Chicks Dig Jerks, Exhibit #9000

The LA Times broke the story earlier this week that Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a servant (I'm sorry, I meant "domestic worker") ten years ago.  Firstly, how does this qualify as news?  Rich and powerful men have been producing bastards with servants for thousands of years.  If Arnold admitted that he had not fathered any children with servants, that would be news.

Secondly, the reaction from feminists and women in general is pretty amusing and revealing.  Amanda Marcotte, whom I bashed a few days ago, typed up one of her typical acidic diatribes, complaining about how men in power objectify women and use them for sex.  Jos at Feministing claims that his dalliance is in line with the rest of his sexist behavior.  His previous sexist behavior according to her includes "sexually harassing" women at Rio's Carnival (check out the video she linked to and you will find that "sexual harassment" is the feminist term for "flirting with a girl").  Schwarzenegger's wife herself was a feminist gender warrior who reaped what she sowed.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Various alt-right bloggers have suggested that feminism is essentially a massive shit test.  The feminist reaction to Schwarzenegger's adultery supports this.  The liberal betas and pro-feminist manginas who worship women on a pedestal, never offend them, white knight for them, and nod their heads in agreement with feminist shews like puppies begging for a treat aren't spreading their genes across the world.  The men whom feminists despise are.  That should tell you something about what women really want when free of any societal constraints on their sexuality.

Is There Anything Liberals Won't Start Boycotts Over?

It seems like every time I visit a liberal website, someone's calling for a boycott of some business, state, or organization due to a slight against some facet of liberalism.  Over at Feministing, they wrote last week about a boycott of Old Navy by "breastfeeding activists" (aka "lactavists") who are angry because they sell baby clothing with "Formula Powered" printed on it.

No, I'm not joking.

Ever since the boycotts and sanctions helped to end apartheid in South Africa, liberals have gotten the idea that boycotting is an effective tactic against anything that offends them, no matter how trivial.  And it will continue to be an effective tactic until people are willing to stand up to the political correctness at the core of liberalism.

Everything is Discrimination

When I read liberals/feminists complaining about "appearance discrimination" and supporting laws banning its practice in employment, I really should not have been surprised.  Anything liberals dislike is discriminatory in some way.

This article from Feministing is an excellent example.  Under US law, foreign organizations that the federal government provides anti-AIDS funding must oppose prostitution and sex-work.  Now, feminists and sex worker advocates are complaining that this is discriminatory against prostitutes.

On Tuesday, July 20th, NSWP organized sex workers and allies to disrupt a speech by United States Global AIDS Coordinator Dr. Eric Goosby to demand justice for sex workers harmed by PEPFAR’s discriminatory anti-prostitution loyalty oath.

To be fair, it's not just liberals who are at fault for their incessant use of "discrimination."  Conservatives who care more about ending racism and sexism than limiting government are the prime reason that liberals get away with this.

Fun With Feministing: Lookism Edition

Yesterday, over at Feministing, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, their token nonwhite, is upset because American Apparel requires you to e-mail them a picture of yourself if you want to work there.

Just When You Thought American Apparel Couldn't Fail Any Harder... They manage to.To work at American Apparel you must email a full body shot to some mysterious email address after which you are approved or rejected. Failure.

Via Gawker.

Clearly, that standard leaves a lot of wiggle room. Now, a source tells us that American Apparel has a new hiring policy. For the past several months, they say, job applicants at AA have had their photos taken--photos which are then sent to the email address work@americanapparel.net, where they are "approved" by a nameless person for hiring. The applicant's resumé is a distant second when it comes to hiring decisions, our source says.

Our source also tells us that a new policy now says that in order for current AA employees to be approved for a promotion or raise, they must also have their photos approved. As they put it, "Your looks determine your position and pay rate, not how effective you are at your job."

Douchey D Charney even had the audacity to say last time he was questioned on judging employees by looks that his employees must, "have good fashion sense...But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive." What do you have to say for yourself this time? And I have been to American Apparel. If what their employees are wearing is a "good sense of style," then I color me anti-fashion.

Not satisfied with fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, agism, cisgenderism, and ablism, leftists are now fighting against lookism - the practice on judging people based on their physical appearance. I've always wondered, if it's wrong for men to judge women based on their looks, is it wrong for women to judge men based on their alphaness?

However, it's perfectly understandable why Samhita is fighting lookism:

For comparison, here's what she looked like four or five years ago:

Talk about letting yourself go. I guess she decided to fight the lookist patriarchy by making herself ugly, Andrea Dworkin style.

Feminist Upset That an Action Movie Contains Violence Against Women

Back in February, when a feminist remarked on the fact that most speaking roles in films are men, I posted that it was because most of the bad guys are men. I also noted that if filmmakers increased the number of female characters by making female bad guys (bad girls?) for the heroes to kill, feminists would complain about "violence against women."

Over at Feministing, Chloe reviewed Killers and fulfilled my prediction:

Perhaps one of the most upsetting things about this movie is the rather graphic violence against women. It's nice to see women get in on the action, literally: The majority of the assassins who come after Spencer and Jen are women. But it's not nice to note that the assassins who are most brutally killed are women. When the women are killed - impaled on chandeliers made of antlers or shot point-blank - we see it in gory detail, and we see close-ups of their bleeding bodies. When the men are killed, there's no such attention to detail.

I haven't seen Killers so I can't remark on whether or not there really was more gore when women died than men, or if it was just Chloe's perception. Even if it was the case, does it really matter? There are hundreds of films (or more) out there where dozens of men die messily and no women do, so is one film that subverts this trope really that bad? "Graphic violence against men" occurs in virtually every action film. The only difference between this film and the others is that is that the people dying graphically have tits.

It is impossible to please feminists. If what Chloe wrote about a majority of the assassins being women is true (and there is no reason to think that it isn't), then Killers is probably the first action movie in which most of the bad guys are really bad girls. Instead of praising the film for this new step in the full inclusion and portrayal of women in film, she attacks it.

After fifty years of feminism, it should be clear that feminists do not want equality and this is just another example. When hundreds of movies show countless men dying graphically, no one (including feminists) bats an eye, but when one movie shows female antagonists dying graphically, feminists whine about its depiction of "violence against women."

Knowing Your Audience

Earlier today, in addition to having ads for various liberal causes and organizations, Feministing had ads for Weight Watchers. I wonder, where are the ads for adoptable cats and laser hair removal?