


So much talk about the importance of fathers is enough to make a feminist choke. I hope all of you have figured it out by now that when Carmon writes “dangerously nostalgic” and “retrograde”, she means, shamefully, a traditional, heterosexual, two-parent family.


Carmon writes:

“Society has let its girls down,” Flanagan insists, by denying that “female sexuality is as intricately connected to kindness and trust as it is to gratification and pleasure. It is in the nature of who we are.” Just take her word for it.


This one, short, quote puts Flanagan in opposition to a lot of what feminists preach. Who in society has been letting girls down this way? Feminists. It is a huge obstacle for feminism's ideology that there might be a difference between the sexes by nature, not nurture. A feminist must reject all of this.


“Just take her word for it”? Flanagan's observation gets support in plenty of articles written by women. Here is just one example: “Why are young feminists so clueless about sex?” Margaret Wente. Oct. 24, 2015. I haven't read it, but here is a book with similar subject matter: Unprotected, by Dr. Miriam Grossman.


Carmon writes:

Another helpful tip that should already be notorious is for parents to type “porn” into Google to prepare themselves for what terrors lie ahead for girls....[Flanagan] has already warned about “the endless hard-core and even fetish pornography” available online. Yes, that's right, the Internet also features sexual subcultures!


Flanagan is trying to help and protect families and girls, but Carmon responds with ridicule throughout her articles. Why? Because if Flanagan is warning about fetish pornography, she is making a judgment that some sexual practices are worse than others. This really bothers feminists like Carmon who believe in the absence of morality. To feminists, all sexual practices are equal, with a few exceptions for whenever legal moralism is favorable to them.


Carmon wants to fool her readers into thinking that Flanagan is the one who is “utterly ignorant” about society's problems. I'm sure Flanagan understands the problems and has moved on to proposing solutions for the problems. It is one of the biggest differences between feminists and intelligent, full-grown adult women. Feminists undermine and second-guess others, adults propose and debate credible solutions to problems. Flanagan is ten times the Girl (woman) and is ten times a better writer than Carmon is right now.


Joan Walsh vs. Caitlin Flanagan

Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“The happy hypocrite.” Joan Walsh. 04/12/2006.


Caitlin Flanagan has the extraordinary ability to countervail the entire coven of hard-core feminists. She proves just how powerful one woman can be.


Joan Walsh writes, “[Flanagan] drives some feminist writers I admire to fits. Not me, I always said, with (dare I confess?) a semi-secret, Flanagan-like flash of self-satisfaction: I would never judge those women who are driven nuts by Flanagan, but maybe I'm just a little wiser, a little more secure in my choices, just a bit harder to rattle than they are, the poor dears.” [Italics in original.]


Regardless of her self-aware condescension, Walsh isn't any wiser, more secure, or harder to rattle than other feminist writers. It takes only one woman standing in opposition to drive her to fits. Right of center women should be thrilled to learn about their potential strength. More right-side women need to get involved in conversations about civics and society, if they are concerned about the future of their children and American culture.


Flanagan's book – that has Walsh, in her article that I am analyzing here, and other feminist writers in such a snit – is entitled: To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife.


I am just amazed at how Flanagan forces Walsh into revealing so much of her nihilist feminist ideology.


Walsh writes about the book's, “introduction blaming feminism for causing women 'heartache,' and a truly below-the-belt conclusion, on how surviving breast cancer confirmed Flanagan's conviction that traditional marriage and motherhood is best.” Later, Walsh writes that “the book is a strident attack on feminism and a paean to traditional marriage.” A paean to traditional marriage? Oh, heaven forefend.


Walsh writes that Flanagan is, “a hoaxer who's using a great gift from the cosmos – recovery from breast cancer – to rail against feminism, evangelize for traditional gender roles, and to debase women who can't or won't make the same choices she did.”


Walsh doesn't like it that anyone could consider traditional marriage and motherhood to be better than unwed motherhood. It is a judgment a feminist can't tolerate. We need more women like Flanagan to rail and evangelize against the religion of feminism, because there is nothing more debasing to humanity than nihilism. It is the definition of the word – the belief that traditional institutions have no value and should be debased with malice.


Walsh writes, “Most mothers, let's remember, don't have the luxury of choosing to stay home full-time.”


Feminist thought is very tortuous. Here, Walsh is saying, if you stay home full-time, then you have “luxury.” Usually, however, feminists portray motherhood as an example of “oppression.” They make motherhood sound like it's prison. Feminists debase motherhood both ways.


If you are a mother and enjoy it, feminists take an accusatory tone and debase motherhood generally and you specifically for having so much “luxury.” But they can also try to tempt you into joining feminism by saving you from being “victimized” by the “oppression” of motherhood. Do you see the trap they are setting against women? Vicious feminists will either hate you (women) or will tempt you (women) into hating everybody else (men) with the approval of feminist society. As it stands right now, bad women (feminists) easily defeat good women with this gambit. A lot of women would much rather hate motherhood and men with societal approval than take a stand against feminist society and be hated by feminists. This is why our nation has a womanhood with statistically zero Ann Coulter-types, a small percentage of honest, virtuous, women who say almost nothing at all in opposition to feminism, and so many women in the soft-core and hard-core feminist categories.


In short, feminists will hate anyone, man or woman, who defends traditional marriage and motherhood. The twist is that feminists will allow women the opportunity to hate and blame somebody else (men) if they give their souls to nihilist feminism.


Here are a few more examples of Walsh's typical character assassination: That Flanagan's work is “shtick” and that “Flanagan deserves a kick for the dishonest and divisive gloss”. “Those kidney punches make Flanagan seem a bit sociopathic.” Flanagan's kidney punches?


Walsh writes, “Lots of feminist writers have rebuked big-name editors for giving the anti-feminist Flanagan such great perches – the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and now a hyped book.”


Mind you, feminists aren't for government censorship, just mob rule. In this case, horizontal feminist collectivists are pressuring vertical collectivists to just not allow any disagreement with feminism.


Flanagan has a conceptualized understanding of feminism. She even outlines what she calls the “code of feminism.” Here are three points from what she sees as feminism's code:

“A young woman should not spend any of her energies finding a suitable husband and preparing for her life as a wife and mother.”

“A woman doesn't need a man, and a child doesn't need a father.”

“Caring for the emotional and physical needs of a husband constitutes subservience.”

She adds that, “For many women, this code has brought heartache.”


Walsh quotes from Flanagan's book's conclusion: “Here's what I know: When I woke up from the final surgery, I didn't want to see the articles I've written or the editors I've worked for. I wanted to see my sons and my husband. And I wanted to go home.”


Flanagan loves her family. She loves her husband and two sons.


Walsh then sinks to the level of an Internet commenter, “Here's what I know: This is one confused book, and one confused author.”

Walsh, “Some editor, somewhere, should have protected the mixed-up essayist from many things in this book, but particularly for congratulating herself on being the type of woman whose husband treats her well while she has cancer.”

Walsh, “winces at the hubris of Flanagan's crediting her care for her family with her husband's willingness to nurse her through cancer.”

Walsh, “and all I know for sure is that to credit your own behavior for what is essentially good luck and someone else's kindness is asking for what's called karma, and not the good kind.”


Flanagan is thankful that her husband and two sons love her. Walsh seems to adhere to the feminist practice of never saying thank you to a man, even if he is your husband.


Walsh, “Almost dying taught Flanagan not tolerance, not mystery, but absolutism.”


It's almost as if Walsh wants Flanagan to wake up from surgery and say, In accordance with the random chance of the “cosmos,” “karma,” and “good luck,” I believe in nothing but “mystery.” Let everybody do whatever they don't believe in, because there is nothing and no one worth striving or living for.


I don't know if the code of feminism has brought Walsh heartache, but feminism sure has brought out a lot of her hatred. For Flanagan, however, love and family defeated nihilist feminism.


Anthony "Van" Jones Is Still a Communist

Men can be radical Marxist feminists, too. Here is some background information on Anthony “Van” Jones to help put his political views in context. I encourage all of you to make a copy of the paragraphs below, so that you can put a copy of them in the “comments” sections on websites whenever Jones is involved in an issue or debate.


In his own words, Anthony “Van” Jones is a communist(!), “I was a communist.” He is just pretending to be moderate, now. Jones describes himself as a “rowdy black nationalist”. He also has said, “If I'd been in another country, I probably would have joined some underground guerrilla sect.” Jones helped create a group called STORM which is an acronym for Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. The group emphasized Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.


His big idea is to advance communism through control over the biosphere. Jones wants to combine racial justice, class justice, and environmentalism to make what he calls “eco-equity” and a “green economy”.


So, Jones, by his own admission, is a radical Marxist communist. He is just pretending to be reformed. Jones said, “I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.” Understand? He is posing as someone less radical so that he can achieve his radical Marxist communist goals. Jones is faking moderation now, only because he eventually learned that declaring himself a radical communist created confusion, fear, and retreat, among his potential dupes. He hasn't changed a bit. (Source: “The New Face of Environmentalism” Eliza Strickland. Nov. 02, 2005.)


Joan Walsh vs. Caitlin Flanagan

Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“Yes, Caitlin Flanagan, You Can Stay a Democrat!” Joan Walsh. 05/02/2006.


I'm going back a few years for this article, but I'm using it because it does so much to illuminate the differences between feminism and womanhood. Joan Walsh's articles are the full, terrible, ideology of a liberal, radical, and socialist feminist. Caitlin Flanagan – a Democrat, which is fine – is a woman.


Walsh writes, “The editors of the Huffington Post have offered me space to reply to Caitlin Flanagan's latest fantasy, published in Time magazine, that Barbara Ehrenreich and I are trying to drive her out of the Democratic Party because we 'can't stand' her lifestyle choices.”


Walsh admits in her article that she does coordinate with Ehrenreich on political projects. Ehrenreich is an Honorary Chair for the Democratic Socialists of America, which is explicitly socialist and “deeply feminist”.


Flanagan presents a big problem for feminists because of the Bernard Goldberg effect. It is one thing for Rush Limbaugh to say the Feminist Media is biased, but after Goldberg said it, the media had a hand grenade thrown in its lap. Feminists can just ignore conservative women, but their ideology is exposed when a Democrat like Flanagan dissents.


“[Flanagan's] reference to herself in Time as 'the beaten wife of the Democratic Party' is an analogy that beaten wives everywhere are sure to appreciate,” Walsh writes sarcastically.


Apparently, the analogy of a “beaten wife” is too much of a stretch and a little too maudlin for Walsh, who now regularly carps about the “war on women.” Walsh believes it's basically world war three and the Holocaust was a kosher picnic at the beach compared to what women in the U.S. are going through right now.


Walsh would never stoop so low as to use a “beaten wife” analogy. She usually takes the high road and just calls anyone who disagrees with her sexist or racist. For a feminist like Walsh, everything is petty. Every word presents an opportunity to score catty points.


Walsh writes, “Flanagan's shtick isn't so much about enduring domestic violence as it is about selling books and getting rich and, really, that's fine with me, I've got plenty to do myself.”


She uses several phrases accusing Flanagan of “creating straw women”, “a lot of self-delusion”, and “a lot of self-dramatization”. (Guideline 24a: Mean girls and even meaner women.)


Anyone who has read Flanagan's work knows that she writes wonderful, thoughtful, insightful, articles. Feminine, yet much more powerful than any of Walsh's articles. The reason, I think, is because Flanagan's articles are purposeful. Walsh's articles are just a caustic reaction against those proposing less extreme feminism.


It must have hit Walsh hard to have a female Democrat criticize her. Feminists hate being treated the way they treat everybody else. Walsh likes to second-guess right of center people, but she hates it when it is done to her. Walsh's articles are sufficiently inconsequential that few people are watch-dogging them. Feminists count on that. There are too few people providing steady opposition to the Feminist Media. (See my entry in the Daily Vos page: “Why so Little Opposition to Feminism?”)


Walsh and Flanagan are within a couple years of being the same age, but Caitlin's name is younger sounding by decades. And, if you don't think women notice things like that, then you don't understand women. Of course, the disagreement goes a lot deeper than that. Both of them are rich and successful, but in Walsh's opinion Flanagan is showing poor taste feeling happy about it.


Don't misunderstand, Walsh thoroughly enjoys her unequal success too, but she knows she needs to fake a measure of guilt for her sin against socialist feminism. Her remorse is to hate the institutions that helped make her success possible. Her act of charity is to impose burdens on the working- and middle-classes to equalize our success and “privilege” down to the level of the underclass. (Guideline 29a: “liberals see it as the responsibility of the state to impose just burdens and to allocate just benefits.”)


Feminists act as if the only real, authentic, American is one who is a member of the underclass. An example of their ideal resident is a non-white (preferably) woman (of course) with an IQ of 90. A woman with the good fortune not to possess any “privilege,” but richly blessed with “victimhood.” A woman who made efficient use of her government education by dropping out of high school, then demonstrated resourcefulness by becoming dependent on the government's welfare services. A strong, sexually free, woman who conscientiously avoided the trap of traditional marriage and nuclear family by having several illegitimate kids with several men. And, of course, a feminist woman with just enough sophisticated ignorance to blame all of her problems on everybody else who made good use of the institutions of education, employment, and marriage.


I am good at criticizing feminism. Expounding on the past 2,500 years of Western philosophy is much more difficult. But, I know this much. The Ancient Greeks had a word for striving after virtue and excellence: Arete.


Jessica Valenti

The article I am analyzing today is Jessica Valenti's February 17, 2015, attempt in


Valenti writes, “There is nothing selfish about wanting to live – it's the most simple, instinctive, human desire there is. Still, most of us – men and women – feel we would lay down our lives for our children; there's an instinct in that, too.”


Valenti is wrong about that. Women won't lay down their lives for their children. (See my entry “America's Feminies”.)


Feminism is the sophistication of deception and Valenti literally has a Master's degree in it. Look it up. In addition to heavy reliance on feminist tricks that I describe in the Guidelines page, Valenti does a lot of dissembling, temporizing, building straw man arguments, contriving melancholy and melodrama, intentionally misunderstanding, sweeping over-generalizations, and uses junior-high-school-girl style sophistry.


Valenti writes, “But there is something about the spectacle of anti-abortion advocates celebrating women who die trying to save their unborn babies that feels a bit too gleeful – they're shockingly unabashed in their pushing the idea that the lives of adult women aren't nearly as important as their ability to bring children into the world.”


Can she name any “shockingly unabashed” pro-life advocates “pushing the idea that the lives of adult women aren't nearly as important as their ability to bring children into the world”?


Men perform heroic acts every day, but it is astonishing when a woman risks her life for the love of her child. It is rare and thus newsworthy when it happens.


Valenti writes, “I am horrified by the zeal with which their stories are repeated to score political points after their deaths or their deaths glamorized in the media as the ultimate parental sacrifice.”


Zeal? (See my entry “Kill the Babies No Apologies”.)


Here is some typical Valenti doggerel:

“I am scared for women who have been taught to believe that the most important, beautiful thing they can do is perish. There are already so many ways in which women jump through hoops in order not to exist: we silence ourselves, making sure we're quiet and unobtrusive; some of us starve ourselves, getting smaller and smaller as to not take up too much space. And this noble disappearing act has become so commonplace that the mere act of being alive – making our voices heard, taking up space, choosing to live – is seen as a disruption of natural order.”


Of course, the opposite is true. American women can communicate as much as they please. Women have never been more overweight and are free to take up the full space of their girth.


And, I wonder if she thought anything of it when she wrote, “choosing to live”. Feminist women have denied the unborn the choice to live and be heard by the tens of millions. A tragic irony.


Jessica Valenti

The article I am analyzing today is Jessica Valenti's February 6, 2015, attempt in


Valenti writes, “If the 2012 elections were about male Republicans sticking their feet in their mouths and their heads up their asses – 'legitimate rape', 'binders of women', offering women the aspirin-between-the-knees method of birth control – I predict that 2016 will be the year that the Republicans reveal themselves to be the party of, for and by old farts.”


“Lately, everything old Republican men say – about women, about rape, about marriage equality, even vaccines – sounds more old-fogey than forward-thinking. And while they have never been the party of the young and hip, in the midst of an all-out young feminist revival, Republican rhetoric sounds older and limper than ever.”


“And as the male Republican guard reveals themselves to be as stale and funky as your grandpa's drawers, older liberal women are stepping into the limelight as cool and accomplished.”


Valenti does not trust her readers to understand a subtle message. So she writes, “male Republicans”, “old Republican men”, “old-fogey”, and “Republican rhetoric sounds older and limper than ever.”

On the other side, “young feminist revival” and “older liberal women are stepping into the limelight as cool and accomplished.” Notice it's older liberal women and not old liberal women.


Valenti writes, “We've got Notorious RBG.” That's an allusion to 82-year-old Ruth “Cool” Bader Ginsburg.


“Today's Republicans might be clued in enough to realize calling one of the country's most experienced female politicians 'old' is not a good way to woo the women voters they're so desperate for, but I'm not sure they fully realize the power of Clinton's experienced cool”, Valenti wrote, after describing Republicans as “old” several times. Republican politicians shouldn't say Clinton is old, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't have some fun.


Of course, over-the-Hillary Clinton's age matters (she's 67), it's why Valenti is trying so hard to create a counter-narrative: old liberal women cool/old Republican men uncool. Clinton is older than all of the following Republican candidates: Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Rand Paul, Perry, Rubio, Santorum, and Walker.


Compared to their youth, Clinton is a dried-up old prune. She's cooler than being cool. She's ice-cold, just ask Bill!


Valenti writes, “In a statement reminiscent of Pat Robertson's claim that feminism encourages women to 'practice witchcraft,' US [Texas] senator Ted Cruz has accused pro-choice activists of being Satanists.”


She omits pro-choice activists in Texas were chanting “hail Satan” during the time surrounding Wendy Davis's pro-abortion filibuster. (Guideline 7c-1 and -2.)


Valenti is wrong about feminism and witchcraft. (Guideline 17a: Selective research.)


In her book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Alison Jaggar writes about a list of radical feminist institutions. “It includes the revival of a specifically women's spirituality, based on wicca or witchcraft, the ancient goddess religion driven underground by Judaeo-Christianity.” Page 276.

“especially those radical feminists who are concerned with rehabilitating women's spiritual powers and reviving the 'Old Religion' of wicca or witchcraft.” Page 368-369.


Here is Jaggar's complete endnote 42 for chapter 11:

Jade River, “Witchcraft: A Political View,” talk given at conference on Women's Spirituality, Cincinnati, 22 March 1981. River draws heavily on Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1979).


Jade River has written about Dianic Wicca. I found a post “The Dianic Tradition” on, dated March 19, 2004.


Zsuzsanna Budapest wrote a book called The Feminist Book of Lights and Shadows. The book is now called The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries: Feminist Witchcraft, Goddess Rituals, Spellcasting and Other Womanly Arts and according to River, it contains “the foundational principles of Dianic Wicca.”


I will let you do an Internet search for information about Margot Adler and Zsuzsanna Budapest. If you do, it all makes sense and everything falls into place.


The Dianic Wiccans have their own denomination called the Re-formed Congregation of the Goddess – International (RCG-I). One of their seminaries is called the Women's Thealogical Institute (WTI), founded in 1989.


Valenti isn't the first feminist writer to miss the connection between feminism, wicca and witchcraft. Still, with so many examples of it, how can feminist writers continue to be so ignorant? Do feminists have, in Valenti's words, “their heads up their asses”?


Joan Walsh: A Master Deceiver

Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“GOP's clueless ploy to woo women: Accuse them of whining and lying!” Joan Walsh. April 8, 2014.


There are plenty of articles explaining the “wage gap” in the entry called “The Gender Wage Gap Is a Myth” on The Daily Vos archive page. Long story short, there's a wage gap, but it is not a discriminatory wage gap. It is a fair wage gap that is the result of many factors. There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton has way more money than 99% of the people in the U.S. Her wealth isn't the result of being a racist white woman.

“The [Clintons] made more than $20 million between them in the most recent tax year [2007], and a total of more than $109.2 million during the period beginning in 2000.” (Clintons’ Income Skyrocketed After White House, April 04, 2008.)


Joan Walsh writes, “Essentially the GOP campaign against pay equity advocates comes down to telling women to stop lying.”


Walsh doesn't speak for everybody. Although she likes to think so, she doesn't even speak for all women. Speaking for myself, I'm not telling honest, virtuous women to stop lying, I'm telling feminists to stop lying.


Walsh's article is a good example of how the Feminists' Style of Argument 301 works. I believe that Walsh isn't stupid or ignorant. And, I agree with the authors of the articles explaining that the wage gap is due to job-related factors, not discrimination.


Which leaves the last part of the equation. If Walsh isn't ignorant, and if the facts are against her, then for Walsh to persist with the implication that the wage gap is the result of discrimination makes her a deceiver and manipulator. I guarantee that Walsh has read many articles like those listed in the Daily Vos entry. Get it wrong once and it might be due to ignorance, but if a feminist gets it wrong repeatedly, then it is a lie.


Walsh writes, “Republicans are unlikely to help their cause with a strategy that essentially calls women who worry about pay inequity “liars.””


Again, it isn't honest, virtuous “women”, it is deceitful, manipulative feminists who are the liars. We must make a distinction between feminists and honest, virtuous women. (See Guideline 1b: Omni-Deceit and Manipulation.)


Walsh isn't above accusing others of whining as she does in her article, “Billionaires' crybaby club: Someone get these whiners a bottle!” April 3, 2014.


So why doesn't anybody ever say that to feminists? (Guideline 10a.)


Whining and lying about “pay inequity” is exactly what Walsh is doing. She is guilty as charged.


Ana Marie Cox Doesn't Understand Conservative Women

I have never met Ana Marie Cox and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends, but she is a master deceiver, manipulator, dissembler, and temporizer.


Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“The GOP doesn't just have a woman problem, it doesn't understand women.” Ana Marie Cox. 9 March 2014.


Ana Marie Cox writes about the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She admits in her article that she is a feminist and shows her bias in several ways against conservative women.


She quotes Carly Fiorina speaking at CPAC: “'I am a proud pro-life woman. … I believe science is proving us right everyday!'” Sonograms, OB/GYNs, and medical literature offer scientific proof that babies have heartbeats at six weeks and enter viability at 20 weeks. But Cox's sarcastic response is, “(Hey, don't knock junk science until you've tried it, right?)” Denying a baby is viable at any stage of pregnancy is characteristic of Hard-Core Feminism. (Guideline 17a: Selective research.)


Cox includes a cornerstone element of feminism, “decades of discrimination against them [women]”. (Guideline 3a: Omni-”Discrimination”.) Socialist feminist policies have been discriminating in favor of white women for the past several decades. It's called affirmative action. Feminists want equal outcomes, the only question for them is how much more government help should white women get to make it happen.


“And the women at CPAC? They're so invested in being ladies, they don't even talk like women.” Cox gets it exactly wrong. The women at CPAC talk like full-grown adults compared to feminists like Cox who act more like children constantly whining about everything.


She writes, “They can't admit that they're denied anything, so they can't ask anything.” But Fiorina's net wealth is $80 million and she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard. She isn't being denied anything. Not all women have that much money, but not all men have that much money, either.


Cox is a corn-fed girl out of Nebraska and she isn't poor. She is another rich, white feminist nagging the rest of us about how awful women like her have it.


(Guideline 18a: Feminists complain about everything.) Note how Cox takes the approach that the CPAC “ladies” are being “denied” things and complains about “discrimination”. In other articles, she complains about the top 1%, which includes Fiorina.


Cox mocks successful, honest, virtuous women. She wants them to act like feminists and complain about everything.


She writes, “Of course, there were several female speakers the GOP probably wouldn't want on that [CPAC presidential straw] poll, stunt candidates and pranksters whose presence would undermine the ginger steps toward seriousness that CPAC has lately taken. Michele Bachmann. Ann Coulter. Sarah Palin.”


“The women the GOP has elevated to the marquee are the ones they are least likely to have or want on a ticket.”


Cox is wrong. Palin was the Republican nominee for vice-president in 2008 and is wildly popular among center right Americans. Bachmann ran for president and won the 2011 Iowa straw poll in Ames.


Cox has a history of catty articles attacking Palin and Bachmann. (Guideline 24a: Feminists mistreat women.)


Do Women Make Worse Senators Than Men?

Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“Do Women Make Better Senators Than Men?” Jill Lawrence. July 12, 2013.


If you know anything about the Feminist Media, you know that the answer to the question in Lawrence’s title is implied. Feminists know that in the culture we live in it is considered rude and impolite to say that men are better than women or that women are worse than men at anything. (See Guideline 8a.)


There are 20 women in the U.S. Senate and Lawrence is one of many cheerleaders for them in the Feminist Media. Sixteen of them are Democrats, which partly explains Lawrence’s fake inclusiveness of the four Republican women.


Here are a few excerpts from her article:

“This room, probably when Barbara Mikulski came in, was one of those rooms where there were cigars and a bunch of guys,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said during a recent discussion in the hideaway.

And now? “No cigars,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

“No cigars and a lot of hardworking women,” agreed Murray. [Emphasis added.]

(Adhering to Guideline 27a: Women love to compliment themselves.)


Lawrence writes:

Another hallmark of the women is that they have re-created among themselves a bygone world, one in which senators drank together. The women do it in part through their famously private dinners, begun 20 years ago to create what Collins calls a “safe space” for women.


What about the “cigars and a bunch of guys”? This is Political Correctness in action: an old boys’ club bad/an old girls’ club good. (See Terminology 201.)


Lawrence writes:

Women have a particular talent for working with others. If you ask them what they bring to the Senate, almost all of them say things like this: more collaboration, less confrontation; more problem-solving, less ego; more consensus-building, less partisanship.


They’re modest too! Portraying women in this light (Adhering to Guideline 26a.) partly explains Lawrence’s fake inclusiveness of the four Republican women in her article. She can’t look confrontational and partisan right now, she saves that for her articles that focus solely on conservative women.


Lawrence labels Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz as “provocateurs”. I guess one feminist’s provocateur is a patriot’s leader. I think all of you know how the feminist game is played. Senator Barbara Boxer is a “collaborator”, but Ann Coulter is a provocateur. Senator Dianne Feinstein is a “consensus-builder”, but Sarah Palin is a partisan. Senator Patty Murray is a “problem-solver”, but Representative Michele Bachmann is divisive. 


Lawrence writes:

The women of the Senate, including Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was there, have also been longtime champions of the women of Afghanistan and the Middle East. Boxer says Afghan women have come to see all the Senate women in their offices. “I think they know we have their back,” she says.


Remember, one of the goals of the National Organization for Women is “Global Feminism”. (You can see a list of their goals in the Daily Vos article, “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism”.) Feminists care more about women in other countries than they care about men in the United States.


I will make a deal with the feminists, install women in all 535 seats in Congress, but all of them must be Ann Coulter-types. Feminists would never accept that deal. They make clear distinctions between Feminist, Liberal, and Socialist women and Ann Coulter-types.


Lawrence is attempting a very old feminist trick. She wants to make you believe that women are better on style (“more collaboration”) and then assume they also must be better on substance (facts and issues). She knows that if you look at the facts and issues, then most of the women senators fail. (Guideline 5c and Style of Argument 301.)


We should look at the facts of an issue before deciding if women make better or worse senators than men. How did these 20 women senators vote on constitutional amendments to balance the budget? The vote totals that follow won’t surprise you.


(Some of the women have been in the Senate longer than others but the dates of these votes are: December 14, 2011, March 4, 1997, June 6, 1996, March 2, 1995, and March 1, 1994. You can see the vote totals for all Democrats and Republicans on these dates in the Daily Vos article, “Balancing the Budget: Democratic Politicians vs. Republican Politicians”. Source:


                                                  Yea          Nay

The 4 Republican women:          4             0

The 16 Democratic women:        2             27


So female Republicans are as good as male Republicans and female Democrats are as bad as male Democrats. Therefore, women senators are just more of the same old politics as usual, right? Wrong. Right now, female Democrats have female Republicans outnumbered 4 to 1. At this ratio, if all senators were women, then the Senate would consist of 80 Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists, and 20 Republicans.


Here is an insight into human nature: Good men can defeat bad men, but bad women easily defeat good women. I will explain this more fully in the future.


It explains why the Feminist Media wants more women for the sake of more women. They know, I know, and now you know, what the outcome will be.   


There is a big difference between female Democrats and female Republicans. Just as there is a big difference between male Democrats and male Republicans. Just as there is a big difference between Democrats (regardless of sex) and Republicans (regardless of sex).


So we, all, need to avoid the Politically Correct men bad/women good dichotomy. We must make distinctions among women; female (and male) Democratic Party Senators are worse than female (and male) Republican Party Senators.


Kill the Babies No Apologies

Feminism is Liberalism is Socialism (Part 2).


I have never met Jessica Valenti and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends. However, her feminism is excessive.


Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it: “Free Abortions on Demand Without Apology.” Jessica Valenti. August 27, 2013.


Valenti writes, “It’s time to resuscitate the old rallying cry for ‘free abortions on demand without apology.’”


The statement under Valenti’s name on is: “Feminism, sexuality & social justice. With a sense of humor.” Well, nothing says sense of humor like a feminist hell-bent on social justice and abortion “without apology.”


It’s no surprise her position on abortion is a perfect match with the socialists’ position.


Here are two excerpts from the Socialist Party USA’s website.

Their 2012-2013 National Platform page. Women:

“We demand full support for every woman’s right to choose when, if, and how to have children, including the right to free abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, without interference or coercion.” [Emphasis added.] 


Their Principles page. Socialist Feminism and Women’s Liberation:

“We stand for the right of women to choose to have a safe and legal abortion, at no cost, regardless of age, race, or circumstance.” [Emphasis added.]


So that covers the intentions of the Feminists and Socialists. Liberal Democrats coerce funding from the Government (meaning, us, the taxpayers) for Planned Parenthood. The Government schools teach sex education and the Underclass of all races have a disproportionately large percentage of the abortions. 


Planned Parenthood reported receiving $542 million in taxpayer money in 2012. 


“Free abortions on demand without apology,” Valenti writes, “Because being pro-choice means doing what’s right, not what’s popular.” [Emphasis added.]


I guarantee Valenti heard and read all about abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell’s guilty verdict. She just doesn’t care. She has little use for logic, sympathy, or ethics. Valenti’s “doing what’s right” is an example of what I mean by feminism’s self-righteousness. (Terminology 209: Hard-Core-Selfishness Feminists.)


I will give you an insight into feminism. They have very high standards of behavior…for men. Don’t even joke about rape or shame a slut. Fine. But if a woman has had several abortions, feminists are indifferent, if not celebratory. Feminists want to set zero expectations and have zero accountability and responsibility for the behavior of women. Feminism is the complete absence of virtue for women. 


Prachi Gupta of complains about James Franco’s rape joke in an article titled “James Franco’s bad rape joke.” September 3, 2013.


Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists want “free abortion on demand without apology, at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of age,” and, of course, “with a sense of humor.” 


Paul B. Farrell: Feminism's Useful Idiot

Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“Clinton vs. Rice is U.S. best bet for 2016.” Paul B. Farrell. 11/09/2012.


Paul Farrell writes, “Research proves that women are better investors than men and, by extension, better at handling money, deficits and debt – and likely with fiscal cliffs.”


His article is a good example of Term 206: Feminist Hype. Expecting us to believe women are better based on little evidence while any evidence to the contrary is ignored.


After spending less than one minute searching the Internet, I found the following, “This year, more than 1 million women are expected to file for bankruptcy, outnumbering men by about 150,000 if trends hold.”


It is one piece of information that contradicts Paul Farrell’s assertion that women are better at handling money and debt.


So, I will also analyze the article that information came from to show how the Feminist Media tries to have it both ways.  


Here is the title of the article and where you can find it:

“Bankruptcy Law Pushes Women Closer to Edge.” Sandra Guy. 10/27/2005.


Note that both articles are trying to help women but come at it from different, but typical, feminist positions. Paul Farrell’s is Feminist Hype. Sandra Guy’s is “This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.”


Here are some excerpts from Sandra Guy’s article:

Critics say that means the new U.S. bankruptcy law, which makes it harder for filers to expunge debts, is particularly onerous for women. They expect the Oct. 17 law to saddle women with higher debts for longer periods and erode their economic security and ability to recover from financial crises not of their own doing.

[A professor at New York Law School Karen] Gross said women’s higher number of bankruptcy protection filings reflects a complex set of social barriers to financial security: lower earnings, less education about money and, often, sole responsibility for raising children.

“Girls are not being provided the kind of financial information and education that they need, either in school or while they are growing up,” said Miller. “Women told us they had to learn about finances by the seat of their pants.”


Granted, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances such as divorce or loss of a job that adversely affect the financial security of women and men.


In his article, Paul Farrell launches into mass character assassination. (Adhering to Guideline 7d-8.) “Men’s brains think like aggressive hyperactive kids playing video games.”


He writes, “In fact, the ‘war on women’ is a last-ditch defensive move by men to protect their frail egos, wounded machismo and fractured identity, so obvious in the futile legislative efforts to hang onto the old paternalistic culture.”


It is an example of how the phrase “war on women” is the new omni-“sexism”. (Adhering to Guideline 4a.)


When he writes, “frail egos, wounded machismo and fractured identity,” it is intended to mock and ridicule men. For women, these types of personality problems are usually phrased as “self-esteem issues” and in the next breath talk begins for how much money should be spent to help them.


We, men, don’t expect any more money to be spent on us, but less money needs to be spent and less needs to be done to advantage women. For example, get rid of affirmative action. White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.


Regarding the personality facet of “frail egos,” I challenge Paul Farrell -- and every social scientist -- to look at it anew. You will find it is feminists whose egos are so frail that they can’t admit men are better at anything. Men have invented almost everything on God’s green earth, but try to get a feminist to admit to or agree with that and see what happens.


Men agree that the windshield wiper and Liquid Paper are good inventions, but see if you can get a feminist to agree that the entire car and printing press, typewriter, radio, TV, computer, Internet, mobile phones, etc. are greater accomplishments.


About Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, Paul Farrell writes, “Two powerful women. Both Secretaries of State. The perfect leaders for a new America.” [Emphasis added.] (Adhering to Guidelines 26a and 27a: Portraying women in the best possible light and as perfect.)


Before assuming they are perfect, first, ask them some specific questions.

What are their plans to balance the budget?

Have they ever used their powerful positions to benefit financially or politically?


Paul Farrell writes, “Whether old paternalistic politicians, young alpha-male gamers or men with a need to dominate,”


And, “Men are natural warriors, whether in defense budgeting, stock trading or with some deep psychological need to dominate.”


He uses the phrase, men’s “need to dominate” twice and generally insults men throughout his article. (Adhering to Guideline 5b: Tear down boys and men at all costs.) 


There is no greater display of dominance or abuse of power than pro-choice feminists murdering babies born alive and viable unborn babies in the second and third trimesters. (For proof of murdered babies born alive, do an Internet search for Dr. Kermit Gosnell.)


Paul Farrell quotes money manager Jeremy Grantham “whose firm manages $100 billion worldwide.” (He seems to be good at handling money.)

[The world now needs leaders “with a historical perspective who are more thoughtful and more right-brained.”]

Well, when you think of people with a historical perspective, you immediately think of women. They love sitting around talking about history.


History aside, where are all of the supposedly smart women screaming about the national debt? I would like to meet them.


He writes, “In a rising market men tell themselves they’re geniuses. When falling, they blame Congress and regulators.”


Feminists such as Paul Farrell tell women they’re geniuses. When failing, they blame Congress and everybody else.


Here are some excerpts from Sandra Guy’s article where feminists adhere to the basic feminist attitude of “This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.”

Advocates for women’s economic security support a wide range of legislation that would help women become financially self-sufficient and protected from bankruptcy. Those policies include paid family medical leave, benefits for part-time workers, increases in the federal minimum wage, and more funding for job training and education programs that help women advance in the workforce.

[Karen Gross is quoted as saying,] “Some less seismic suggestions are to increase women’s and girls’ financial literacy levels, address their fear of numbers and improve their comfort levels with quantitative skills.”

Miller criticized the bankruptcy law for focusing on a debtor’s personal responsibility while ignoring credit card companies’ marketing campaigns and exorbitant interest rates.


Blaming others is a personality flaw that is shared by both women and men.


Taken together, Farrell’s and Guy’s articles are good examples of Guideline 28a: The Feminist Media expects us to praise women as “better investors” and as “perfect”, but if they aren’t, then we are expected to pity them as “victims”.


I challenge anyone to conduct a scientific survey, subject to peer review, about which sex – and of which political subgroup -- wants to balance the budget.


The Feminist Media won’t touch it because they know either way they lose.


Imagine if 60% of men and 60%, or more, of women want a balanced budget, it makes the Democratic Party politicians look bad, because the majority of people want a balanced budget. And, if it is understood that “perfect” women want a balanced budget, then a lot of political temporizing ends.


But if the results come back 60% of men want a balanced budget while only 30% of women want one, it makes women look dumber than men at handling debt -- and that destroys a lot of Feminist Hype.


Of course, the Feminist Media can try to spin it and say, see, it’s because women are so smart that they know the government needs to spend (invest) recklessly (wisely) and increase the debt even more. It’s good for the economy.


I would like nothing more than to have 535 Ann Coulters in Congress. I’m sure left of center men would like to have 535 Hillary Clintons in Congress. The men on each side love the women on the same side. It isn’t women vs. men. It’s more left vs. right, or blue vs. red, although those are crude categorizations too. 


Paul Farrell could be the nicest man in the world to his family and friends, but in a lot of his articles he comes off like an old coot on a bizarre rant. His analysis is incorrect. His insights into human nature are one-sided and biased. And, his commentary is predictable politically correct femishist.


So, why do I bother to read any of his articles? He makes me feel smart.


Joan Walsh: A Master Manipulator

I have never met Joan Walsh and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends. But her articles contain many examples of Feminist Media bias. If you want some practice applying the Guidelines to articles, Walsh’s archive is a good place to start.


Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“What Rachel Maddow said.” Joan Walsh. 4/30/2012.


Walsh’s article is about the “pay gap” and “gender discrimination”. (Adhering to Guideline 3a: Omni-discrimination.) Walsh uses a brief debate on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, between MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Alex Castellanos, to try to score points for the Feminist Media’s (Adhering to Guideline 7d-1: Feminist Media bias by complicity.)  


Walsh begins with an old feminist setup: Men Bad/Women Good. (Term 201: Political Correctness.)


She praises Maddow. “Maddow the guest always brings the facts, usually with charm.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, Maddow is smart, wonderful, and perfect. How could she be wrong? (Adhering to Feminist Style of Argument 301.)


Walsh describes Maddow’s debate opponent, Alex Castellanos, as a “serial sexist”. (Adhering to Guideline 4a: Omni-sexism.)

She mentions how Castellanos called Hillary Clinton a “bitch” back in 2008. (Adhering to Guideline 21b: Feminists hold a grudge for a long time.)


Walsh writes that Castellanos “condescended” to Maddow. It’s amazing that he didn’t condescend even more.


Maddow is the author of a book titled, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. It is a book about weighty matters of geopolitics and the military-industrial complex. So she can’t be too ignorant. She is paid millions of dollars per year by MSNBC and surely has pondered why she gets paid so much more than the average American. It’s because the factors are different. There aren’t very many prime-time hosts on 24-hour news networks. 


Castellanos tried to explain how differences, in 25 job-related factors, result in a wage gap. Oh, there’s a wage gap, but it isn’t a discriminatory wage gap. It is a fair wage gap based on lots of different factors. Due to time constraints he mentioned only one factor, and that is men work more hours per week on average than women.


Here, Walsh strikes a cold, radical feminist tone about motherhood, “women pay dearly for the time they spend at home with their kids.”


Then, Walsh uses another old feminist trick. She feigns ignorance of all information outside of Maddow’s brief debate. She finds Castellanos’ example of just one factor unsatisfactory but feels no responsibility to research or mention other factors. (Adhering to Guideline 7c: Feminist Media bias by omission and Guideline 17a: selective research.) 


Here are some books and articles explaining the wage gap.




Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It. By Warren Farrell.


The Declining Importance of Race and Gender in the Labor Market: The Role of Employment Discrimination Policies. By June E. O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill.




“The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth.” Diana Furchtgott-Roth. July 26, 2012.


“Wage gap myth exposed – by feminists.” Christina Hoff Sommers. November 04, 2012.


“There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap.” Carrie Lukas. April 12, 2011.


“Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever.” Kay S. Hymowitz. City Journal.

Summer 2011 Vol. 21 no. 3. 8/4/2011.


I guarantee that both Walsh and Maddow have read many articles like the ones listed above. It isn’t that Walsh and Maddow can’t understand, it’s that they won’t understand. They refuse to understand. If they admit to understanding even just one factor, the game is over. Because if they show they are capable of understanding one factor, then they are capable of understanding the other factors. 


Walsh’s article is a good example of how the feminists’ Style of Argument 301 works. I agree that Walsh and Maddow are neither ignorant nor stupid. And, I agree with the authors of the books and articles explaining that the wage gap is due to job-related factors.


Which leaves the last part of the equation. If Walsh and Maddow aren’t ignorant, and if the facts are against them, then for them to persist with the idea of a discriminatory wage gap makes them liars and manipulators.


Walsh is a hard-core feminist and toward the end of her article she vents some of her anger and bitterness. She makes a controversial statement, “it’s undeniable that Romney and the GOP support policies that disproportionately hurt women.” She continues, “to the extent that they, as well as GOP governors, are pushing public worker layoffs, those hit women harder too, since they’re more likely to work in the public sector than men.” Due, at least in part, to a robust affirmative action program. White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. The government disproportionately helps women.


The above paragraph is a good example of socialist feminism. The Government is mostly controlled by Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists, with the Underclass dependent on Government bureaucrats, and Government bureaucrats dependent on the Underclass to need their services, and all of the groups are necessary for votes for the Democratic Party – the party of big government – to pass legislation to make Government even bigger. 


Walsh pours it on in the last paragraph complaining about “how much disrespect men get away with in debating women on TV.” (She’s adhering to Guideline 6a: reverse accuse.) There is no greater disrespect than that which is shown to men by feminists, such as Walsh and Maddow, telling bald-faced lies about the issues. 


Feminists Are Anti-Science

Feminists are as anti-science as anybody else when science goes against their ideology.


The article I am analyzing today reveals a lot about how the Feminist Media game is played. It reads more like an internal message between editors or a scheme among JournoList members. It is a rare mistake that is in violation of Guideline 7c: Feminist Media bias by omission.


Here is the article’s title and where you can find it:

“Science Proves That Women Are Mean (Again). Thanks Science!” Meghan Casserly. 11/29/2011.


The statement under Casserly’s name on is: “I cover the juggle of work, life and play for smart, ambitious women.” [Emphasis added.] Feminists love to compliment themselves, especially their intelligence. (Adhering to Guideline 9a: In the Feminist Media, it is allowable to praise or celebrate only women.)


Casserly is feeling touchy and peevish because a scientific study was done and she didn’t like the results. The study itself isn’t the important thing to note here. It is her reaction to it that is so astonishingly anti-science.


In a nutshell, the study showed that women had more negative feelings toward women dressed in a more daring manner, than they did toward women who dressed more modestly. The study supports the idea behind Guideline 24a: Mean girls and even meaner women. 


“When women present themselves as being sexually available, it compromises the power-holding position of the group,” said the professor who conducted the study, Tracy Vaillancourt of the University of Ottawa.


This in-group/out-group game is not limited to sexual availability. When honest, virtuous women state that women aren’t oppressed; it compromises the deceitful and manipulative power of the whole group. Which is why feminists feel they must shame and pillory wayward individuals and destroy competing religions.


Casserly pours skepticism on the study “that seems to once again use science to reinforce the stereotype of superficial bitches, my interest was piqued. What, if any, is the value of research that “proves” (her scare quotes) the bad behavior of women?” [Emphasis added.] 


She continues, “As for me, I’m left unconvinced that the potential benefits of research like Vaillancourt’s…outweigh the negatives of handing incriminating statistics about women to haters on a silver (and scientifically-backed) platter.”


For her it all comes down to how women are portrayed, regardless of scientific results. (Adhering to Guideline 26a: Self-report bias. Feminists always try to portray themselves in the best possible light, not just a good light, the best possible light.)


Casserly writes, “Listen: I know [emphasis in original] that women are often competitive, rude and aggressive to other women. [Emphasis added.] Vaillancourt’s research tells me nothing new. You know it too. But to me, adding credibility to these stereotypes about women gives artillery to our detractors…”


What does she mean, women are often rude and aggressive to other women? They can be rude and aggressive to men too! I explain this more thoroughly in Guideline 24a: Mean girls and even meaner women.


She writes, “If ‘bitchy behavior scales’ are science, I’m of the opinion that this sort of study should not be published.” [Emphasis added.]


I find that last sentence to be both hilarious and sad. If the truth doesn’t help women, then she thinks that it shouldn’t be allowed.


Casserly shouldn’t be so worried. Women have personality flaws and that’s okay. Men have personality flaws too, and that’s okay. We, all, need to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. It is when personality flaws are excessive that they are a concern. We need to emphasize virtues and try to reduce our flaws.


March 31, 2013


Stupid, Sexist, Sourpuss, Jenna Goudreau Insults Men

I have never met Jenna Goudreau and have never had any communication with her. She could be the nicest woman in the world to her family and friends. I only use the words “stupid” and “sexist” because she uses them in her article to insult men. (We need to show the same amount of respect to feminists that they show to us.)


I don’t want to treat feminists the way they treat non-feminists, but Goudreau’s article highlights a lot of the biases in the Feminist Media and I am tired of being treated this way.


Here is the article’s title and where you can find it:

“Women Aren’t Funny And Other Hackneyed Marketing Ploys By Washed Up Male Comedians.” Jenna Goudreau. 6/19/2012.


Goudreau begins her article complaining about how this “infamous” debate has “reared its ugly head again.” This “infamous” debate is about a comedian’s opinion that men are funnier than women. (Adhering to Guideline 18a: Omni-complaining.)


Adam Carolla is a comedian with a long and successful career in mass media. He is an expert on all things pertaining to comedy.


It is Carolla’s opinion that “dudes are funnier than chicks.” He is also quoted as saying, “they make you hire a certain number of chicks.” It is affirmative-action Hollywood-style.


Goudreau unintentionally helps him prove his point by taking it all very seriously. She is a sourpuss throughout the article.


Notice, he didn’t say there aren’t any funny women, just men are funni-er. He is probably correct.


Funny can be a subjective matter, but here is some evidence supporting his opinion.’s very own articles:

“The Top-Earning Comedians.” Lacey Rose. 09.08.10.

“The Top-Earning Comedians.” Lacey Rose. 07.13.09.

“The Top-Earning Comedians.” Lacey Rose. 10.11.07.

Comedy Central Presents: 100 Greatest Stand-Ups of All Time. TV Mini-Series. 2004. The list can be found on

(Goudreau is adhering to Guidelines 7c: Feminist Media bias by omission and 17a: Selective research.)


Goudreau makes little effort to disprove Carolla’s claim. I think it’s because she knows she can’t. Instead, she just plays for the “tie”, and tries to discredit him. (Adhering to Guideline 8b: Men may be portrayed as worse than women, but no better than equal to women.)


She mocks him, “Attention must be difficult to come by for a middle-aged man…” She is attempting to demean him as out-of-touch and over-the-hill. She also demeans a few of his accomplishments. (Adhering to Guideline 5b: Tear down boys and men at all costs.)


She works in a cornerstone element of feminism, “blatant sexism”, and shoehorns criticism of two ad campaigns by Dr. Pepper and Belvedere Vodka into her article. (Adhering to Guideline 4a: Omni-“Sexism”.)


She writes, “The who’s funnier debate is consistently revived every couple years.” So much “oppression”!


She writes, “(although men seem to be the only ones asking, which should spawn a new who’s-stupider-and-more-desperate-for-a-headline debate).” So she doesn’t like the “infamous” debate about who’s funnier, but she would like to see a new “who’s stupider and more desperate” debate about men. (Adhering to Guideline 19a: Omni-Revenge.)


Consider this, if a feminist like Goudreau is this touchy and peevish about a comedian’s opinion about who’s funnier, imagine what she would be like if someone said men dominate the field of astrophysics. And that is her – and feminists’ -- underlying angst. If people are allowed to say that men are better at comedy, they might start to say other politically incorrect things too, and that would violate Guidelines 5b and 8b.


With her credentials and such a lofty platform at Forbes, Goudreau should attempt more challenging subject matter than provincial feminism; and leave the carping about “sexism” to nobodies, bloggers, and feminists at websites like Jezebel.


March 31, 2013