Political Correctness is Just Common Decency?

As more and more people are coming to see how dangerous and insidious political correctness truly is, the social justice warriors have started to utilize an old tactic of theirs to defend political correctness and the terrorist-like methods they use to enforce it. What is this tactic? The old bait and switch.

“POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS JUST COMMON DECENCY” they say. It’s just being polite, it’s just being sensitive and tolerant of other people. If you pay any attention at all to the far left, you’ll know that this is a complete lie. Political correctness has nothing to do with being nice, it has nothing to do with tolerance, it has nothing to do with decency. In reality, it is the antithesis of all of these things. If political correctness was about being nice and polite, then why is it that so many of the Cultural Marxists will openly malign and express hatred for certain groups – such as men, whites, or Christians? These social justice warriors sometimes even call for the objects of their hatred, the people deemed “privileged” in the Cultural Marxist demographic hierarchy, to be persecuted or killed. We have the feminists who call all men rapists, we have the black studies professors who say that the white race needs to be exterminated, we have the communists who want to kill rich people and take their stuff. None of those things seem very nice to me, but they are all part and parcel of political correctness and are either ignored or supported by those leftists who claim to support being nice.

Is political correctness truly tolerant? Certainly not. Take a look at any college campus where political correctness reigns supreme. Look at the speech codes at these places, look at what they do to people they disagree with. The social justice warriors will try to get people expelled, fired, or even imprisoned for disagreeing. In nations outside America where they have no First Amendment rights, they often succeed in having dissenters arrested for expressing ideas that run counter to their politically correct dogma.

Political correctness, more appropriately called Cultural Marxism, is really about hatred and divisiveness. It is about generating hatred for certain groups so as to divide, and ultimately to conquer, western society. It is about intimidating and terrorizing people who disagree, about creating a climate of fear where people will not feel safe to dissent. It is about creating not only a victim mentality, but a lynch mob mentality where hatred for the wrong sort of people justifies any act – including lies, oppression, and violence.

This bait and switch tactic has been used extensively by the left for decades. They’ll say “OH, I’M A MODERATE, BUT I JUST FEEL THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BECOME TOO EXTREME.” Which is a laughable, because the Republicans are about as liberal as they can get away with without generating a massive revolt by their base. The feminists will say “FEMINISM IS JUST THE RADICAL BELIEF THAT WOMEN ARE PEOPLE” and then in the next breath, they say that all heterosexual sex is rape or that there is a war on women if society doesn’t pay for their birth control. This political correctness line about just being nice is the same thing, a lie told to try to make themselves seem moderate when THEY are the real extremists, to make themselves seem nice when THEY are the true haters.

Don’t fall for this and don’t let them get away with it. Call them on their lies, don’t let them define the conversation.

This has been Shieldwife, thanks for watching.

Fuck Fagin Feminists!

So I recently watched the Potty-Mouthed Princess video. You’ve all likely heard of it at this point and if you haven’t, I’ll link it below. It’s a video of little girls, some as young as six years old, dressed like princesses who spout feminist propaganda while saying fuck a lot. The point of this video, aside from spreading feminist lies, is to sell t-shirts that say “fuck hate.” Of course, these social justice warriors don’t want to stop hate, because spreading hatred is one of the main goals of this group, in addition to profiting from the spread of hatred. Hate is the fuel the feminist machine runs on.

If you haven’t seen it yet, let me tell you, the video is pretty sickening. It’s supposed to be shocking because it has sweet little girls cursing, but that isn’t what I found disturbing. I mean, it was vulgar and a little jarring, but that is far from my main objection. What really angered me here was the way that these hate mongering feminists are using children to spread their lies and hatred. And make no mistake, the propaganda these little girls are parroting are blatant lies. I mean, at this point, the myth of the wage gap has been so thoroughly debunked that any adult repeating it is either lying–or deliberately ignorant, which isn’t that different. The same applies to these sexual assault claims or the ridiculous “teach men not to rape” meme.

So these little girls, and one little boy that they force to wear a dress, are being taught to hate men, to think of themselves as oppressed, to take on a victim mentality, and to use the shock value of vulgarity to spread this message and to make profits for the fuck hate group.

It reminds me a bit of Fagin, the character from Charles Dickens’ novel, Oliver Twist. Fagin was a criminal who used little children to do his dirty work for him. That is what these people are doing, exploiting their children, using them to spread their ideology and to line their pockets. Keep in mind, people with similar beliefs and who are unequally unprincipled and ruthless, have access to other people’s children as well–at school, through the television, through books and songs.

The real irony here is that these people are exploiting children to supposedly stop the exploitation of women. Let’s not forget that they also want you to buy their stupid t-shirts to make a profit while spreading their propaganda. These people have no principles and will use any means necessary to draw attention to themselves and further their victim complex. I hope everyone who sees their video realizes that they are not just intent on brainwashing the children who are dressed up for this video, they are determined to brainwash every little girl and boy they can sink their claws into by controlling the education system and entertainment industry. Don’t let them do it. Do everything you can to save the next generation from this hate mongering Cultural Marxist cult. Tell them to fuck off, and remind them that you can speak for yourself without needing to use a six year old to do it for you.

This is ShieldWife, thanks for watching.

Women Are Spoiled Brats

For the last hundred years, and particularly the last few decades, women have received greater power in society, more influence, more high paying jobs, and greater freedom from responsibility. Women have been getting everything that they want at an unprecedented rate. Despite this, women are more miserable than ever. Statistics show that women are increasingly unhappy and discontented. As I’m sure most of you have observed, women have also become increasingly angry and whiny. They have getting all of the things that they want, and yet women complain about how hard their lives are, how much they are oppressed, and how badly men supposedly treat them. Women have gotten to a point in society where they demand, and indeed receive, all of the powers and privileges traditionally associated with men, and NONE of the associated responsibilities. They have also eliminated the traditional limitations of women without any reduction in the traditional advantages of women … such as control over sexuality. So why are women so miserable when they have so many relative advantages and so many fewer responsibilities?

Well, have you ever seen a small child who is extremely spoiled? One of the most striking things about brats is that they are always miserable. The spoiled child gets just about everything that she wants, and the more the brat gets, the more the brat wants. And the more often little brats get what they want, the more outraged they become in the rare cases when they can’t have exactly what they want exactly when they want it.

Women have become just like these spoiled brats. They are getting all of the things that they want and as opposed to making them happy, this has only made women more demanding, entitled, angry, and unhappy. Woman have demanded the same right to work like men have had, to enter into prestigious fields, receive a higher education, and to be hired for traditionally male jobs. Not only have women received this, but they have received substantially lowered standards to help them compete with men in these fields. Women often receive special scholarships or affirmative action to succeed in academic fields that they aren’t as good at, such as mathematics or engineering, or have reduced physical standards for jobs that require a great deal of physical prowess, such as the military. When women get into these mostly male fields, they complain that there are too many men there, that it is too dangerous or hard. They want these fields to change to accommodate women, to make special exceptions for them so that they can take off years at a time to have babies or have all of the men bend over backwards watching what they say so that they can’t be accused of sexual harassment, discrimination, or “creating a hostile work environment.” Women have received all of these demands, can be an objectively inferior worker or student, and be placed above objectively superior men in the name of achieving “equality.”
At the same time, women have demanded to be freed from the responsibilities of the powers they have always had.

For example, women have always been the gatekeepers of sexuality, it has always been the women who have had power over when sex is had, who gets the sex and who doesn’t, and the associated issues related to this. Women can get sex whenever they want and have an easy time seducing men or using their sexuality to get ahead or manipulate men. This phenomena isn’t a social construct, it is a fact of biology or a “bio-truth” as the Cultural Marxists might say. Even if the feminists had any desire to change it, they couldn’t without some form of genetic engineering. In the past, there have been a number of limitations placed upon this incredible power that women had. Female promiscuity was highly frowned upon, illegitimate children were seen as a mark of shame, a woman who cheated on her husband could face extreme consequences and face all of the social stigma that have been a part of social morals for most of human history.
With the rise of feminism, all of the stigma associated with the abuse of female power is being removed. A woman who leaves her husband or that gets pregnant out of wedlock is rewarded by a lifetime cut of his salary and with numerous forms of government aid. If a pregnant women chooses an abortion, she faces no consequences for her unwanted pregnancy, but if she chooses differently she can make a man a slave to her and her child for a substantial portion of his life. If a woman blatantly uses her sexuality to get ahead, anyone who questions this behavior is called a misogynist or rape apologist, and the woman is treated like a sweet little angel who should simply have the right to behave as she pleases without negative social consequences.
This freedom from sexual and reproductive responsibility becomes particularly dangerous when we look at it in the light of long term relationships. In a marriage, women have almost absolute power over the man. She is the de facto, if not de jure, ruler of the home and bedroom with the ability to decide when and how sex occurs. Let’s not be naive or puritanical here, this is an extreme form of power. She will make the majority of the decisions for the household, what cars to get, what color to paint the house, how the children will be raised. These are powers women have traditionally had within the home as a side effect of the biological differences between the psychology of men and women. NOW, regardless of who works and how much they make, the woman will have the power to spend the majority of the couple’s money. If the woman so chooses, she can leave her husband at any time and will have a much easier time finding a new sexual partner than he will. She can, if she so desires, receive custody of the children and force the husband that she left to be a her slave indefinitely, paying child support and alimony for a child he is  not allowed to see. If she really wants to, she can accuse him of rape, domestic violence, or some other politically charged crime and ruin the poor man’s life.
With all of these powers within a marriage, is it any surprise that women don’t have respect for men. You don’t have respect for a door mat, and the social and legal rules of our society give all women these powers and freedoms that allow any woman to screw over any man with very little fear of repercussion. Despite the stereotype of women as being kind and compassionate, in practice women have an inborn psychology closer to that of the Cobra Kai karate dojo. Mercy is for the weak, the enemy deserves no mercy. At least this is their attitude towards men. Women despise men that they perceive as weak or vulnerable, and feminism has made every man weak in relation to the women in his life and, unfortunately, many women don’t have any hesitation in using, abusing, or despising weak doormat men. In this light, it is no surprise that the great majority of divorces are initiated by women and that they will tear apart their families and create all of the associated heartache for relatively shallow and petty reasons. Correspondingly, it isn’t hard to understand why some men might be inclined to go their own way instead of putting their head in the lion’s mouth and hoping that it doesn’t decide to bite down.
So instead of having reasonable limits upon their behavior and having to earn their wealth and restrict their actions because of reasonable consequences, women can figuratively – and sometimes literally – get away with murder. As these women become more accustomed to getting what they want and doing what they want without consequences, they become more and more entitled to that spoiled behavior and become apoplectic when they get called on their bad behavior. This a major factor in how spoiled, entitled women can go through life whining and complaining about how oppressed they are when they have advantages over men in virtually every respect save for the most basic of biological functions.

This is Shield Wife, thanks for watching.

Egalitarianism vs. Traditionalism

 

Some of my supporters might find this video controversial, but during my hiatus, I’ve given some thought to the issues surrounding Mens Rights Activism and decided to bring up issues that some of my MRA allies might disagree with, rather than just tiptoe around them.

I have been asked if I support men’s rights as more of a traditionalist or an egalitarian. I feel a bit reluctant to answer because I don’t like those sorts of labels, not in politics and now that I am becoming active as an MRA, not here either. I don’t think that it’s my place to tell other people how they should live or what they should value, even if I prefer a certain path for myself and believe it might be beneficial to others. If I had to choose from either label, I would be more comfortable calling myself a traditionalist, because even though I have some major problems with traditional gender relations, my problems with egalitarianism are profound.

I believe that egalitarianism has a tendency to become too extreme, as its goals are unrealistic and advocates uncompromising. Ultimately, I don’t believe real equality exists outside of mathematics. E=mc squared, and the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the two other sides, but I am not equal to you.

I am not equal to you, or any other person. That doesn’t mean that I am better or worse. It means that every human is different from every other human in complex ways. Things as different from each other as people can’t be called equal, so it is far more accurate to say that humans are often incommensurable. Everybody is better at doing something than somebody else. How can you compare one person’s strength to another person’s swiftness, or one person’s intellect to another person’s work ethic? Of course, society would be better off with more law abiding citizens and less murderers, so sometimes we can say that one person is inherently better than another. Judging people against each other can become an entirely subjective endeavor or a completely objective one. There is no meaningful definition of equality that can apply to all of humanity. This isn’t to say that all people don’t have fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial, but having those fundamental rights doesn’t make people equal and it certainly doesn’t make them the same.

The desire for equality drives us towards the desire for sameness, something antithetical to human nature. We can see the horrors caused by radical egalitarians in nations where Marxism has been tried and has failed spectacularly. I think the ideology of egalitarianism has led many well meaning people into supporting policies that ultimately create hatred and suffering. Many feminists fall into this category. They imagine a world where men and women are exactly equal, where they are equally represented in the same professions, that neither have power or advantages over the other – Essentially – to be the same.

But men and women aren’t the same and treating them as though they doesn’t make them the same, much to the chagrin of gender constructionists. When men and women have equal ohttps://wordpress.com/post/45755511/new/pportunity to enter a certain career, they seldom appear in equal numbers, as men and women have different skills and proclivities. When men are stripped of all of their traditional advantages over women, women gain a clear upper hand as their less obvious traditional advantages remain firmly in place.

Most of these traditional advantages and disadvantages are not mere social constructs, but are fundamental to our biology. Women bear children, and for our culture and civilization to survive, women must continue to bear children. This will always put them at a disadvantage compared to men when it comes to careers. Men are always going to be less picky than women when it comes to sex and romance, giving women a huge social advantage over men. Neither of those facts are going to go away if businesses are forced to hire equal numbers of men and women and pay every employee the same.

Egalitarianism is a lie promulgated by Cultural Marxists, largely with the intent of causing hatred and division within society. As people look around and see that some people have advantages that they don’t, they are too wrapped up in the fantasy of equality to realize that they are not equal to those other people and that they should have no expectation of having the same sort of life. That causes anger and resentment, feelings which many on the far left exploit to gain power, including but not limited to feminists, race baiters, and other “social justice” crusaders. They exploit this by promising equality where none can exist, by promising to right wrongs where none have been committed.

As attempts to achieve the egalitarian goal continually fail, that failure will continue to justify the hatred of misandrist feminists and other social justice warriors who will blame those failures not on human nature or differences, but on white male oppression, even if it is the males who suffer most.

Now, I don’t completely embrace traditional values either. There have been many improvements for both sexes that I would like to keep. Most of which aren’t a result of feminism or the attempt to gain equality, but because of progress in technology, knowledge, and greater wealth. Men no longer have to work themselves to death in mines and women no longer need to put themselves at great risk when they have children. These luxuries aren’t a result of feminism, but because people – overwhelmingly men – worked hard, used their minds, and built a safer and more prosperous civilization.

My ideal society would be one in which people are free to choose lifestyles that best fit them, without pressure to ignore or fight against our innate differences. This would entail more women making motherhood their primary responsibility ahead of a career, which I will talk about more in a future video.

That’s all for now. Once again, I want to thank everyone who watches, subscribes to, shares, and supports my channel.

Men, are you losers?

Men, if you don’t please me, you’re a pathetic loser.
If you’re unattractive to me, then you’re a loser.
If you aren’t charismatic enough to entertain me, then you’re a loser.
If you can’t buy me the latest high tech gadget or the latest fashion, then you’re a loser.
If you have some hobby that doesn’t appeal to my need for popularity, then you’re a loser.
If you’re too short, too fat, too thin, or have some physical characteristic women find unappealing, then you’re a loser.
If you wear the wrong kind of clothes or wear your hair the wrong way, then you’re a loser.
If I find your sexual prowess lacking or if you can’t read my mind and please me in the way I’m entitled to, then you’re a loser.
If you can’t jump through the right hoops for me, like putting the toilet seat down or failing to give proper respect to my complaint de jure, then you’re a loser.
If you don’t put the interests of women above the interests of men, then you’re a loser.
If you don’t bend over backwards to cater to my emotional needs, then you’re a loser.
If I think that you’re too close to your parents or not enough of a bad boy to excite me, then you’re a loser.
If my friends think that you’re a loser, you probably are one.
If you’re quiet and shy, you’re a loser.
If I think that you’re too brainy for me, too interested in history, politics, science, or some subject I find boring, it doesn’t mean that I’m dumb, it means you’re a loser.
If your politics diverge too far from those that are deemed acceptable by my authority figures, then you’re a loser.
You see men, your worth is entirely determined by how able you are to please women like me. If you can’t attract me, if you can’t charm me, if you can’t support me, if you won’t place my needs above your own, if I find you wanting … then you’re a pathetic loser, you aren’t good for anything and you don’t deserve any respect from anyone. If you’re a loser who doesn’t attract me and you dare to express attraction towards me, you’re not just a loser but a creep and probably a rapist.
Why is it that so many people in our society, both men and women, judge men based on their ability to please? I can’t count how many times I have seen good men be the target of contempt or ridicule because women have found him wanting for some shallow superficial reason. I’ve been a geeky girl for a long time and I’ve seen so many men – GOOD men who were intelligent, kind, moral, wise, strong, and hard working – dismissed as being worthless and pathetic because they couldn’t jump through the right hoops to gain women’s attention.
And usually gaining the attention of women means appealing to them on the most base and shallow level. Men are often called losers for not being handsome or rich enough, but sometimes women judge them on far more shallow grounds than that. Some women get turned off because a man plays Dungeons and Dragons or reads science fiction instead of rooting for the local sports team. Sometimes a man will value the opinions of his parents and have a close relationship with them and be called a mama’s boy. Some guys might have an unusual sexual interest that a woman doesn’t share and she will call him a creep. There are humble men who refuse to brag who get overlooked for assholes who have that cocky demeanor that so many women fall for.
So the kinds of traits that women look for in men are usually shallow in the best of cases, and frequently irrational or immoral. Why is the judgement of women held up as some sort of absolute judgement of a man’s worth? Why should a man of great character or intellect be ridiculed because he doesn’t meet some childish standard that women have decided men should live up to? It is as though we judge a man’s worth based on how good they were at entertaining spoiled toddlers rather than how much they truly contribute to society. It’s not just ridiculous, it’s WRONG.
It would be great if women judged men based on qualities that truly matter, qualities that would make him a good husband or a valuable member of society. Until that time, if it ever comes, please don’t judge men by whether or not they can gain the attention of women. This goes for both men and women.
And you men who have gotten a raw deal, who are kind and good and smart and have been the the object of contempt from women. Please take heart in the fact that there are a few women out there who can rise above their base instincts and really appreciate you. The women who think that they’re too good for you probably don’t deserve you.
Oh, and sorry for the long hiatus from making videos. I’ve had a lot going on in my life and have been distracted. I’m going to start doing videos again, maybe on a wider range of topics. I’d also like to thank everyone who watches, subscribes to, and supports my channel.
Until next time, this is Shieldwife, thanks for watching.

The Rape Religion

Let me preface this video by saying that I think that rape is a terrible crime. It is a brutal, horrific crime and I believe that there should be severe penalties for committing it. And you know what, everyone else feels exactly the same way. Everyone the world over thinks that rape is a terrible crime. The only “rape cultures” that exist are certain African nations where civilization has completely broken down and drug addled child soldiers run around cutting off people’s arms with machetes. Quite frankly, in places like that, it is just as bad being a man as being a woman, because you are more likely to be killed and you might just get raped too. And feminists, being killed is worse than being raped. How do I know? Because the great majority of rape victims don’t commit suicide.

Well, I can’t entirely write off the existence of any sort of “rape culture” in first world countries, but not in the way feminists think. More on that later.

In our modern first world nations whose culture is largely run by feminists or their ideological sympathizers, rape is more than just a terrible crime, it is a crime which is elevated to a ridiculous level of importance, like some religious doctrine which cannot be examined objectively without fear of committing blasphemy. Once the sacred word of rape is invoked, no thought or discussion is allowed, no reasoning is permitted, you must react in only the ways permitted by the feminist clergy of this strange pseudo-religion.

The effects of this dogmatic view of rape are plain to see. To a feminist, and unfortunately millions who allow themselves to be influenced by them, the act of accusing a person of rape is a likewise sacred act. The crime of rape is so heinous that all due process of law must be put aside so that the accused has no chance of escaping justice. The accuser must automatically be believed without waiting to collect evidence or weigh the facts. You see, the idea that any rape accusation could be false is blasphemy in this religion.
In our modern day witch trials, the only person who would defend an accused witch must be a witch as well – you see this reasoning whenever a feminist throws around accusations of “rape supporter” when somebody wants to follow due process of law instead of summarily convicting the accused with no trial.

Another major dogma of this rape religion is the belief that no action on the part of a female rape victim ever leads to a rape, increases the chances of her getting raped, or prevents her from getting raped. Even acknowledging the fact that a woman could do anything to increase or decrease her chances of getting raped is blasphemy, it is “blaming the victim.”

This is strange, because we don’t seem to take that attitude with any other crime. When someone leaves their car unlocked and something gets stolen from it, we have no problem admitting that it was unwise to leave the doors unlocked, but at the same time nobody thinks that leaving your doors unlocked makes you deserving of theft or that the thief isn’t still a thief. We would tell anybody, male or female, to be careful going out at night in a bad neighborhood – yet this isn’t considered to be victim blaming of people who get mugged. Likewise, it is no crime to say that mountain climbers might be more likely to fall to their death. It certainly doesn’t imply that we think that mountain climbers deserve to die. So why the big exception with rape?

It certainly seems like common sense that women’s behavior can put themselves in greater risk of getting raped. I mean, going to parties with guys that they don’t know, getting drunk, being flirtatious, or maybe creating the appearance that they might have sex when they don’t intend to. I don’t know how much, if at all, any of these behaviors influence a woman’s chances of being raped. I will likely never learn about what behaviors put someone at an increased risk, because any sort of real study to get information like this would be villanized as “blaming the victim” even though such information may actually prevent rapes.

Also, regarding the idea of “blaming the victim” or “asking for it” – I have never heard any first world person say that a woman deserved to be raped because she was promiscuous. I have never heard any first world person say that a rapist was any less culpable because the victim was scantily clad. Sure, some people might say that a woman foolishly put herself in danger of being raped, but that is a far cry from saying that she deserved it or that the perpetrator shouldn’t be punished. The “victim blaming” accusation is just a strawman to demonize anybody who seems to have wavering faith in the rape cult that feminists push on our society.

Several years ago, when I was just getting interested in issues relating to feminism and learning about all bad feminism was, I got into a debate online with a number of feminists. There was a discussion of rape epidemics in certain parts of the world and I advocated women carrying concealed handguns for self defense. I was viciously attacked by the feminists. They said that I was blaming the victim. They said that to suggest that women take some action to make themselves safer is to suggest that it is a woman’s responsibility to prevent rape and would be therefore blaming unarmed rape victims. Really? Would I also be blaming male victims of crime for suggesting men use guns for self defense as well? How can anyone argue with such insanity?

Now, I can’t say that no one raised in a first world nation in the modern era has ever said that a rape victim deserved it or that there should be no punishment for raping a promiscuous woman. If there is any ludicrous or offensive idea possible, there is probably at least one person on earth who has advocated it. But if you have evidence for any notable public figure, law enforcement agent, judge, or other noteworthy person expressing such a sentiment, you can provide me with evidence if you wish – please no anecdotal accounts.

Our high priestesses of this religion are the feminists who use their influence to push this religion of theirs into law, entertainment, education, and into the daily lives of everyone.
And like some fundamentalist televangelists who use their religion to get wealthy while having gay lovers on the side, these feminists are total hypocrites, using rape as a tool to further their true agenda – misandry. You see, if the feminists truly saw rape as a terrible crime and cared for the victims, they would be the ones to most strongly oppose false accusations of rape. They would also fervently oppose any frivolous use of the word “rape” to describe other sorts of acts. We see that in reality, feminists are the ones who are pushing to expand the definition of rape to include all sorts of acts, most of which would never be considered rape by any reasonable person.

This is a bait and switch of sorts. We have a society where rape is obsessed over as the worst imaginable crime, where we have this image in our minds of what a rape is, where a victim is brutally traumatized. Yet feminists want to extend this same reaction to virtually all of male sexuality. Feminists say that if a woman consents while intoxicated, that it is rape, even if the man if intoxicated as well. Feminists say that if a woman regrets having sex with a man, that it is rape. Feminists say that a woman who is nagged into sex is raped. Feminists want almost everything to be considered rape and a few feminists will be honest enough to just openly say that they consider all men to be rapists and all heterosexual sex to be rape. What about gay male sex? Well, as I mentioned in my video about objectification, feminists don’t like to think to much about gay men.

This reveals the true motivation for the rape obsession: the hatred of men. Rape is perceived as a crime where woman are exclusively the victims and men are exclusively the perpetrators. Just like in ancient Rome where any action of a slave against a master was a terrible crime, worthy of a painful death, in first world nations we also react with greater hostility when a man victimizes a woman. Second class citizens aren’t supposed to commit crimes against first class citizens. Feminists eventually realized that their demonization of rape was so successful that they could associate the act of rape with not only rapists, but with all men, thus striking out at the object of their hatred.

Now, the topic of all rapists being men and all victims being women leads me back to something I mentioned at the beginning of the video. There is one sort of “rape culture” that does exist in first world nations and is condoned or even applauded. That is the huge numbers of rape that occur within prisons where the victims are male. Often these victims of rape did nothing more than use drugs, a victimless crime, and their punishment is to be placed into a system with hardened criminals to be assaulted or raped while the authorities look the other way and society laughs at their misfortune. You see, when men get raped, it isn’t an unholy act of villainy, no its funny, its a barrel of laughs. Ha ha HA.

Well, enough about this topic for now.

Once again, I would like to thank the generous people who helped to support my channel: Jared, Soul Books, and William. Thank you so much for your support!

Worse than tattooing a toddler?

I just finished watching a video of a toddler being being forced to get a tattoo. If you haven’t seen this yet, I’ll link the video below in the description. Basically, the toddler’s parents are forcing him to be tattooed. And the toddler is screaming and crying and obviously in a lot of pain. As we speak, there are hundreds of people on the internet trying to track down the parents of the toddler so they can report them to Child Services.

But you know, it could have been worse. Maybe when the toddler was a newborn–when he was just a few days old and his immune system was at its most vulnerable–maybe the parents agreed to have him tied down to a table as the skin on the end of his penis was sliced off. He probably didn’t even have anesthetic.

So, in reaction to the tattoo, people are outraged that a parent would give a kid an elective procedure that he cannot consent to, a procedure that is permanent, that is painful. They think the child should be taken away from his parents. They think it should be illegal. But not circumcision, even though you could use the same argument against it, and circumcision is a lot more dangerous than giving a kid a tattoo.

How dangerous is circumcision? More children die every year from circumcision complications than from SIDs, car accidents, choking, and suffocating combined. Let me say that one more time just so it sinks in. More children die because of this elective surgery than all other causes of infant death combined.

That number doesn’t even include injuries from circumcision that do not result in the infant’s death. The most conservative sources estimate that at least three times that number suffer medical complications. Some of the more common problems are infection, hemorrhaging, necrotizing fasciitis, scalded skin syndrome, sepsis, and meningitis. 71% of circumcised infants develop painful adhesions, and one third of those cases are so severe they require surgery.

So for all you people who are pro-circumcision, let me ask you this one simple question. Why is it so important for you to circumcise a newborn instead of letting your son decide whether he wants to have the surgery when he is 16? If all you can come up with is, “Oh, this way he won’t remember it,” I want you to realize that the defense you just used is probably the exact same reason that the parents of that toddler forced him to get a tattoo. And you know, there’s something screwy with your logic if you think your son not remembering this surgery is more important than all of the data that says you are exposing your baby to death or injury.

That toddler who got a tattoo will probably grow up to be a teenager who can’t remember getting it, but that teenager will also realize he has to live with it for the rest of his life and you know, he kind of wishes you had let him decide whether to get it or not. If you feel that it is a violation of a minor’s personhood to force a tattoo on them at the age of 2, then there is absolutely no reason you should force an elective surgery on a newborn that cannot be reversed and poses serious health risks. The bottom line is that this is not your decision to make. It belongs to your son.

If your son turns 16 and decides that he would prefer to be circumcised, then you can support his decision. And to celebrate, you can even pay for him to get a tattoo to go along with it.

Video of the toddler being tattooed: http://youtu.be/W2OTKwmAQZ4

Sources for the statistics cited:
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/gracely1/

I don’t need a man, but…

I don’t need a man, but if I get pregnant, I demand that the government make sure that the man I had sex with supports the child that he has no legal rights to.

I don’t need a man, but if I a divorce one, I demand that the government give me a portion of his salary for the rest of his life.

I don’t need a man, but if my ex husband or ex lover can’t supply enough money for my children and I, then I demand that the tax payers support us.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that standards be lowered and incentives be provided so that I can compete with men in any field I like.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that I have free childcare and healthcare for my children.

I don’t need a man, but I demand to get paid just as much as a man, even if I am an objectively worse employee.

I don’t need a man, but I demand maternity leave from my employer.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that anywhere I go be a “safe space” where my delicate sensibilities wont be offended by hearing something that I don’t like.

(These delicate sensibilities of mine must be protected by any means necessary – social pressure, university speech codes, hate speech laws, or even the threat of violence from manginas.)

I don’t need a man, but I demand the protection of men in the military, law enforcement, fire department, and of civilian men in general. And I demand that I gain entry into any of the previously mentioned occupations with much lower physical standards.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that any accusation I make against men be accepted unconditionally by the authorities.

I don’t need a man, but I demand entry into all male-only spaces and further demand that the men there must change to accommodate me and my desires.

I don’t need a man, but I demand medical research and popular concern be focused on my problems despite men dying sooner than women do.

I don’t need a man, but I demand free birth control, and I will call it a “war on women” if someone objects to having to pay for my reproductive choices.

I don’t need a man, I just demand that men be forced to provide all of the services that they traditionally have in the past, but this time free of charge and with society’s contempt instead of accolades.

Why is it that feminists claim to need so little and yet demand so much?

Have feminists ever thought to consider that they may be disliked because they encourage women to be weak, rather than encouraging them to be strong?

You see, men and women have worked together for countless millennia to survive in this harsh world together. Men have done their part, they have died by the millions in wars, they have slaved their lives away in grueling jobs, and by their labor, by their blood and sweat and tears, they have built this modern world where life doesn’t have to be as cheap as it once was.

Modern western civilization is a place of prosperity, where women no longer die by droves in childbirth, where natural predators do not prowl the woods in search of human prey, and where we do not need to live in constant fear of a rival tribe invading and enslaving or exterminating us. Yes, it is a great world that western men have built.

But despite all of our comforts, luxuries, and protections – men still serve as the backbone of our society. Men still work incredibly hard to maintain what we have and to even build a brighter future. They are still needed to provide for women and children, to protect us from criminals and hostile nations.

Unfortunately, feminists have largely succeeded in creating a society where the labor of men is divorced from those hard working men getting credit for it. Men are now forced by law to support women, regardless of how they may be treated by them, and women in turn no longer view men as powerful protectors and supporters, but rather as slaves to be forced into service and tossed away when they fail to amuse. Oh, but the fruits of an abandoned man’s labor is not abandoned, the discarded male can continue to work to support the woman who no longer wants anything to do with him.

Is it any wonder why women don’t seem to have respect for men anymore, when everything that men have traditionally provided, and continue to provide, is supplied by government force instead? Is it any wonder why women, who have evolved to respect strength and power, look not to men but instead to the government as their provider and protector?

But even with the government forcing men to provide for women in so many ways and with so little thanks for it, there are still consequences for the women and children who are told that they only need the benevolent hand of government instead of a real father or husband. We have whole generations of children growing up without men in their lives–the latest research says that one in every three children does not have a father living at home. The terrible consequences of this are readily observable. We have women becoming increasingly bitter and entitled despite receiving all that they demand and more, like spoiled children who throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat. We have men who feel increasingly bitter and alienated, finding it more and more difficult to support a society that not only fails to recognize their vital contributions, but blames them for all its problems, real or imagined.

I really don’t believe that the misandry that dominates our society can last that much longer in the scheme of things. It is a sickness that infects western society and one from which we will either recover…or die. To devalue half of our population, to exploit them, manipulate them, can only be sustained for so long.

Before I go, I just want to thank A Voice for Men Radio for featuring my videos on their blog. You guys are awesome and I really appreciate all that you do. In the unlikely event that you like my videos but haven’t seen A Voice for Men, check out the link below.

I’d also like to thank Benjamin and Soul Books for donating to my channel. I am so grateful for your support.

Until next time, this is Shield Wife and thanks for watching.

Why is it that feminists say they need so little and yet demand so much?

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

Objectification

Hello again! This is Shield Wife. I would like to start off by thanking everyone who subscribed to my channel and left encouraging comments on my last video. I originally wanted to reply to every comment personally, though I’m not sure I will have the time to. I did want to let you know that I read every one of them and I appreciate every comment even if I don’t reply.

Now, I would like to discuss another frequently used word that is nothing more than an expression of misandry. That word is objectification. What does this word even really mean? Well, it’s hard to say. I’ve noticed that feminists like to use words that are deliberately vague or the have shifting definitions so that it lets them better obscure their intentions or weasel their way through arguments. They claim that objectification is when a man turns a woman into an object. I think that it is more accurate to say that in almost every case the word used, it is meant not to express turning someone into an object, but rather to degrade male sexuality.

Objectification merely expresses a hatred and disgust for male sexual desires. It is a tool to try to shame men for having feelings which are entirely natural and benign.

Feminists complain that when a man sees a woman and feels attraction towards her, he is not seeing her as a complex human being, but instead merely seeing her through the lens of his own desires and his own ends. Thus, objectifying her.  Well, I have news for you, that happens all the time with the people we encounter in our daily lives, and it is not nearly as evil as feminists seem to want to paint it.

For example, when the pizza delivery guy brings me a pizza, that is usually the most important thing about him, at least to me. I can’t put that much thought into what his home life is like, how his parents treated him as a child, or if he is happy or sad with his life. I just want the pizza.

And honestly, there is nothing wrong with that. Just because I don’t fully appreciate the depth of humanity in each and every person I come across doesn’t mean that I have dehumanized them in my mind. It doesn’t mean that they are objects to me or that I would mistreat them. Along the same lines, if I see someone attractive, I might feel lust towards them while at the same time may not consider all of the complex things happening in that person’s life. That doesn’t degrade them in any way, doesn’t make them more of an object.

I mean, you could walk down a city street with a hundred people and not give too much thought to any single person, you might notice an old guy, maybe a policeman, and there might be a girl who is really hot. There is no reason to think that the pretty girl is less human in your mind than the old guy just because you are more attracted to her. And she is not an object just because you’re thinking about having sex with her, anymore than the policeman is an object because you worry he might give you a ticket.

The truth is that none of us can fully appreciate the humanity of people who are not intimately a part of our lives. So why does male attraction towards females get labelled as objectification? Because the idea of “objectification” expresses misandry in such a way that virtually every man is guilty, virtually every man can be shamed. Every man can be painted as someone with sociopathic tendencies, which is what viewing other people as objects really implies.

It is one of many ways that feminists seek to enforce a hypocritical double standard, where women can dress or act provocatively and reap the full benefits of doing so, but when men react in a way which is only natural, it is somehow wrong or oppressive. Also, accusations of objectification almost always pertain to how men primarily experience lust and desire: Visually. On the other hand, for sexual outlets that are usually feminine, the word hardly ever arises. For example, we often hear that pornography objectifies women, but we seldom hear about anyone being objectified by 50 Shades of Grey or other romance novels.

Feeling sexual attraction is entirely natural, humans are sexual creatures. There is nothing wrong with looking at a pretty girl and feeling attracted to her or, for that matter, looking at images of attractive women for the express purpose of gaining pleasure from it. When a movie has an attractive female lead or a commercial has a young woman in a bikini, some women condemn it as a cheap attempt to appeal to men. To which I say – what is wrong with trying to please men? Why is male sexuality seen with such negativity? Well, perhaps it is because there are such major undercurrents of misandry within our society as a result of feminism.

You may have noticed that a lot feminists these days describe themselves, at least if confronted with the topic, as sex positive feminists. I think that any woman who describes herself as being sex positive while believing in objectification, which means writing off half of the population as perverted sociopaths, is a hypocrite and not sex positive at all. More accurately, she is positive about her own sexuality and thinks that her attraction somehow mystically gauges the character of men – as I mentioned in my creepy video – while being able to dismiss the desires of men as base and degenerate.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t men out there who act inappropriately towards women, who use women for sex, or who are jerks. There are plenty of men who are immoral, just like there are plenty of women who are immoral and who exploit men. In fact, there are probably more women who exploit men, as our misandrist culture condones and facilitates it. In any case, the fact that bad people exist has nothing to do with male sexuality or the visual nature of their attraction.

Now, there is another side to objectification that feminists like to pretend doesn’t exist. And that is gay men. When the issue of gay men arises, feminists start becoming even more vague and try to change the subject. See, gay men don’t fit into the patriarchal objectification paradigm that feminists want to live in. They have a sexuality not that different from straight men in that they are highly visual, yet their attraction is directed towards other men. Does that mean that they see other men as nothing more than lowly sex objects? Does it mean that a man can look at someone lustfully without degrading that person? No, it can’t be that, then the entire objectification myth crumbles. So, it’s better just to avoid thinking about it too much, and luckily, not thinking is something that most feminists are pretty good at.

This is why I disregard any accusations of “objectification” in any kind of media. It generally just means that it has something in it that might appeal to a straight man. Feminists have created a term that makes men seem like sociopaths –you see, it dovetails into their conviction that all men are potential rapists. The same group of people who claim all the glory for the sexual revolution of the 60’s are trying as hard as they can to repress men’s sexuality, to shame them into only having the feelings that women give them permission to have.

That’s all for now. I have a couple more videos planned that will be posted in the weeks to come. Until then, don’t forget to subscribe, and if you’d like to support my channel, you can donate at my blog, which I’ll link below.

Creepy Guys

Lately, I’ve been thinking about all of the misandry in our modern culture that seems to be so ubiquitous and yet completely accepted and unquestioned. Girl Writes What brings up a lot of excellent points regarding these issues, which is why I thought I would make my first video under this account as a response to her.

Anyway, there are two frequently used words that I feel essentially express misandry, a hatred of men, and I wanted to talk about both of them.

The first of these is the word creepy. Now, if you’re a woman like me, you have probably said this word numerous times and never gave it a second thought, you have probably encountered guys that just seemed off in some regard or that repulsed you on some level and thought of them or even referred to them, at least behind their backs, as being creepy. I know that I have called guys creepy or at least thought of them in that way, without really analyzing why.

Once I took the time to reflect a bit on the kind of guys who get called creepy and the kind who don’t, I decided that I would refrain from thinking of men as creepy and try to assess them on a more conscious level. Ultimately, I realized that being “CREEPY” has more to do with women’s emotional reactions to a man than anything wrong about his character.

Guys get called creepy not because the merit of their character on any kind of objective level. The reason a man is typically called a creep is because certain women find him unattractive, while the supposed creep finds those women attractive. Which is why the term is misandrist by its nature, because it projects danger, aggression, or nefarious motives onto a man for the sole reason of being found unattractive to women.

Some of you may be thinking that there is more to it than that, that creepy guys say scary things, act in weird ways, act in inappropriate ways. Sometimes certain inappropriate behaviors get labelled as creepy, but it usually has more to do with the guy who is saying or doing those things than the actions or words themselves. It you think back on the men you have encountered in you life, you can probably recall men who have been flirtatious or have even acted downright crudely, and because they were attractive or charismatic men, they didn’t seem creepy at all, but rather charming and sexy. You may also recall other men who were called creepy for far more benign behavior because they were socially inept or physically unattractive.

Women simply can’t concede that they find a man unattractive for shallow reasons, reasons which if your examined them, are no more enlightened than a man’s attraction towards big boobs or a shapely butt. So women elevate their own desires into some profound character judgement: they just know that this unsexy guy is really a serial killer, while this handsome charmer must have a heart of gold.

It relegates a man’s character to nothing more than what women think of him, of how pleasing he is to women, which is why the idea of creepiness, at least how it’s usually used, is so derogatory against men.

It also ties into all of the fury that feminists express about men propositioning women and the controversies over women dressing or acting provocatively. I mean, it is no secret to anyone with a bit of common sense that women have many things to gain by acting provocatively, by wearing sexy clothing, by flirting, by making sexual jokes or by making themselves seem available. They can gain not only a potential mate, but gain the positive attention and ego boost that this attention provides. In our modern culture where many taboos against that kind of behavior in women have disappeared, or at least heavily declined, there are fewer drawbacks for women acting in an overtly sexual way. Modern women can have their cake and eat it too.

This is where the “CREEPS” come in. There is one downside of flirtatiousness that has not been eliminated, the fact that a woman making a spectacle of herself in public doesn’t just gain the attention of hot guys, but also of men who she doesn’t find attractive. When an unattractive guy starts to express a romantic interest, that is when he becomes creepy in her eyes. That is when she turns her own shallow desires into a judgement of a man’s character, where she perceives his attraction toward her as creepy, and she interprets his expression of that attraction as hostility.

That is why Rebecca Watson became so offended when she was asked to go on a coffee date. You see, Rebecca Watson gives lectures at skeptics’ conferences. She has acted provocatively at conferences before this one–during one conference, there are pictures of her laughing with dollar bills stuffed down the front of her tank top.

But when a guy asked Rebecca Watson to have coffee with him at a conference, she became outraged. She announced, “it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me.”

She went on to say that she felt “THREATENED” by his advances and warned other men that this is not how you should treat women. If you want to learn more about Rebecca Watson’s hypocrisy, you should check out Thunderfoot’s video that I’ll link below.

So, because this poor guy creeps her out, he obviously must be dangerous, he must have bad intentions. Why is he creepy? Well, because she finds him unattractive. When a sexy guy flirts with her, it isn’t sexual harassment, it is empowering. Go ahead and stuff some more dollar bills down her bra. It is only when the unattractive or socially inept guys don’t behave like eunuchs that it becomes an unsafe space for women.

Now, there’s another word, in addition to creepy, that has become little more than an attack on men in our society. That word is objectification. I will discuss that term in my next video, so stay tuned.

Girl Writes What – http://youtu.be/a9XDb0nxSO4

Thunderf00t – http://youtu.be/cKKQdJR7F_I