Gender & Video Games

Many of us understand the current climate in video games. From the blatant examples of violence against one gender or another to the exploitation of that violence to either make a buck off of the actual product or make a buck off of claims of victimhood due to that product this bitter war rages on. There doesn’t appear to be an end game from either side of the debate. In fact there is only one promise and that is this nasty battle will only continue and desperation will only increase.

Credit is needed where credit is due. No such figure started more of this argument than one Anita Sarkeesian. It doesn’t matter if anyone agrees with her or not. This whole gendered debate on video games and the representation of certain genders in those video games didn’t start at the levels we are witnessing until Ms. Sarkeesian came along. Her Youtube channel known as Feminist Frequency pulled in large amounts of viewers, she made television appearances on media outlets and even satire shows such as the Colbert Report. No one has profited more off of the criticism of video games in such a short amount of time and at the same token none has gained as much backlash from that criticism.

Ms. Sarkeesian as well as others such as Brianna Wu refer to themselves as bloggers, pop culture critics and any of the usual titles that would avoid direct contributions to video games. That doesn’t change the fact that many gamers find them to be “problematic” if one can pardon the pun. Whether it is the omission of facts or the rather obvious ploy to “sick” the keyboard warriors on critics of their material there is no shortage of ammunition for war on either side of the debate.

There is a problem. Those like Anita Sarkeesian are starting to lose in some areas but are gaining ground in other areas. Take this for example:


This is the infamous Dead or Alive Xtreme 3. This video game that was developed by Koei Tecmo is not going to see a Western release. Why? Please excuse the broken English. When asked about it on their facebook page this was the reply, “We do not bring DOAX3 to the west and won’t have any plan change in the future. Thank you for asking.” When pressed further on the issue, “Do you know many issues happening in video game industry with regard to how to treat female in video game industry? We do not want to talk those things here. But certainly we have gone through in last year or two to come to our decision. Thank you.”

Seems like an honest reply, right? Well there is more to the story. Apparently this was just one employee who posted this message but at the same time Koei Tecmo pretty much confirmed that the game would not receive a Western release. The biggest sales numbers for the game isn’t that great compared to other smash hit titles which this game certainly isn’t. At the same time why release the game in an area where the largest amount of your sales aren’t present? There has to be more to it than just not releasing the game for other reasons outside of the gender politics. That isn’t just causation looking towards a solution. No, it is clear that Japan and the West have clear differences in terms of sexuality, what is generally accepted in a video game and what is generally accepted in terms of cultural difference. Let us not sit here and be intellectually dishonest. If a company in Japan, given the differences between the idea of sexuality and exposure of body parts, won’t release a game in the West where the largest amount of sales are than that kind of has to spell out the problem.

Play Asia stepped in on the debate and gave their two cents. Play Asia is known to sell English versions of many games from the East to Western customers. Their statement caused a bit of a firestorm and was all the rage on social media and especially Youtube. They released quite the statement, “ will not be coming to the US due to nonsense. However, we will have the English Asia version available:” Now one will understand why this created the firestorm that it did. Play Asia was literally calling out the “SJW” or social justice warrior crowd. Many gamers have been outspoken critics of SJW and SJW tactics. So whether Play Asia had it right or wrong is irrelevant. They played their cards well and as a result the game will likely sell more copies than it would have. Many gamers are interpreting this as a way to fight back against games they are labeling as censored.

It doesn’t matter if someone believes Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 is sexist or not. That is not an argument. However if a company such as Koei Tecmo who has a long history of not caring what content they release suddenly changes plans in a market where a product sells the most only someone who is intellectually bankrupt would try to suggest they didn’t release the product because it didn’t make enough money. If even the smallest of dollars can be generated most companies aren’t going to care about how small the profits are so long as there is a profit to be made. That tends to be a winning strategy.

Many who would be labeled as social justice warriors and especially those in the feminist crowd called this a marketing stunt. Those words would have some validity if those same people weren’t criticizing games like Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 to give the calls of it being censored more credibility. You cannot in one breath say that potatoes are horrible, spread the word about your opinion and get so many to believe you but then cry victim or say someone is pulling a marketing stunt when potato salesman point the finger at you. It is dishonest and quite frankly not worthy of an opinion that should even be considered.

Anita Sarkeesian said it herself, “we’re not going to take your games away.” Well she can say that all she wants to. If games are not going to be released or are changed in any way that reflects her opinion that tends to pose a problem to her and those who agree or think like her. Because it can come off as a little suspicious and dishonest when the same people who claim that the views of a gender can change based off of representation but then those same people want something to change and when it does claim they had nothing to do with it. This is classical, “I’m offended but don’t dare blame me for something I may have caused or influenced because even though it can kinda be my fault it isn’t my fault.” But then you have to be wondering, “how did they change games?” It isn’t like games that have long stood the test of time are being modified, right? Wrong.


Many of us gamers are aware of Street Fighter. This is one of the longest running video game franchises ever. Many of us are also aware of R. Mika and Cammy as characters. A lot of gamers adore those characters and for many of those video game enthusiasts it has little to do with breasts and rear ends. However Street Fighter 5 is still getting some changes. When Capcom changed the opening themes and promotional videos of R. Mika and Cammy outrage ensued.

There is a particular cut scene featuring R. Mika, a wrestler, slapping her butt. Some saw this as objectification. But remember many Japanese wrestlers, regardless of gender, perform this action. Also keep in mind that the same people criticizing this are pretending to be innocent bystanders when companies like Koei Tecmo refuse to release a product in the West due to criticism just like this. And whether Capcom wanted to admit it or not it is pretty clear as to why those changes were made. So far not many are denying that. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that criticism of a game based off of how someone perceived a particular gender is represented isn’t one of the major reasons why some Japanese companies are wary of releasing games in the West.

This is just part one in a series of releases that will be done by Phalanx Blogs. To be clear video games are cool, fun and at minimum two-thirds of the population has played a video game or are gamers. That is quite a large crowd. This debate and this war has to see some sensible end game. Our games depend on it.


This Video Annoyed Me (Youtube Channel)

Event Hub


Women Required To Register For Selective Service?

Women Required To Register For Selective Service?

By: Dion McNeil

For so long one of the hardest points that men’s rights activists have made that feminists have had a tough time deflecting is the male only draft. Sites like A Voice for Men have beaten that dead horse into the ground over and over again. Nothing about a male only selective service spells out equality. Not a thing about a male only selective service system that has penalties for males over the age of 18 who are not registered suggests a fair system. Of course feminism and women in general had nothing to do with selective service or the draft as it was likely men who imposed this. Yet at the same time if we are going to be honest not having to register for women is an advantage that isn’t to be taken lightly.

Some will say that we haven’t had a draft in the United States for quite some time. What does that matter? Go tell that to the 50 thousand plus dead Vietnam war veterans. In fact it wasn’t until 1973 that the United States converted to an all volunteer force and for that to be the standard until such a time where the draft is needed again. Truth be told the very notion that the US isn’t drafting people, namely men, in modern times is a relatively new phase. From the Vietnam war and above the United States always called on young men to do the fighting and while there were instances of women serving very rarely were that put in harm’s way versus men.

The men’s rights activists probably are shouting joy to the heavens when articles like those found on the Washington Post popped up concerning women and selective service. At least now the idea of having women register just like men have to is starting to get some traction. Gen. Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A quote from the Washington Post article reveals some of the details:

““Senator, I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft,” said Milley, echoing the remarks of Neller.

After the hearing, Neller added in an short interview that any young American as a rite of passage should have to register for Selective Service.

“Now that the restrictions that exempted women from [combat jobs] don’t exist, then you’re a citizen of a United States,” Neller said. “It doesn’t mean you’re going to serve, but you go register.””

Some who read this will shout, “no, get rid of the draft for everyone!” Where the heck were those people when young men had to go and sign up? Where were they? Now all of a sudden when women are subjected to the same thing that men are suddenly it is a problem? Well yes, it is a problem now. And we know this based off of the responses we are starting to see across the internet. All of a sudden there are voices that are decrying selective service that we didn’t hear from before concerning the subject.

Take the L.A. Times Editorial Board for example. If we look on the LA Times website we can’t find many other mentions of selective service or the draft but the second that women might be subjected to the same thing men had to be subjected to suddenly it is an issue. Observe for yourself:

“Why should the country require anyone — male or female — to register for a draft that’s purely hypothetical? Or this: Does it make sense to extend the Selective Service rule as a symbolic gesture of gender equality without first examining the rationality of maintaining a registry at all in the digital era?”

Take a look at what Elaine Donnelly, president of the center of Military Readiness, said. Keep in mind that as she is saying this men are still being subjected to having to sign up for selective service:

“Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, called the Pentagon’s decision “ill-advised.”  In part, she said, because it will affect “unsuspecting civilian women, who will face equal obligations to register for Selective Service when a future federal court rules in favor of litigation brought by the [American Civil Liberties Union] on behalf of men.””

Some people may ask, “why even care? There’s no penalties for not registering, right?” Listen hard and hear the crickets in the background. Of course there are penalties. All one needs to do is go over to the Selective Service website and see the list of penalties one can face. Take a look at the list:


Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren’t registered with Selective Service won’t qualify for federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.


The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.


The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) offers programs that can train young men seeking vocational employment or enhancing their career. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. Only men born after December 31, 1959, are required to show proof of registration.


A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and the U.S. Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.  

Security clearance background investigations will verify whether or not men are in compliance with federal law; thus, men who are required to be registered with the Selective Service System will be verified of their Selective Service registration status for security clearances, as well as for some contractors.

Penalties for Failing to Register
Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.

If a man fails to register, or provides Selective Service with evidence that he is exempt from the registration requirement, after receiving Selective Service reminder and/or compliance mailings, his name is referred to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for his failure to register as required by the Act. For clarification, if a man is exempt from registering with the Selective Service System, his name is not forwarded to the Department of Justice. The federal law stipulates that names are to be submitted to the Department of Justice annually.

The more immediate penalty is if a man fails to register before turning 26 years old, even if he is not tried or prosecuted, he may find that some doors are permanently closed.”

Did we read that correctly? Someone could lose their citizenship, not get a student loan, face a prison term, be fined a quarter of a million dollars and if someone were to try to help this man escape having to register for the draft they could face the same penalties? Yes, bring in the draft or get rid of it. Bottom line this is not gender equality and no matter how much someone says, “well men imposed it” is going to take away from the fact that it exists. If this is the level that men have to go to in order to maintain their citizenship then women should either be subjected to the exact same selective service or we need to eradicate and the scrap the whole thing and if there is a draft women should be drafted.

Why should women be drafted should there ever be a draft? Well, of course, some would say that women are not as physically strong as men or as made for combat. However there are some women who don’t fit that generalization. Imagine if a military unit had a team of Holly Holms running around. How many would really oppose the idea of Amazon-esque killing machines running around to cover their backs? But women should register because of a landmark court ruling.

One of the common strawman arguments that some in certain ideologies, feminists in particular, love to hurl at men is that men never fight for their own rights. That is a lie. There were men who did oppose men being forced to have to register for selective service and even the possibility of a male only draft. Rostker v. Goldberg, which was a case argued in front of the United States Supreme Court in March 1981, is proof that there was at least one group of men who tried to end this sexist standard placed on men. However, the attempt to get rid of one of the clear cut gender expectations not imposed on the opposing gender got shot down. Cornell University’s Law School documents it quite well:

“The question of registering women was extensively considered by Congress in hearings held in response to the President’s request for authorization to register women, and its decision to exempt women was not the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about women. Since Congress thoroughly reconsidered the question of exempting women from the Act in 1980, the Act’s constitutionality need not be considered solely on the basis of the views expressed by Congress in 1948, when the Act was first enacted in its modern form. Congress’ determination that any future draft would be characterized by a need for combat troops was sufficiently supported by testimony adduced at the hearings so that the courts are not free to make their own judgment on the question. And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause. The testimony of executive and military officials before Congress showed that the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than “equity.” The District Court, undertaking an independent evaluation of the evidence, exceeded its authority in ignoring Congress’ conclusions that whatever the need for women for noncombat roles during mobilization, it could be met by volunteers, and that staffing noncombat positions with women during a mobilization would be positively detrimental to the important goal of military flexibility.”

Now, this is a clearly ridiculous ruling and especially considering that the ERA was supposed to protect men and women and was supposed to make it so that there was no legal form of gender discrimination but especially none supported by the United States government. But pay attention to the details outlined by Cornell University’s Law School. Pay attention to that one particular line that says, “And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause.”

Can anyone spot the issue? Well, there is one issue. If this was the ruling then that automatically should mean that women should be forced to register for selective service considering that combat roles are now open for women. No, seriously, that was the ruling. Was it not? If it was good enough to deny that group of men their equal rights under the law and not be forced to sign up with selective service based off of women not being allowed to be in combat roles then it stands to reason that women should now be forced to register just like men are since combat roles are now open. The lesson that should be learned here is that certain feminists and certain people who go crazy with the equality arguments but want to protect women should be careful what they wish for. Those people wanted women in combat roles and now we have it but perhaps this is a true testament to the fact that not every part of being a man is great and glamorous.

We rest our case.


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. Dion is a 29 year old stay at home dad who specializes in psychology and social issues. If you have questions leave a comment, share and/or discuss. You can contact Dion via email at and be sure to use that email as much as you like. As always be skeptical, question everything and seek the truth. Thanks for reading!


Equal Rights Amendment

Cornell University Law School

Washington Post

LA Times

A Voice for Men

“Problematic:” Racism in Feminism’s Past

“Problematic”: Racism in Feminism’s Past”

By: Dion McNeil

One of the things that many of us may notice is how some people can view heterosexual “cis-gendered” white men as problematic based off of history. Now while it may be true that many people who happened to be straight white men did some rather horrible things it appears that there is an outright denial of atrocities committed by those who don’t fit that description. Of course it is almost too easy to spot the nonsense suggestions made by the very same people who make these claims. That is low hanging fruit. A more fruitful endeavor is discovering just how “problematic” certain ideologies are when it comes to being guilty of the same labels and accusations made at straight white men.

Racism is an “ism” thrown at people and sometimes it appears that label of racist is put out at random. Funny thing is that when it comes to some people, especially those who subscribe to modern day feminism, a little bit of educating is required to show the utter despicable racist ideals and actions perpetuated by those who did or would have easily integrated into that movement. For this idea we’ll be focusing on one of feminism’s earliest trail blazers in Susan B. Anthony. It’s not a secret that Susan was guilty of racist words. In fact, according to women’s history over at we find that Susan B. Anthony was described as such:

“She sometimes argued that educated white women would be better voters than “ignorant” black men or immigrant men.

In the late 1860s she even portrayed the vote of freedmen as threatening the safety of white women. George Francis Train, whose capital helped launch Anthony and Stanton’s Revolution newspaper, was a noted racist.”

Someone could easily say, “well, that was a reflection of the times and lots of people were racist then!” Oh, we see that you’re willing to make an exception for Susan B. Anthony but hold the racist cloud over the heads of all white straight men? Do we need to discuss what a double standard is? But you see we aren’t done with Susan yet. Honestly if all she did was say some racist things that’d be one issue but she took insult to injury with some of her other actions. One action in particular is something she is partially responsible for and something that many in the minority community still feel the effects of.

To those saying that what Susan was doing was just a reflection of the times really needs to “educate” themselves as so many feminists love to tell others to do. Because according to Encyclopedia Susan B. Anthony and even Elizabeth Cody Stanton performed some rather despicable acts. For example:

“Some women’s rights activists, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, turned to the Democratic Party, portions of which supported white woman suffrage in order to stop black men from securing the vote.”

How are those who would act as apologists for this particular brand of feminism going to explain that one away? The outright demonizing of men of color, black men in particular, is disgusting. Quite frankly this wasn’t just a belief that was held during that time but something that brandished deep conviction. Even if someone wanted to argue that they were simply taking those actions because black men would get the right to vote over white women that defense would make no sense. One doesn’t solve a problem with equality by upholding a standard of inequality and one would have to engage in some heavy duty mental gymnastics to suggest that black people, male or female, had more privileges than white women at that time or any time for that matter.

In a book written by  M. J. Cosson entitled, “Affirmative Action” there is a description of the word, “minority” as it applies to affirmative action can become “problematic.” This is from Chapter 6 in the book:

“The term ‘minority’ in regard to race means many things. In general, it applies to anyone who is not Caucasian. For example, a person could be all or part African American, Native American, or Asian American and still be considered a minority.”

Doesn’t sound that bad, right? Well the same part of this paragraph should spark some serious questions. Take a look:

“It is becoming more difficult to use race as a factor in determining who qualifies to be a recipient of affirmative action.”

Let’s not pick on Susan B. Anthony so much. Her running mate in Elizabeth Cady Stanton also made some pretty asinine statements. If we were to glance over Phillip H. Rubio’s book entitled, “A History of Affirmative Action” we’ll find this following statement from Elizabeth Cody Stanton:

“Prejudice against color, of which we hear so much, is not stronger than that of sex.”

If that doesn’t demonstrate just how delusional some of these first wave feminists could be nothing will. Mind you, according to Mr. Rubio’s book and according to all available sources at least 4 million black men, women and children were slaves at the time that she made this statement. That isn’t to suggest that some of their ideas weren’t good ones and some of their actions weren’t justified. But for some people to sit around and suggest that there isn’t a serious problem of historical and even current racism located within the feminist movement is absolutely ridiculous. Some of the suggestions and even direct statements made by these feminists were far worse than what some straight white men would have said. It’s almost as if the suggestion is that we are supposed to ignore all these clearly racist ideas and focus only on the ones certain feminists want us to develop tunnel vision upon.

That can’t be right. Affirmative Action, in every meaning, was meant to be originally for those who were slaves (namely African Americans) to reverse the damage that Jim Crow laws and slavery inflicted. After all it was drafted shortly after very troubling times in the United States. So then how did women (as a specific group) end up being qualified for affirmative action if those women may have been Caucasian? We know there were white female slave owners. We know there were white women who said some pretty nasty things about African American men with Susan B. Anthony being a shining example of this. We know that there were plenty of white women who participated in the violence against, marginalization of and general misery directed towards people of color. So then how in the world did we end up in a situation where women were added when minority people in general, be they man or woman, would have sufficed in the definition?

We know how we ended up there. According to Terry H. Anderson’s book entitled, “The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action” we learn how we ended up in such a situation. We all know it was John F. Kennedy who put affirmative action into play but rarely do we get to see some of the decisions that led up to gender being apart of affirmative action. In Terry Anderson’s book we learn that in the U.S. House of Representatives Martha Griffiths made the following statement:

“You are going to have white men in one bracket, you are going to try to take colored men and colored women and give them equal employment rights, and down at the bottom of the list is going to be white women with no rights at all.”

Shortly after one of the most powerful act of law would change the landscape of the country. But analyze the above statement. Again, it was “white men”, “colored women”, “colored men” and then “white women.” It is almost as if not only did this person hold white men as the most powerful but at the same time it is as if they were suggesting that if people of color actually got rights that would somehow lessen the rights of white women who were by far more advantaged than what any black person could historically claim at that time. So, if it was clear that was the case just why did she want gender added? Could it be that she sensed that this would later benefit white women more than minorities in general? We can’t say for sure.

Piggy backing off of the above paragraph while we can’t say for sure what was the aim we certainly have the results of today. According to Sally Kohn’s piece over at Time Magazine affirmative action disproportionately benefits white women than any demographic of people of color. That may be some distressing news to hear considering that piece of legislation and eventual executive order by President Kennedy was intended for those who had a legacy of being slaves and were marginalized in ways white women could never attest to in the United States. If we want to be exact affirmative action benefits white women at a 6% higher clip than any minority group including minority women. That doesn’t sound that high until you consider just how many white women are in the United States.

Now that we have explored some of the ridiculous racism located in feminism’s history we’ll leave you with a wonderful list created by Toast. Enjoy! Click here for the Toast’s list.


A History of Affirmation Action (Phillip Rubio) (Women’s History)

Time Magazine

Affirmative Action by M.J. Cosson

The Toast


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at Thank you for reading!

“Problematic:” The Curious Case of Lena Dunham

“Problematic”: The Curious Case of Lena Dunham

By: Dion McNeil

Few people have gotten a firestorm of criticism and a high amount of excusing of her words than Lena Dunham. This woman was the genius behind the hit show “Girls” that got awards, a wave of approval and a viewer total to boot. However despite all of her success 2014 was not a particularly kind year to Lena Dunham. In her rather bizarre book entitled, “Not That Kind of Girl” she details elements of her life that are questionable, quite disturbing to many and appears to paint her as more of a sexual predator of a child, namely her sister, than a woman who simply started from the bottom and rose to the top. We should reserve judgment because we aren’t fully aware of these details are true or not. But there is power in an admission of guilt. After all that is the one piece of solid evidence that made the likes of Bill Cosby appear ultimately guilty of his crimes. Should we not then hold Lena Dunham to the same standard?

In the book Lena Dunham gave an account of situations that were eye brow archers to some readers. In a piece written by Melanie Blow for the Stop Abuse Campaign sums up one situation pretty well:

“In Lena’s case, the alarming element is that a  17-year-old would normally be uncomfortable masturbating in bed with her eleven-year-old sister.”

Ms. Blow made a great point. Now of course a 17 year old masturbating next to an eleven year old isn’t inherently a sign that one is a sexual predator. However one of the things that convinced some people that Michael Jackson was a sexual predator of children was the fact that he would routinely sleep in bed with other children. There was no solid evidence that he masturbated next to those children. No, he just slept next to them. It just seems that reason and logic would call for us to hold Lena Dunham to same exact standard despite her being 17. The question we need to ask ourselves is that if Lena were a male and masturbated next to his eleven year sister in bed, coupled with all the other questionable things that happened between those two, would we quickly deem that man a pedophile?

An even more distressing idea is that there are people actually defending such actions and such depictions. After all in the book Lena even pointed to finding peddles and rocks in her sister’s vagina when her sister was only a year old. Someone would have to demonstrate that the average, or even a smaller portion, of one year old girls are running around placing objects into their vagina given the size of the vagina and given the general ignorance of the area at that age. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to believe that it was Lena who did such things to her own sister. Where is the proof for the reasonable assumption that it was Lena who did this to her sister? Lena never says this directly but read this piece that is also from the Stop Abuse Campaign:

“The most disturbing of the three allegations is the one most innocuous on the surface. There is nothing disturbing, at all, about a little girl kissing her little sister. That’s the stuff of beloved family pictures. But what is disturbing is that Lena wanted to kiss her sister more than her sister wanted to be kissed, and she wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. What’s even more disturbing is that she bribed her sister with candy- that’s manipulative.”

Let us be honest here for a second. Are we really to believe that, if her sister had pebbles and rocks in her vagina, and given the amount of questionable and bizarre behavior described in Lena Dunham’s own book written by herself that it is out of the realm of possibility that it was Lena that put those objects into her sister’s body like that? Of course it isn’t. The argument here is that the only reason why more people don’t hold Lena to the label of child predator is specifically because she is a woman. After all there are men who are held as child predators for lesser offenses and Michael Jackson is a prime example. Even Michael didn’t have the nerve to write a book detailing events that are anywhere near the level of egregious behavior located in Lena Dunham’s book. This isn’t written to try to absolve some of the questionable behavior of Mr. Jackson. The purpose is to ask for a little bit of consistency.

Strangely enough when there are men who are accused of sex crimes, and even if the supposed victims are grown women, there appears to be lynch mobs in some of those situations. Yet we don’t see the same thing with Lena Dunham. The question is why? Well some clues appear when we consider which ideology Lena Dunham subscribes to which is feminism. If you are apart of an ideology with so many in the rank and file who have no problem excusing the #killallmen and #dieciswhitescum then it isn’t all that shocking that one can excuse Lena’s rather disturbing book. Of course someone can just say that no proof has been presented of rash amounts of feminists excused this behavior. That is a lie. We know there was a lot of feminist condemnation but also a lot of feminist support.

Where is this support? Thanks to this piece written by Jessica Bennett over at Time Magazine we have some clues. Look no further than Tumblr with a group named, “Those Kinds of Girls.” In that group we see all sorts of stories about sexual exploration as youth. That group has all sorts of feminist presences and that much is irrefutable. Okay, so a Tumblr group isn’t that serious because Tumblr is known for having a large feminist presence regardless of how legitimate or how ridiculous the issue is. But when we get Roxanne Gray, Jimmy Kimmel, writers for the Washington Post, Katha Pollitt, a huge Tumblr and Twitter base of defenders and certainly feminists who stepped in to defend this woman it does demonstrate some degree of reasonable assumption of defenders. This situation can cause a person to wonder about the morals of these defenders and apologists of Lena Dunham. When there were men being accused of similar labels such as child molester and child predator without a book detailing such events were these same people present to defend that man?

One of the most telling angles that some people used to defend this woman does cause the other eyebrow to raise. Now we have a complete face of shock with both eyebrows erected. When a woman does something wrong and if there is any room to defend her sometimes we see people use the, “you wouldn’t be saying this if she were a woman” dodge. We also tend to see the whole, “well when men were doing it they didn’t get as much criticism.” Jessica Bennett wrote that piece for Time and she is a contributor to the Lean In campaign spearheaded by feminists and in that piece she added that some mentioned that even Bill Cosby didn’t get as much criticism. Let’s be honest. That is an utter and ridiculous lie. The man lost business opportunities, shows aren’t even shown for the most part, series cancelled, tours cancelled and he did have his defenders but we know how the general public viewed him. Meanwhile Lena Dunham hasn’t seen any significant loss of money, her show still airs and people till this day defend her. If Mr. Cosby got this same treatment I’m sure he’d prefer what Lena Dunham got over his current situation.

We can be sure if Bill Cosby wrote a book detailing sexual abuse or at least what some perceived as a admission of such that he wouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt that Lena Dunham has been getting. Think about how Cosby would have been perceived from the start if he wrote a passage like this in a book about his younger sister:

“Basically anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”

So what gives? This woman clearly has some issues and many people reading her book figured that much out. However that isn’t enough for some people. Instead of the question being would she get as much criticism if she were a man the question should be did she get less criticism and defenders because she is a woman?


Melanie Blow (Stop Abuse Campaign)

Maya Rhodan (Time Magazine)

Jessica Bennett (Time Magazine)


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at Thank you for reading!

Incompatibilities: Germany’s New Rape Problem

“Incompatibilities”: Germany’s New Rape Problem”


By: Dion McNeil

Many of us are aware of the new issue concerning some migrants to Europe but Germany in particular. Some of us are aware of the outright cover up or at least an appeared cover up of so called, “rape gangs” that targeted women during New Years eve in Cologne. Women were targeted by many who were migrant men. These women were essentially herded like sheep, separated from the main crowds and proceeded to gang rape these women. According to Germany there were more than 500 reports of criminal activity with at least 40% of those reports being sexual in nature. This means that if there were, for example, 500 reports of crime and 40% of those reports were sexual in nature that would mean that in one night there were at least 200 of those reports were descriptions of sex crimes.

According to both Germany and CNN information the men who are alleged to have participated in these rape gangs were men of Arab and African descent. Now of course these reports are just allegations. However to get so many reports in just one night does bring a degree of credibility. Sure someone could easily say that people lie but this many people lying about the exact same situation, similar description of alleged attackers and all in the same night in much of the same area doesn’t scream “coincidence” to the rational thinker. One of the suggestions thrown out into the wild world of the internet is that these men were migrants which some of the victims in their descriptions of vocal accents and physical description such as skin color would appear to support. But of course in the world of political correctness these descriptions might not fit the bill of someone who is guilty of gang rape.

Many of us remember the gang rape story at the University of Virginia (UVA). Sometimes people, especially victims of such a crime, are not believed when they do come forward. Stories such as the UVA scandal explains this to some degree. However as bogus as some of the details in that case were hardly anyone can deny the level of validity in this particular situation. Women across European countries have experienced rape but many of those rapes were in fact committed by migrants and/or asylum seekers.

Here is some simple points of evidence to keep in mind:

  • In a piece written by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard we learn that in 2012 there was a brutal gang rape of a 30 year old mother by 8 men who were all asylum seekers that were from some pretty gender regressive areas such as Afghanistan. Now this is just one case, right? Well it was bad enough for Sweden’s top public prosecutor at that time to call it the worst sex crime in Sweden’s history.
  • Sweden, Germany and other parts of Europe have witnessed sharp increases in rapes once certain individuals arrive to their countries from places that have regressive attitudes towards women. Certain countries in the African continent and many countries in the Middle East have generally oppressive governments that treat the women in those countries like second class citizens. So when some of those men come over to countries that generally have different attitudes from their own home countries problems will almost certainly come at least from some of those men.
  • We know that the attacks in Germany weren’t the only time European countries have reported a noticeable increase in rape and sexual crimes when migrant men showed up to their doorsteps. Of course this doesn’t mean every person from a certain country is a rapist but it does mean that some ideologies and some views in a country are not compatible with Western countries values.
  • Why stop? If one can rape and be defended by those who subscribe to political correctness and defend any action so long as that person is “not the true Scotsman” why would it matter? Would any of you care what someone thought if any action you took could be defended and even if that action is rape? Think about it. If you had a book like the Quran which is known to contain all sorts of regressive ideas about women and how women are to be treated, your countries are known to have governments and laws that oppress women and yet people will call others racist for criticizing, not your racial identity, but your ideology why would you not be a morally bankrupt monster? Even now after the situation in Germany many of Germany’s own citizens and some in the German media accused the German government of a cover up.
  • As many of us are fully aware these men who come from these countries who oppress women are probably not going to respect women just because they left their home countries. Think about it. If you grew up in a country where a woman could actually be put in jail when she was the one who was raped then it makes perfect sense that you would engage in a mob rape of German women.

801220e0bd491c9e4c089e2be4e5a017So who is to blame for all of this? Well of course the perpetrators in these European countries. Some of the citizens in these European countries are asking why more isn’t being done or even said about all of this. The obvious answer is political correctness. Just criticizing Islam in any way or criticizing someone who happens to be a Muslim can get someone branded as a racist. Of course Islam is just an ideology and is in no way translatable into a race. That doesn’t matter to those who subscribe to political correctness. It needs to stop. This is the cost of silencing people, shouting them down and/or daring them to question someone that another person or “professional victim” deems to be a marginalized group. It doesn’t matter if someone is marginalized or not. Rape is wrong. Those responsible for rape are wrong and any ideology that has books that spell out that rape is justified needs to be held to the highest level of scrutiny.

All too often whenever someone questions Islam it always becomes a battle of who can call who a racist the fastest. Let’s get one thing straight. No, you are not a racist for questioning Islam. Anyone, and yes this means anyone, who thinks otherwise knows nothing about Islamic demographics and should refrain from engaging in a conversation they know little to nothing about. First, examine the Cologne attackers. Remember the mentioning of Arab and men of African descent? That alone tells anyone that there appears to be different looks, different places of origin and even different racial identities for Muslims. So anyone telling another person that they are wrong for criticizing Islam or questioning why so many Muslim men feel like rape is okay that they are racist for doing so then that person doesn’t appear to know that Islam covers a lot of racial identities. A lot of people criticize Islam. Are they all racist? Even the ones who were once Muslim themselves?

There are some in the West who call our society a rape culture. No, this isn’t a rape culture. Well, at least it isn’t a rape culture currently anyways. We need to start questioning why has this rape epidemic went out of control, where the heck is the response from the people always calling the west a rape culture and why an entire government in Germany appear to have masses of their own citizens shouting about a cover up of gang rapes. We need to fight back against this tide of sex crimes and once and for all hold the ideologies, be they personal, mob mentality or religious, accountable. Shouting people down and labeling them with an “ism” is cowardly, unnecessary and, to be frank, had a hand in creating this.

It’s time we stop acting like certain ideologies are immune from criticism. No, there isn’t any part of telling someone, “that’s offensive” or “that’s racist” that is apart of intellectual thought or discussion. Conventional wisdom tells us that if it exists it can be criticized. There are those in Islam who would say that evolution never happened, that women are not as intelligent as men, that women are responsible for their own rapes, that men cannot control themselves as they are bloodthirsty monsters and none of that appears to get the same vitriolic response as someone simply questioning Islam and it’s rape enabling views. For too long have people shouted down others just for having an opinion and maybe if those opinions were heard we would be aware of the incompatibility of certain Muslims from certain countries.

Do we need to stop immigration? Of course not. Nobody seriously is suggesting that while not needing medication. But what is a good idea is simply questioning people on their views of society, women, men, children and other vital people, places and ideas to our Western democracies. If those people are found to violate any of our values they should be deported immediately and if the crime is a horrible one such as rape they should face a harsh punishment before deportation. We need to send a clear message. The only rape cultures are the ones located in the countries where some of these men came from. The rape culture suggestions are exaggerated here but the exaggerations will become reality so long as we shout down others just for having a question or an opinion. We should send a loud and clear message that we will not allow people who have incompatible views to create a rape culture here.

This stops here and now.



Gatestone Institute


Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at Thank you for reading!

Demonizing a Rape Victim

“Demonizing A Rape Victim: Selena”

By: Dion McNeil

Rape is one of the worst crimes imaginable in our society. Then again rape is bad across the world and it really doesn’t matter if a country has regressive views and often ridiculous ideas about rape. Victims often live through hell. Perpetrators sometimes go free to rape others. This particular crime is so egregious that the mere mention of rape has the subject of discussion, violent conflict and sometimes brings back memories that victims can be traumatized by. Very few crimes affect so many and have such lasting effects.

It would make sense to not demonize someone coming forward. No, we shouldn’t just “listen and believe” a person making a claim but treating them with basic dignity and respect is a good way to go about it. What we should not do is call someone a racist, target them at their place of work and call them all sorts of names. It doesn’t matter if there are implications made about the accused. It shouldn’t matter who were accused. An investigation by law enforcement and the facts are all that should matter. This wasn’t the case for a young woman named Selena Waterman-Smith.

This young lady was gang raped in a car in Dubai. The details are pretty clear as she describes being at a hotel bar, having a few drinks, meeting the man who would go on to rape her and going out into the hotel’s parking lot. She was then forcefully put into a car by Ameen Quoz Najati and Younes Jaan Ali Jabri Quarashi and another unnamed man who proceeded to rape her. Selena reported the crime. Both Ameen Quoz Najati and Younes Jaan Ali Jabri Quarashi were caught and would get 10 years in prison which is a light sentence considering the crime. The third attacker went on the run and hasn’t been named thus far. Given the details and given the brutality involved of taking turns raping a woman one must wonder why the punishment wasn’t more severe.

At least someone went to prison as rape is often a difficult crime to prove and so many rapists go free. Rape being hard to prove isn’t the fault of any society but just the nature of the crime. However, when we do find reason to convict a rapist the book should be thrown at that person. This should be the case in this situation given some of the graphic details. In a Huffington Post article written by  Selena mentioned some pretty sick details:

“I was unconscious for a lot of it, which was a blessing.

“I remember waking in agony and wasn’t able to move or do anything.

“I couldn’t get a grip on reality, where I was or what I was doing. They were pinning me on the floor, laughing and taking photos.”

Honestly Selena doesn’t even have to mention have post traumatic stress disorder. That would appear to come with the territory after experiencing something so horrific. What is more horrific is the idea that anyone would take a proven case of rape, where there was justice served, where evidence was present, where the pictures were found and where a woman’s life was left in shattered pieces is the idea that anyone would use that as an opportunity to push a politically correct (but incorrect in this manner) opinion to try to demonize her. Some made the attempt to link her to Donald Trump because she appeared on his show and some of his regressive views of certain people and cultures. Some called her place of work with all sorts of ridiculous messages. She has been harassed via social media. The hate mobs that came for her obviously had no empathy for a woman who experienced one of the worst crimes that could be committed against another human being.

The Daily Reminder gives us some rather interesting actions taken by a few people who wanted to paint Selena as a racist:

“Someone posted a video containing a portion of her interview and suggesting all of the reports blaming Muslims for the Cologne sexual assaults were propaganda. Titles appear in the video which say, “Strange that Selina 1 day after this horror (3 days before this interview) on Insta still was happy.”

That’s apparently a reference to her Instagram account which the video creator found along with her Facebook page. The video not only suggests Selina is wrong about who attacked her but includes images of her full name and where she works from her Facebook page.”
If these claims have validity then this goes beyond just a simple disagreement. This goes beyond a misunderstanding. In fact this goes well beyond just someone trolling another person. Whomever is behind this form of harassment appears to be making an attempt to silence, demonize and derail Selena and her story. It’d be one thing if this were simply an accusation of rape and even then it isn’t morally or ethically right to make such statements and go as far as post a video about it on an alleged rape victim’s social media page. But this was a proven rape and even when proven there was someone who went out of their way to try to make this woman look bad.
The strange part about this is that there were people claiming she was lying, she was anti-Muslim and racist. It isn’t racist to get raped, report the rape and speak about the experience. It isn’t anti-Muslim to have Muslim men commit a rape and then the victim tells her story. She isn’t lying as there was a fair trial and even when convictions were given out the lack of a harsh punishment didn’t even fit the crime. This sort of disgusting display was perpetrated, more than likely, by people who subscribe to social justice. After all, even after the Germany mass rape reporting there are people out there willing to cover up that incident and calling others who call out the alleged migrant men who allegedly perpetrated this offense as nothing more than racists.
This is the cost of political correctness and using social justice as a weapon. We are now seeing where this dark tunnel is leading us to. When a rape victim cannot come forward, get convictions against the men she accused and still be vilified by people who are willing to brand her as a racist there is a problem. Nobody has presented undeniable proof that the West is a rape culture but it’ll soon become a rape culture if we keep marginalizing and demonizing victims for the sake of not taking a hard look at some of the people and ideologies who perpetrate these crimes. What is getting old really fast is the idea that if a Muslim commits a rape that by looking at some of these Islamic countries where some of men come from and Islam itself that this somehow translates to racism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only comedy in all of this (and there wasn’t much of it as rape is not funny at all) is that given the description of the harassment and the type of targeting done, defense of Islam, and many other factors we have a pretty good guess of who perpetrated this harassment. These would be the same people claiming that the West is a rape culture. We find the same people who do much of their so called “activism”  online. People like this would gladly mention how the West is a rape culture because rape victims cannot come forward without being demonized but for the sake of being the “PC police” they’ll gladly treat a proven victim of rape as nothing more than a privileged white woman who wants to make all men of color look bad. This is getting old. It is getting old fast. To those of you who are reading this action needs to be taken and we need to denounce the people who constantly shout down others to call them racist and step up to defend victims of rape.
We say your branding of racism will no longer convince those of us with a voice to speak out. We say it is you who are regressive. All of us have a mother. All of us have loved ones and friends. If people have no issue going after a person who is famous like Selena then we know what these people will do to someone who is not so famous and therefore not as capable of defending themselves or garnering a counter active criticism of those wishing to demonize people. We need to reach a day where it is no longer the case where we cannot objectively look at an ideology or a place of origin, customs, traditions and general climate of gender equality and not be able to criticize all of those factors without being brand as racists or Islamophoic for doing so.
We need to fight back, speak out and let it be known that labels will no longer rule the day. We do not need to be silent because these people aim to silence those who speak out even if that person happens to be a victim of a horrible crime like rape. That type of disgusting behavior needs to be called out, the perpetrators of such language need to be exposed and this sort of demonizing needs to be seen for what it is. There are those who wish people who do speak out a hellish rebuke. A unified response of hell no needs to be made as a response.


The Sun (Natalie Edwards and Nick Parker)

Ashley Percival (Huffington Post)

The Daily Reminder



Dion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. If anyone wants to be featured in the SBC Perspective series or have stories that should be covered by the Soap Box Corner email us at Thank you for reading!

American Women: So you think you might be pregnant?


One of the most trying times in a woman’s life is pregnancy. We know that this process is often difficult, stressful, painful and even dangerous. Many people weigh in about the issue. A lot of those people happen to be women who are currently pregnant, those who have children and some who cannot carry a child. In this section on the “American Women” series we will discuss the legal rights, things that need to change and things that should remain the same. Hopefully we will enlighten, educate and provide a reference for such information. In this section we will discuss the beginning. So you think you might be pregnant?


“I missed my cycle!”

So what to do if you believe you are pregnant or if you believe your partner may be pregnant? Well first things first. Contact a doctor or go to a hospital just to be sure. Even then in the earliest of stages we know that there probably isn’t a definite answer. A pregnancy test certainly isn’t going to be accurate very early on so you’ll probably need to take it a week after missing your period. But keep in mind that going to a doctor is the best thing to do.

There are several different types of pregnancy tests according to Web MD and they are as follow:

What types of pregnancy tests are available?

Two main types of pregnancy tests can let you know if you’re pregnant: urine tests and blood tests.

Urine tests can be done at home or in a doctor’s office. Many women first choose a home pregnancy test to take about a week after a missed period. Home pregnancy tests are private and convenient.

These products come with instructions. Follow them closely for the most accurate results. After testing, you can confirm results by seeing your doctor, who can perform even more sensitive pregnancy tests.

Blood tests are done at your doctor’s office, but are used less often than urine tests. These tests can detect pregnancy earlier than a home pregnancy test, or about six to eight days after ovulation. But with these tests, it takes longer to get the results than with a home pregnancy test.

Two types of blood pregnancy tests are available:

A qualitative hCG test simply checks to see if hCG is present. It gives a “yes” or “no” answer to the question, “Are you pregnant?” Doctors often order these tests to confirm pregnancy as early as 10 days after amissed period. However, some of these tests can detect hCG much earlier.

A quantitative hCG test (beta hCG) measures the exact amount of hCG in your blood. It can find even very low levels of hCG. Because these pregnancy tests can measure the concentration of hCG, they may be helpful in tracking any problems during pregnancy. They may also (in combination with other tests) be used to rule out a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy or to monitor a woman after a miscarriage when hCG levels fall rapidly.

Now according to the above information, in a more simplified way, you have two main options but within those options for a pregnancy test there is a bit of fleshing out. Keep in mind that pregnancy tests are not always accurate 100% of the time but we do know they are accurate 99% of the time. The urine test is less accurate than the blood test. Basically what these tests are measuring is hCG for the blood sample and urine is pretty straight forward. However this is no substitute for a doctor who can perform tests that are not readily available for the general public.

The most important part about taking a pregnancy test is following the instructions. Deviation from those instructions could result in an incorrect result. Another crucial part of the mindset you need to have if you think you are pregnant is the work you do beforehand. It may seem tedious but there is a reason why there is so much advice out there to monitor your monthly cycle. When you visit the doctor your due date, in all likelihood, will be calculated based off your last cycle and when you missed it. Of course there is no single way to know an exact due date as we know due dates tend to be wrong a lot of times. However the more information that can be relatively accurate the better off you’ll be.

Now why are due dates wrong so often? The answer to that question is about as wild as a ferocious wind. Everything from irregular periods to the time frame of ultrasounds can be the culprit. According to What To Expect there are four main reasons for the inconsistencies which are irregular periods, time of ultrasound, the fundal height is above average and abnormal AFP levels. Just think that if most times, unless you did the IVF option, a doctor will base your due date based off of when your last menstrual cycle was. If you have irregular menstrual cycles this could cause issues in determining a decently accurate due date. Even if a due date is reached we know women go into labor outside of those dates.

Keep a good record of medical histories of yourself and your family as that may become relevant information. Now this may not seem important to some women. However, consider that a history of preeclampsia with their mother could be hereditary and that condition can develop into a condition called eclampsia which can result in seizures and can actually be fatal. Histories of high blood pressure, sexually transmitted diseases and all relevant medical information should be subjects to disclose to your doctor.

This is part one of a collective series about American women. Yes, women across the spectrum can get pregnant. However American women have tend to have a lot of pregnancy complications. The series will expand to women across the board in the future.

Thanks for reading!


Web MD


What To Expect

The Bump


dionsbcDion McNeil is a writer for the Soap Box Corner. Dion is a stay at home dad who specializes in psychology, social issues, atheism and skepticism.

Phalanxed Perspectives #4: The Anti-Feminist Male



1. State your name, age, profession (there is no need to tell us where you work or the name of whomever or wherever you work but merely the type of job), whether you are a feminist or anti-feminist and the racial identity you identify with if you believe in such a thing.

“Zisaan Malik, 20 years old, working as a tutor and studies at University of Toronto majoring in philosophy. I am an anti-feminist, and I would be considered half Portuguese and half Arab, but a south Asian by nationality and European according to skull ancestry.”

2. If you are an anti-feminist why are you an anti-feminist?

“I am an anti-feminist not because I hate women or do not believe women should have equal rights to men. However I am rightfully justified in being an anti-feminist because modern day third wave intersectional Feminism has become nothing more than a bitter nasty misandrist cult. It all started with the nonsense of second wave feminism chanting slogans like “sisterhood is powerful join us now!” “

3. Do you understand the definition of feminism by the dictionary? If so, why are you an anti-feminist even if the dictionary just says they want equal rights?

“Feminism does not mean equality of the sexes. That’s egalitarianism. Feminism is defined as the political, social, and economic equality of women to that of men. Notice the language being used here? It presupposes an extreme assuming men have more rights than women and women ought to be like them, ironically feminists often display and imitate the worst behaviors of men. However so with that being said the dictionary definition does not apply to political ideologies which are actually judged by the policies of it’s members. Feminists have horrible policies therefore feminism is in a horrible sorry bitter toxic state.”

4. How do you feel about gender rights, equal opportunity and women?

“Women and men are already equal in America and already have equal opportunities to choose whatever career paths they want. Naturally however women and men gravitate towards different life choices and different careers due to sexual dimorphism, you’ll see more women working as nurses than men because women are more nurturing, but men with their greater upper body strength are found in labor or military jobs. Despite feminism’s best attempts at gender neutral pronouns.”

5. Tell us about when you first became an anti-feminist.

“Part of being an Atheist is questioning narratives and your own beliefs at times, anti-feminism just hit me one day out of the blue so I began researching and questioning the feminist narrative by reading books like Peter Knight’s Sex, Lies, and feminism. Christina Hoff Sommers The War On Boys. I also engaged in debates and watched videos of others who were anti feminist.”

6. What is your response when you’re told that you’re “mansplaining”? Do you feel like your opinion is not being taken seriously or such a claim is designed to silence you? What do you think the purpose of telling someone they are mansplaining really is? Do you agree that men can mansplain?

“Mansplaining is a copout technique to silence criticism of feminism by males or to enslave men by taking away their freedom of speech. It’s cultural authoritarianism.”

7. Whenever you share your opinions are you normally called a misogynist or do you catch a lot of hatred?

“Yes in almost every thread by the most immature feminists.”

8. What do you do when you run into someone who is particularly nasty? Have you ever been threatened because of your views on feminism? If so, could you give us some detail and the specific nature of the threat?

“I outwit them. You don’t need heavy statistics for bitter nasty people. You just need clever mind games. Give a guilty person enough rope and they’ll supply enough evidence to hang themselves.”

9. You mentioned atheism. Some say atheism plus, or atheism that involves social issues, was started in part due to feminism. Do you think that is the case or do you blame feminism for atheism plus?

“Yes. Atheism plus was a result of third wave feminism’s toxic influence.”

10. You do understand that your responses to questions 6 and 7 can come across as a little aggressive. The normal response from some would be, “why are you so angry?” or “masculinity is fragile and we see it in you.” Could you understand how becoming angry like that could create or even motivate that type of reaction?

“I’d rather not appease or be humble to cultural authoritarians.”

11. How many times a week do you get called a misogynist? Like, give us an estimated number.

“It depends per month but it’s beginning to die down because people are starting to understand my position and I have researched a lot more than the typical person I argue against.”

12. Is anyone close to your or in your family, maybe a friend, a feminist? If so, how do you and that person interact?


13. Let’s say we have a nice person. They can be male or female as we don’t know your preference. And they wanted to date you. If they told you that they were a feminist how would you react?

“I’m a straight male. So, I’m interested in women. I judge people based off of character but I am interested in women only. If she has good character I wouldn’t care if she was a feminist or not.”

14. Are you actually saying that you’d date a feminist? Wouldn’t you as an anti-feminist be opening Pandora’s Box on that one?

“Maybe. It’d depend on the person’s character.”

15. And have you ever dated a feminist before or dated someone who you suspected was a feminist or could have been a feminist?

“No I haven’t dated feminists or someone who proclaimed to be. I’ve dated women who didn’t identify as a feminist though. But now I’ve taken a break from dating to build up my career, knowledge and character. As well as to give some much needed attention to myself as well as opposed to always worrying about others or helping them out. I mean I’d like to help out others but sometimes you have to work on yourself too.”

16. You go to school, right? Well, you say that feminists, or at least the ones you tend to run into, are cultural authoritarians. Does that apply to academia as well in that you believe that feminism is being forced into schools and institutions of higher learning?

“Yes definitely it is being forced in the form of social justice, and safe spaces. I am very opposed to the term social justice. It is about the government gaining ever increasing wealth and influence in order accomplish economic redistribution, and what the champions of social justice call good things which fall under the category of re-engineering society to appease their bigotry.

I would like to add that I am a cultural libertarian. Safe spaces are about silencing debates and critical inquiry to appeal to whiny adolescents that can’t handle dissent or views that challenge their bigotry.”

17. What do you think of the term “rape culture”?

“We do not live in a rape culture in the West. Saudi Arabia is a rape culture where women can get stoned to death just for being raped. See, that is a rape culture. Over here? No, there is no rape culture.”

18. What do you think of male privilege?

Male privilege is a myth. Males are less privileged than ever as Christina Hoff Sommers explains in her book, “The War on Boys.” Feminists wage a battle against men’s education and boys are treated as defective girls.

19. Since the idea of white male privilege is out there so often and you certainly aren’t a white male even in a historical sense do you find yourself having a leg up in debates due to your heritage and racial identity? You know, because someone couldn’t just throw out the privileged white male title at you?

“There is no white male privilege. Once again this is a feminist and social justice warrior myth. White people work just as hard as others and succeed on a proportionate footing. The idea of white privilege is just a racist and dogmatic view.”

20. We appreciate having you on SBC Perspectives Mr. Malik. We hope to have you again for later episodes and articles. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

“Thank you very much I appreciate and am honored to have been a part of this interview. I’d like to share some notes.

WHAT IS FEMINISM ? Rendall (The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States, 1780-1860, London:Macmillan, 1985) states that the word “Feminism” was first used in English in 1894. It was derived from the French word “feminisme”, which was apparently invented by the French Utopian Socialist, Charles Fourier. I would like to attempt a definition of Feminism which covers all the “Feminisms” mentioned in this book – and perhaps even some that are not. Feminists seem to have some difficulty in defining Feminism – mostly because Feminists have conquered western societies so thoroughly that there are few non-Feminists left for Feminists to contrast themselves with. Groups usually define themselves in relation to non-members, and as this particular group can find few articulate non-members, it ends up with a fuzzy self-image. I hope to be of assistance in this regard, as this book focuses on the thesis that the victims-of-oppression model fits the situation of men at least as well as it fits the situation of women, and that men’s oppressors are the Feminists (male and female) – plus some overly chivalrous non-Feminist males. In my view, this book argues that thesis successfully, but it is up to you to judge if I have been successful. Another problem for anyone who wants to define “Feminism” is that, as each generation of Feminists wins its battles and retires, the next generation comes along with a completely new set of worries, complaints and demands. For much of the nineteenth century, Feminists were concerned with obtaining the right to vote, and property rights. Since the end of World War Two, the focus has been first on employment issues and abortion, and later on crimes where women are typically the complainants and men are the alleged perpetrators – e.g.., rape, domestic violence and child sexual abuse. These different generations tend to define themselves in terms of their own current policy goals. This confuses any attempt at getting an overview of this entire political movement: A central problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is or accept definition(s) that could serve as points of unification. Without agreed upon definition(s), we lack a sound foundation on which to construct theory or engage in overall meaningful praxis. (Bell Hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, Boston: South End Press, 1989, p. 17) This uncertainty about the essence of Feminism is one of the hallmarks of Postmodern Feminism. Previously, Feminists did not find it quite so hard to define Feminism. The textbook on Feminism by the Bristol Women’s Studies Group (1979), for example, despite declaring itself unable to give a neat definition of the academic discipline of Women’s Studies itself, gives the following definition of its subject-matter, Feminism. I consider this an excellent definition, and my own definition is very similar. “By feminism we mean both an awareness of women’s position in society as one of disadvantage or inequality compared with that of men, and also a desire to remove those disadvantages.” (Bristol Women’s Studies Group, Half the Sky: An Introduction to Women’s Studies,1979, p. 3) A non-Feminist might feel that that definition demonstrated a fairly rational turn of mind – one that left the door open for lucid discussion about whether it was actually true to say women’s position in society was one of disadvantage or inequality. The desire to remove those disadvantages and inequalities would presumably disappear if it was agreed, after a period of dialogue between Feminists and non-Feminists, that they did not, in fact, exist. But contrast this with the mentality implicit in the following: “If feminism is broadly defined as the quest for a sexually just society, many people share at least some of its goals, though they disavow the label.” (Meehan, British Feminism from the 1960s to the 1980s, in Smith (ed.) 1990, p. 189 The problem with this definition is that it simply takes for granted, rather than overtly states, what the previous definition claimed, i.e., that women’s position in society is one of disadvantage vis-a-vis men. A Feminist is one who (as the very word suggests) is primarily, if not exclusively, interested in pushing the female point of view and women’s agendas. To simply assume this is the same as suggesting sexual justice betrays a one-sided frame of mind which would find constructive dialogue with non-Feminists virtually impossible. A good definition of a Feminist appeared in a leaflet advertising the Public Sessions of the 1993 National Conference of the New Zealand Women’s Electoral Lobby (WEL), in Wellington, New Zealand: WEL defines a feminist as someone who believes that women are socially and economically disadvantaged because of their gender and acts on that belief. Here is another interesting view of Feminism: “Feminism is not, in my view, a set of a priori answers, nor a commitment to a particular ideology. It is rather a willingness to follow questions wherever they lead us. Feminism insists upon a commitment to listening with open ears to women’s experience in order to reformulate our actions and thought. It is thus more a method for creative inquiry than a set of predetermined points. Feminism is a commitment to women’s well-being, to pursuing justice instead of patriarchy, but the substance of women’s well-being is not necessarily known in advance.” (Pellauer: Moral Callousness and Moral Sensitivity: Violence against Women, in Andolsen et al. 1987, p. 34) This statement embodies a misconception as to the nature of ideology. No ideology, and no religion, is able to anticipate every single issue that might arise, and therefore issues are interpreted in the light of prevailing circumstances by the believers in that particular religion or ideology. So other ideologies are just as open-ended as Feminism is – tending to determine what questions are asked by its adherents, rather than providing all of the answers ready-made. That is why there are so many versions of Marxism, and why there can be theoretical debate about the proper Marxist approach to many issues. I am sure Feminism has always, by and large, followed questions wherever they happened to lead – but the point is that Feminist ideology determines what questions get asked in the first place. This book points out the inherent bias in the types of questions Feminists always ask, and it suggests other questions we could and should ask, as well. Feminists, as Pellauer points out, listen to women’s experience with open ears. By the same token, they do not listen to men’s experience with open ears. That is one clear indication of the bias that is inherent in Feminist ideology. “The reason feminism uncovered this reality, its methodological secret, is that feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men.” (Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified, p. 5) The unstated corollary to this, of course, is that they do not believe men. This one-eyed approach can also lead Feminists (and entire western legal systems) up unscientific paths, as we will see in connection with Lenore Walker’s book, The Battered Woman, in my chapter on domestic violence. As Pellauer points out, Feminism is a commitment to women’s well-being – but (by implication) not a commitment to men’s well-being. If there is ever a conflict between men’s well-being and women’s, there is no doubt at all which side Feminists are on. As we will see in the chapter on circumcision, western Feminists focus on female genital mutilation in Third-World countries – but when asked about male genital mutilation in their own countries, dismiss it as a men’s issue. One might think there is nothing wrong in having a bias. However, Feminists usually claim their goal is sexual equality, and the Feminazis (totalitarian Feminists) actively try to prevent Men’s Rights positions from being propagated on an equal basis with Feminist ideas. Therefore this bias is a very serious issue. My own approach to the problem is to define Feminism as the application of the victims of oppression model to the situation of women in society. Thus a Feminist is one who believes this model (in any given society) fits the situation of women more appropriately than it does the situation of men. This does not imply that all Feminists believe the “oppressors” of women are men – some Feminists believe the real oppressor is Society itself, and that men, too, are oppressed by the rigidity of the roles that Society forces them to adopt.

Feminists often pressure women by telling them they ought to want to supersede traditional female roles. This consciousness-raising takes place at/in Feminist meetings and women’s studies courses, movies and television shows, and magazine and newspaper editorials. They encourage women to enter traditionally male-only occupations, even when these occupations are manual and low pay and status. Many men, of course, agree that the work formerly reserved for men is somehow more important than women’s. Indeed, many men are taught (brainwashed?) to believe this from the cradle, because many aspects of the male role involve certain sacrifices and disadvantages (e.g., lower life expectancy, risk-taking, machismo, chivalry, military conscription) that men might not be willing to accept were there no compensations in the form of (apparently) higher status. Traditionally, women had a quieter sense of their own superiority to men which enabled them to face the different sacrifices and disadvantages their traditional role demands. Feminists, however, seem to believe women’s traditional role is inferior, and this role-confusion (penis envy?) is the true cause and origin of Feminism. Many of their foremost writers, beginning with Mary Wollstonecraft, have been practising lesbians or bisexuals, so this may explain the roleconfusion. (Camille Paglia, a prominent bisexual anti-Feminist may be the exception that proves the rule. She may call herself a “Feminist”, but that is almost compulsory for American women nowadays, and doesn’t actually mean anything.)

“Sexual dimorphism (males having different physical characteristics from females) is common among living organisms that reproduce sexually. Sometimes dimorphism is supplemented or replaced by non-visual cues, such as smell, etc., or by gender-specificbehaviours. Obviously, it would be very inefficient, from the point of view of the survival of a given species, if members of a species found it difficult to distinguish the males from the females. Among humans, gender roles help distinguish men from women.”

Peter Zohrab Sex, lies, and feminism

“Blame on the men”: An Introduction to Grand Cognitive Dissonance

All too often we notice how men and women are held to different standards. Often times women are held to impossibly ridiculous standards such as not being able to sleep with who they want, certain politicians trying to regulate a woman’s body and many other issues. Not many will deny this or at least they wouldn’t if critical thinking is being utilized. Granted men are also held to ridiculous standards and sometimes those standards are directly imposed by women. Society in general and the world in general can be unfair to a person for any reason but very few issues have caused such a polarization and a divide quite like the gender argument.

With all of that said there is one issue in particular that many agree with but many also disagree with. This whole idea that men caused all of the problems in the world and women are merely living in the world sharing none of the responsibility has to go. To make such a suggestion is to remove humanity from women which groups such as Women Against Feminism have made into a primary argument. Not only is the idea that men cause all the problems and women do not share a large part of the blame for the issues of the world completely a lie but it is beyond egregious to even make a suggestion. Anyone should be free to make any opinion they want to so long as the opinion doesn’t directly and irrefutably threaten someone’s life or harass them beyond a shadow of a doubt. But if the same group that wants to police up supposedly troubling and “problematic” language has so many of their members running around making such suggestions then maybe that group needs to do some soul searching.

Of course just making the suggestion that some women can be apart of the problems in the world is going to ignite debate. We all know this. But there are some simple points of evidence to this. Let us review this evidence.

Remember the Trophy Shirt Controversy? Target, as a company sold a shirt that said, “Trophy” on it that was sold in the women’s section. Of course many of us were wondering what exactly was the issue? Who cared? A lot of people cared and so much so so to the point where there were thousands upon thousands of angry tweets and facebook messages aimed towards Target. Now the important part to remember is that this whole article is about how women can cause problems too. One, not many of these people, many who were feminists, cared to notice how, according to Target’s own corporate website, that they have workers who make these shirts. As many of us can imagine those workers probably aren’t getting paid 15 dollars an hour to perform their back breaking label and many of those workers happen to be women. In all of this controversy about what a shirt said how many of those people, even the feminists, really cared about the grand irony of it all?

The Target situation also reveals a huge amount of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Remember this one line from the NBA about buying animal products. “Because when the buying stops the killing can too.” Interesting. So in other words even a business like the NBA can recognize that it isn’t just about who is producing the material but some of the blame can go on the consumer. After all, would we not jail a person for producing child pornography featuring eight years olds while at the same time punishing those who watch it? This is interesting because it appears that some social ideologies don’t seem to get this.

Who are the primary consumers of clothing made by women in the third world? Well if the Daily Mail article about who buys more clothing and accessories (men or women) is true then men spend only on average ninety-nine dollars less than women but that still makes women the primary buyer of clothing even when you consider this. When one considers the L.A. Times article about clothing and how damaging it is to human rights and safety conditions we learn that most of the clothing in the west comes out of those same third world countries where people get paid extraordinarily low wages and are often subjected to atrocious working conditions. If women are actively participating in the purchase of those clothing pieces in the West and if we are to believe that not buying elephant tusks and rhino horns is a generally good idea how are we going to perform ridiculous amounts of mental gymnastics and engage in outlandish cognitive dissonance and say that a lot of women are apart of the problem with this particular issue?

But the consuming portion isn’t over. As we know many social ideologies want to convince us that women aren’t even the blame for war. Throughout history there have been female war lords and even women as royalty and even the most foolish of people wouldn’t deny that. However the general claim of a particular social ideology that will tell us that women are not partially responsible for wars such as the American war in Iraq yet at the same time women benefit from such a war is absolutely asinine.

How do women contribute? Well again if you aren’t willing to absolve those who buy rhino horns and elephant tusks as you would call them apart of the problem how can we absolve women from this equation when it comes to wars? It is a widely known fact that many times there were women who fought in wars as well but primarily it was the men who did the heavy lifting and we all know that. Some people say the war in Iraq was about oil and there is evidence to support that suggestion. But wouldn’t that have benefited women in the West?

Let us consider some hard evidence. When looking at an issue like this one has to consider who are the consumers and who do it in the majority. Well of course you have to consider who are the majority of drivers that are taking up all this gasoline? That would be women according to a USA Today article about more women having driver’s licenses and having more vehicles than the average man. Of course that isn’t hard to imagine given the population of homeless men who aren’t even driving that far surpass any reasonable doubt of who are the majority of drivers. In other words it is business as usual. Men get resources for women and when things go South or criticism is levied men catch all the blame while women can sit back and not catch equal amounts of blame.

The consumerism idea doesn’t end there. To those who want to absolve women of all the world’s issues we bark back with the consumption equals support of oppression argument. Who in the world spends thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars on a blood diamond without a woman asking for it, suggesting she receive it or outright demand it? This is something that someone would have to be outright insane to suggest that women aren’t driving up the market on. Conflict diamonds are very profitable and the sale of these diamonds are pretty clear in scope.

Time Magazine

The Kimberley Process was hailed as a major step toward ending diamond-­fueled conflict. Ian Smillie, one of the early architects of the process and an authority on conflict diamonds, estimates that only 5% to 10% of the world’s diamonds are traded illegally now compared with 25% before 2003, a huge boon for producing nations that have a better chance at earning an income off their natural resources.

But Smillie and other critics argue that the Kimberley Process doesn’t go far enough. Unfair labor practices and human-rights abuses don’t disqualify diamonds under the protocol, while the definition of conflict is so narrow as to exclude many instances of what consumers would, using common sense, think of as a conflict diamond. Conflict diamonds under the Kimberley Process are defined as gemstones sold to fund a rebel movement attempting to overthrow the state—and only that. So when, in 2008, the Zimbabwean army seized a major diamond deposit in eastern Zimbabwe and massacred more than 200 miners, it was not considered a breach of the Kimberley Process protocols. “Thousands had been killed, raped, injured and enslaved in Zimbabwe, and the Kimberley Process had no way to call those conflict diamonds because there were no rebels,” says Smillie.

Even in some cases where the Kimberley Process has implemented a ban—as in the Central African Republic (CAR), where diamonds have helped fund a genocidal war that has killed thousands since 2013—conflict­ diamonds are still leaking out. A U.N. panel of experts estimates that 140,000 carats of ­diamonds—with a retail value of $24 ­million—have been smuggled out of the country since it was suspended in May 2013. The Enough Project, an organization dedicated to ending resource-based violence in Africa, estimated in a June report that armed groups raise $3.87 million to $5.8 million a year through the taxation of and illicit trade in diamonds.


Someone would have to engage in a serious amount of intellectual dishonesty and outright lying to suggest that women aren’t apart of the problem. They are not the sole cause but certainly a lot of women aren’t offering a solution either. So the next time you say men are the sole causes of all the world’s issue look at your lady friend wearing that huge rock and realize that she has a 5 to 10% chance of supporting people losing their arms and legs in mining incidents and supporting 10 year old children to go out with AK-47 rifles and shooting up villages.



Women Against Feminism

L.A. Times

Time Magazine

USA Today

Target (Corporate Website)

NBA (Anti-Animal Parts Purchasing Commercial)

Daily Mail

USA Today

Battle of the Trans

It is true that transgendered people can be marginalized. It also true that a lot of violence can come at a person who is transgendered. Even if someone wanted to be dishonest to the highest degree and claim that some transgendered people don’t face discrimination they couldn’t do it with a straight face. However when someone wants to try so hard to inject a transgendered person into a video game that becomes a whole different kind of problem. When something like this goes down one can expect that many gamers will respond and the responses won’t be so kind.


Take Brianna Wu for example. Brianna is a transgender woman. She is known to make splashes online with information that can be factual or just flat out lies. There is no other way to interpret it without being intellectually dishonest. Oh but there are those times where Brianna appears to be mistaken on some issues. Enter Oryx aka The Taken King from the popular Destiny video game. Brianna caused some cheering and also quite a bit of jeering when she made some statements. Polygon also backed her.


When someone goes and criticizes a game like Destiny using Brianna Wu’s tactics such as proclaiming Samus from the Metroid series to be a trans woman (which is an issue that will be later addressed in future blogs) that will almost assuredly create some anger. Now to those of you reading this who aren’t even gamers and never played Destiny it is easy to assume that Oryx is a transgendered male. Of course that person would have to throw out all understanding of what it means to be transgendered but we should  include everyone no matter how ignorant they may be on the issue.


To proclaim Oryx as a transgendered woman is to create controversy due to Destiny’s large following. There were numerous accounts of transgendered individuals who were insulted by this. After all it isn’t hard to see why those people would interpret this as someone quite literally comparing them to a hideous space creature who tries to dominate the entire universe. At the same time there were gamers who just didn’t want this kind of identity politics injected into games. But then there were those who were avid followers of the Destiny series and knew the lore of the game that knew better than to believe this Polygon article or Brianna Wu for that matter.


Anyone who has played the game will probably inform you of the “grimoire” which is the in-game bestiary information, character information and general information about every environment, planet, faction and even history within the game. In that grimoire explanations of every species are given and even the Hive race that Oryx belongs to is mentioned. Everything about the hive speaks of evil, darkness and utter despair should someone run into them. So right off the bat the transgendered gamers who were offended are validated with such information being readily available about the species they believe they are being compared to.


The specific claim that Oryx is transgendered is so wrong on so many levels for those of us who are students of the Destiny grimoire that some of us find the suggestion utterly laughable. First, let us read below what the hive actually are.


“Hive are born from pupae, much like colonial insects, and they feed on worms that they swallow whole.[25] Hive show traits of sequential hermaphroditism; All are born biologically female, and gain the ability to metamorphosize into male forms and back again as they reach adulthood.”

Now that would make a lot of sense given what some of us known about the Hive. But notice some of the words that are being used. “Pupae”, “insects”, “worms”, “hermaphroditism” and mentions of changing genders. Now it is easy to understand how someone can misinterpret that as being transgendered. But let us be clear. Being transgendered and being a biological hermaphrodite is in no way the same. If anyone wants to question this then we’ll let Webster decide the argument.


  • 1:  an abnormal condition especially among the higher vertebrates of having both testicular and ovarian tissue in the same individual—compare intersexuality, pseudohermaphroditism

  • 2:  a normal condition of most plants and some animals (as an earthworm) in which male and female reproductive organs are present in the same individual

 In other words what Merriam-Webster is describing is something like a clown fish. There are multiple hermaphrodites in nature. These animals and even some plants tend to change their biological sex in order to reproduce and ensure the survival of their species. This clever and amazing adaptation has served many species well through Earth’s history of life.
:  of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person’s sex at birth
Now if someone can spot how being transgendered is the same as being a hermaphrodite then that person deserves the medal of all medals. Someone not identifying as a gender, refusing the idea of a gender or believing they have a different gender identity than what they were born as is clearly not the same as an earthworm who changes gender based off of biological need. It is not the same and even the dictionary definitions demonstrate this.
So then what are we left with? If Oryx and the hive are not transgendered than what are they? After all all that mention of worms, insects and pupae. But wait, are you starting to see a trend here? These hive creatures live underground, are mostly blind, can change genders based off of need, appear to reproduce and act like insects and other factors appear to show something. What other animal acts this way with exception to eating worms? Oh! We know what animal is just like that! That would be the earthworm! So what Brianna Wu and Polygon tried so desperately to coin as a transgendered person is actually a biological hermaphrodite that clearly isn’t the same as a transgendered person.

“Night crawlers are so named because they are usually seen feeding above ground at night. They burrow during the day—typically keeping close to the surface—capable of digging down as deep as 6.5 feet (2 meters).

The worm’s first segment contains its mouth. As they burrow, they consume soil, extracting nutrients from decomposing organic matter like leaves and roots. Earthworms are vital to soil health because they transport nutrients and minerals from below to the surface via their waste, and their tunnels aerate the ground. An earthworm can eat up to one third its body weight in a day.


Night crawlers also mate on the surface. They are hermaphroditic but do not self-fertilize. Following mating, each worm forms a tiny, lemon-shaped cocoon out of a liquid secreted from its clitellum, the familiar-looking bulge seen near the first third of the earthworm’s body. The sperm and egg cells are deposited inside the cocoon, and it is buried. After a two- to four-week gestation period, the baby worms emerge.”

In other words it is pretty clear which animal the hive were probably modeled after and that animal almost certainly has to be the earthworm. The similarities are just too striking. The hive dig, are hermaphrodites, cannot see but react to light (which ironically one of the main mechanics in Destiny is something called “light” and that makes sense given that the hive are the main enemies with Oryx and react to light like an earthworm would), live underground and consume a lot of food very quickly and in shocking amounts given their relative size.
So we are left to brand Brianna Wu and this Polygon article whose author is Laura Dale are categorically wrong. What is even more surprising is that Brianna Wu, being a transgendered woman, would probably cause someone to wonder why she didn’t know better than to support something like this even when it was so wrong. Brianna is a known player of the Destiny game as she discusses the game quite often. Even with the in-game knowledge and even with dictionaries being a dime a dozen she still managed to get this wrong. However this isn’t surprising. Brianna has said some rather asinine things before.
Below is a short list of some of the craziest things Brianna has said. Enjoy!
She thinks she is somehow Batman.
She believes that people getting pissed that she wants to try to motivate change of a beloved character equals transphobia.
Brianna Wu never tried to force something down someone’s throat, right?
In one breath she’ll say she is not privileged and yet we read something like this.
What happens when you question Brianna Wu and you don’t threaten, use profane language towards, sexually harass or even harass her but just make a general comment?



National Geographic (Earthworms)

Merriam-Webster (Transgender)

Merriam-Webster (Hermaphroditism)

IGN (Hive Race Description)IGN (Hive Race Description)