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.

Appearance Discrimination

If you thought liberals whine too much about racism and sexism and think concepts such as ableism, ageism, and sizeism are ludicrous, take a look at what is soon to be the new liberal -ism: lookism.

This article, written by career feminist Lindsay Beyerstein, is over a month old and was written shortly after the Deborahlee Lorenzana story came to light, but it is nonetheless an important look into the worldview of liberal women.

In her provocative new book,The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. [...]

Considering that leftists rant about racism, sexism, heteronormativity, cisgendierism, ableism, classism, ageism, and sizism I am not surprised that some feminist law professor wants to ban "lookism."  In case anyone's curious, this is what the anti-lookist professor looks like.

It should go without saying that discrimination on the basis of appearance is unjust, especially when it comes to features individuals have little or no control over.

Actually, it should not go without saying. Only a liberal woman could write such an ignorant statement. Does she realize that, barring an odd fetish, even the most feminized, beta, herb liberal mangina still would have a much more positive reaction to a 9 model than he would an obese 2?  If discriminating on the basis of appearance is unjust, then as physical appearances tend to be very important to men when selecting a mate, most men are unjust.

She is incorrect when she claims that people have little or no control over their appearances. They can become fat if they are sedentary and eat too much. They can stay fit if they exercise and eat right. They can become muscular if they lift weights (among other things).


Aside from exercising, there are plenty of ways to change your appearance. Buying new clothing can enhance your appearance. Hair dye gives you a new hair color.  Make-up improves womens' faces (and mens' in some cultures). Fair women can tan. Dark women can use skin lightener.

Prior to feminism's triumph, women did a lot of things to improve their appearances. They took care of themselves; they wore make-up when going out; they wore skirts, dresses, and jackets; they wore feminine hats; they wore stockings; etc. It's only up until recently in Western history that women have taken to not caring about their appearances.

Also, it doesn't take that much work to avoid becoming obese. I'm a computer nerd, a member of a group not known for physical prowess, yet I exercise daily. It really is not very hard.

Rhode does a good job of spelling out why such bias is offensive to human dignity and equal opportunity. [...]

Equal opportunity sounds nice on paper, but in reality it doesn't work. Everyone is not equal. Some people are stronger, smarter, faster, smaller, larger, more dominant, or more attractive than others. No amount of liberal social engineering and legislation can change this.

The increasing prevalence of obesity in America has done nothing to curb virulent prejudice against fat people. Ironically, immobilizing obesity is protected as a disability, but discrimination based purely on cosmetic aversion to fat is totally legal.

It is perfectly legal because most people, even liberal manginas, think women who look like they could wrestle a bear and win are disgusting.

In one study, 43 percent of overweight women reported feeling stigmatized by their employers.

As they should be. If the remaining stigmas against fat were destroyed, most women in America would probably become lard buckets.  Most men would too, for that matter.

Obese women earn 12 percent less than their thinner counterparts with comparable qualifications. Obese women are more likely to live in poverty, even after controlling for other factors.

So, why shouldn't women who take care of themselves be rewarded? Obesity is largely a result of lack of self control and absence of willpower. People with no self-control are more likely to waste their money, so it is obvious that they will be more likely to end up in poverty.

Her most egregious assault on reality comes with this statement:

Rhode notes that beauty bias also exacerbates and perpetuates other kinds of discrimination. Female workers are held to more elaborate grooming standards than their male counterparts. [...]

What universe is she living in? At every level, men are held to higher grooming standards than women. Many lower-class retail/service jobs prohibit men from having long hair, whereas I've never heard of any employer prohibiting short, dykish haircuts on women.

Workplace appearance standards in general are stricter regarding men than women. Ties are often required in service industry jobs, yet they are not for women (this is not considered discrimination by the government, although it's a guarantee that the reverse would be).  Many workplaces specify attire for men, but allow women to basically wear anything except jeans.  In workplaces requring professional dress, the men will be covered from the neck down with jackets, ties, slacks, button-down shirts, close-toed shoes, and socks, while women can get away with wearing sleeveless shirts, garments that are essentially T-shirts, no jackets, skirts with bare legs, and sandals.

There's a lot of overlap between appearance discrimination and racism. Some have speculated that coworkers perceived Lorenzana in a more sexualized way because she's Latina. Stereotypically Anglo-European features like smooth hair, slim hips, and pert noses loom large in our prevailing beauty ideals.

Is there anything liberals dislike that is not racist?  And what is "Anglo-European"? I've never heard that word before. Is that a term referring to English people residing on the Continent?

There's a class component in beauty bias, too. A gleaming smile engineered by an orthodontist is a badge of membership in the middle class. As we all know, poverty increases the risk of obesity.

So not only is appearance discrimination racist, but it's classist, too!  It's like a discrimination doubleheader.

Also, poverty doesn't increase the risk of obesity.  Ultimately, low IQ causes both since people with low IQs are likely to have low time preferences and poor decision-making skills.  Not that I'd expect a liberal feminist to acknowledge that.

Rhode acknowledges that the law can only do so much to mitigate the effects of such deep-seated prejudices, but she argues that the enormity of the problem is no excuse for inaction. Sexism, racism and homophobia are certainly ingrained, but that doesn't mean that the law is powerless against them. As segregationists said in the era of Brown, you can't legally force people not to be bigots. On the other hand, when you discourage people from acting like bigots, tolerance can become a habit.

So because the War Against Racism has gone very well, we should extend it to battling the evils of appearance discrimination.  Fifty years ago, blacks and whites went to separate schools, lived in separate neighborhoods, and worshiped at separate churches.  Today, it's the same, if not worse since in the 1950s most blacks weren't born to single women.  A War Against Appearance Discrimination would be even more ineffective, since it would be difficult to prevent someone from having a visceral reaction upon seeing a bloated, obsese colossus or a woman who got smacked with an ugly stick.


Most people with racist views like myself are not biologically hardwired to view blacks as prone to crime or to view Asians as excelling in school (remember, even positive stereotypes are bad!).  These views come from statistical evidence and personal experience.  However, as Beyerstein notes in her article, even infants have a more positive reaction to people with attractive faces.  Appearance discrimination is part of our biology.

Even after a couple decades of brainwashing schoolchildren with "body acceptance" propaganda, it still exists.  Feminists will be unable to eradicate it from our society, no matter how much they try.  All they will do is attack another aspect of freedom of association and thrust upon us another destructive bureaucracy.


In modern America, it is unacceptable to hold women to any form of standards related to sexuality, including appearance.  Combined with the elite's veneration of equality no matter how absurd and laws against appearance discrimination are the natural consequence.

However, I think there's a more personal motive in Beyerstein's article on appearance discrimination.  She's the blond in the picture below.

Female Sexuality Is Good; Male Sexuality is Bad

The idea that feminists are hypocrites is probably viewed as an axiom by most of the readers of this blog. One of their greatest hypocrisies is the fact that they attack male sexuality as exploitative, sexist, patriarchal, oppressive, etc., yet at the same time they glorify female sexuality of all kinds.

Over at Feministe, Jill Filipovic posted an entry that is essentially just a picture of World Cup players in their boxers. Now, what do you think would be this cunt's* reaction would be if a magazine posted pictures of female soccer players in their underwear?

That was a rhetorical question, as she would of course lambaste them for "sexism" and "objectifying women."

*Yes, I used the dreaded c-word. Considering that feminists refer to people such as myself as "asshats" and "douchebags," I believe I am justified in referring to them as cunts. Also, I don't fear political correctness.

Flip-Flops and Young Women's Inability to Dress Nicely

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I attended a graduation at a large university last Sunday. Aside from the male women's study major, another thing that surprised me was how many female graduates were wearing flip-flops with their cap and gown.

I'm accustomed to seeing people, especially women, dressing shoddily to events that only a decade ago required a certain formality in dress, but it's pretty ridiculous that women are wearing Asian peasant footwear to such events. Even after a decade of business casual, men (including young men) are still capable of dressing somewhat nicely when the situation requires - I saw plenty of male graduates in ties and most were wearing at least button-down shirts, slacks, and dress shoes - yet young women do not seem to be capable of doing so.

I guess that there are two reasons behind this: the first is the "decline of the matriarch" that Welmer of The Spearhead has written about. The second is that in this era of pussywhipped men, feminism, "strong and independent women," and sexual harassment laws, men are afraid of criticizing women's appearances - including how they dress for events that should require formality from them - for fear of being attacked by a feminist harpy mob.

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?

Screw Single Mothers

It's time for another post in which I bash a feminist who whines about the plight of "poor" single women who spawn bastard children and then expect society to pick up the tab. I found this article, "Single mothers need pathway out of poverty," via Feministing. It was published on Mother's Day by Majorie R. Sims on The Grio, a black website apparently affiliated with MSNBC.

As we celebrate mothers across the nation this week, I'm reminded of a segment of mothers who likely will face more challenges than cheers this Mother's Day.

In the U.S., the number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically over the past four decades, with nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of the 75 million children under age 18 living in a single-mother family. Race also plays a defining role in the poverty rate, with two-thirds (66 percent) of low-income African American children living in single-mother families, compared to just over a third (35 percent) of low income white children living in single-mother households. This growing number of single-mother families has a significant impact on their children.

The reason why single mother families have been increasing in number is because in the 1960s, feminists and public policy decided that fathers were optional and that one woman could provide for and raise children just as well as a father and mother. And this sure will have a significant impact on their children - they will be more likely to commit crime and have bastards of their own.

According to a recent report issued by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), children of mother-headed families are more likely to live in poverty, with 42 percent of all low-income children living in single-mother families, compared to 32 percent of children in non single-mother families. For children under the age of 8, results are even more striking, with more than three-quarters (77 percent) of young children in single-mother families falling in the poor or low-income range. In addition, children of mother-headed families are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to have health insurance.

If families led by single mothers are so awful, then instead of promoting single motherhood, the government should cut its wealth redistribution programs, thus ending the subsidies for this.

These single mothers face their own challenges, with data showing they tend to be less educated, less likely to have a job or full-time employment and considerably less likely to have a management position or professional occupation. In fact, the largest proportion of working, low-income mothers work in services, with 41 percent of low-income single mothers working in services compared to only 17 percent of higher-income single moms.

A recent report from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that single-parent families believe their economic stability, role as parents and financial providers, and sense of well-being are all negatively impacted by the challenges inherent in single parenthood. At the same time, single parents remain hopeful and express deep commitment to their families and believe in their ability to provide a strong home life and future for their children despite the obstacles.

So in other words, they knew they couldn't support a family by themselves, yet they attempted to do so anyways and are failing. Good. Perhaps if enough of them fail, they young women will realize that trying to raise a family as a single mother is a bad idea.

Ideally, we need to improve the economic conditions of families who live at 200 percent of poverty and below, or with an annual income of $44,100 or less for a family of four. To help these women-headed families establish financial economic security, there are a few components critical to success. Gender-focused strategies can work well to provide skills, careers, financial education and new models of support to create pathways out of poverty. A greater understanding of the relationship between gender and poverty and an investment in projects that take on a gender-specific focus will help us meet the needs of these families.

Why should "we" do anything? It is not "our" (read: taxpayers') job to improve the conditions of these so-called families. And understanding the relationship between gender and poverty is pretty simple: when young, uneducated single women spawn bastards, the family will probably be poor due to the expenses of taking care of children.

Secondly, connecting vulnerable families to existing services and benefits - like financial education and high-quality, affordable early learning and childcare options--can help propel them forward on the path.

Third, single mothers need career ladders and quality job opportunities. We can make this happen by connecting them with community colleges, increasing the number of quality family-supporting jobs in lower-income communities and ensuring they have access to education and training that will lead to career advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities.

In the first part of the article, Sims writes about the problems with single motherhood. Now, she writes about how "we" (read: middle and upper-class white people who pay taxes) can improve the status of these single mothers' families. If we improve the status of single mothers' families to that of two-parent families, then there will be little incentive for many women to get married, which would increase single motherhood and lead to even more of the problems Sims described earlier, particularly the propensity for single mothers' bastards to commit crime and spawn more bastards (hooray for positive feedback loops!).

Also, the fact is that many single mothers simply would not benefit from more education. The fact is, higher education, even after decades of dumbing-down, still requires an above average IQ. Single mothers tend to come from populations with low average IQs, such as blacks, mestizos, and white trash, so forcing them through school would not allow them to climb the career ladder. Not to mention the fact that the dumb sluts got pregnant while they were young and poor in the first place is evidence that they are not very smart, so it makes no sense to waste money on morons to go to school when are smart people who could use money for college (funded through private scholarships, rather than government grants, of course).

We cannot merely focus on moving women-headed families above the poverty line. Rather we should consider ways to help them transform their lives from just surviving to actually thriving, with an increase in the number of women holding quality jobs; more low-income families with bank accounts, savings and increased financial knowledge; and ultimately, significantly fewer single-mother families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Let's honor these mothers with fresh thinking, innovative models and policy decisions that will actually change the trajectory of their lives and those of their children.

In the end it is revealed: this push for helping single mothers is just another way for liberals to expand the welfare state and the reach of government. Pretty much everything liberals advocate ultimately leads to those goals.

Also this week, Melissa McEwan, the disgustingly fat feminist who runs Shakespeare's Sister in between runs to her local all-you-can-eat pizza buffet, wrote an article with a similar theme on Alternet, attacking a conservative who wrote an article attacking single-mother families in the underclass and advocating instead that the government increase social services. Kievsky at Occidental Dissent wrote a decent rebuttal.

Liberals probably really care about single mothers as much as I do (which is not at all), they just use them to expand government by replacing fathers with welfare.

Neocons and Feminists Unite Against Iran

Iran was recently elected to the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, the feminist wing of the UN's bureaucracy. Rather than criticize the commission's very existence, as anyone who actually supports liberty would, female "conservatives" have joined forces with feminists to criticize the election. I try to avoid reading the blogs of female conservatives, mostly because they tend to be a bunch of hypocrites who veil their feminism in the cloak of pseudo-conservatism. Older female conservatives like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have the personalities of a wood chipper, while the younger ones act (and look) even sluttier than liberal women, while at the same time laughingly complaining about how corrupted our culture is and whining because young men won't take them out to dinner before sex.

Now, I think that Iran's treatment of women leaves a lot to be desired. The requirement that Iranian women cover their heads is abominable in my opinion, considering how beautiful Persian women are. But I also have no problem with a country that wishes to curtail the spread of feminism, which ultimately destroys the civilizations it infests. America lasted for only 190 years before feminism (and Michael King) began to destroy it. It's understandable that an ancient civilization stretching back 5000 years would seek to protect itself from feminism.

Ironically, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the feminists' own (bogus) domestic violence statistics against them by using them to show that women were "safer" in Iran than in Europe. It's amusing to see their lies come back to bite them.

"Middle-class" Welfare Queens

Over at Alternet, they posted an article about a "middle-class" single mother named Nan Mooney complaining about the fact that if her state cuts daycare subsidies, her artificial middle-class existence will cease to exist. Of course, since she's on a form of welfare (her subsidized daycare) she is not middle-class, but is just a lower-class person pretending to be middle-class thanks to the government (kind of like black affirmative action workers) or grew up middle-class but made low-class decisions and is being bailed out by the government.

This article exemplifies all that is wrong with America - from the welfare dependency, to the fatherless children and the sense of entitlement people like Mooney have.

One Thursday morning last month I took a break from my job as a journalist and freelance writer and, after dropping off my 2-year-old at his subsidized daycare, drove myself and my 10-week-old daughter across town to a cupcake shop. Our mission? To decorate Cupcake-grams that momsrising.org, a national non-profit that targets family and children's issues, planned to deliver to every last member of the Washington State legislature along with a note about the critical importance of early childhood care and learning.

I didn't do this just for the fun or the frosting. I did it because my livelihood was at stake.

Washington State had threatened deep budget cuts in a number of areas, including slicing $30 million from the Working Connections Childcare program that helped to fund my childcare. I'm a single parent. I work hard to support my family of three but I don't make anywhere near enough to pay the $2,000-plus a month I'd need to put two kids in full-time daycare. Working Connections gives me the freedom to work and therefore feed, clothe and house my children. If it goes, I'm screwed.

Note that there is no mention of a father or husband. Indeed, she fails to mention him at all in the article. Perhaps she should have thought about the difficulties of raising three children before she decided to become a career woman with three kids. True, the father (probably fathers) of her children might not pay much in child support, could be incapacitated or dead, and might have abandoned her and her children. However, if that was the case, she probably would have mentioned it to gain the sympathy of her reader. She would have appeared as a hardworking woman who fell on tough times rather than being a dumb slut who bit off more than she could chew.

Single career women with kids don't need a husband, remember? They are strong and independent women. Well, not quite independent, since they essentially use Big Government as a surrogate husband.

If she loses the subsidies, she says she will be screwed. Good. If more single mothers like her end up poor, maybe women will realize that both choosing to be a single mother and trying to live a middle class existence is impossible without some form of external support.

Though the cupcake protest may be an original spin on things, our merry band of frosters was far from alone. In Buffalo (childcare subsidies eliminated for four in 10 children), in Chicago (proposed $150 million cuts in human services, among them childcare), in Brooklyn (15 daycare centers slated to close in July) and in California (proposed cut of 18,000 childcare spaces), protesters are hitting the phone lines and the streets because they recognize something the legislators and the mainstream media seem to have missed: Child care really matters.

Due to the recession, tax revenues are down. Legislators can either 1) raise taxes or 2) cut spending. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to significantly raise taxes during a recession and take more money from the very people who provide others with jobs. That leaves spending cuts, which no government agency is immune to right now. Even police departments are receiving funding cuts.

For the majority of today's families, child care is an expensive but all too necessary fact of life. In 1975, nearly half of families with children consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, only one in five families still embody that traditional set-up. In fact mothers are now primary breadwinners--making as much or more than their spouse or filling the role of single working parent --in nearly four in 10 families. And as more mothers flood the workplace, families have to shoulder the often dizzying costs of finding someone else to watch their kids. Getting help with childcare isn't an added perk like a parking space in the company garage. It's a lynchpin, one that can affect healthy child development, job security and the frayed economic realities of today's low-income families.

In other words, liberals destroyed traditional America and are shocked at their results. Congratulations, you destroyed the family wage and made it impossible to support a middle-class family on one income, turned women into sluts, and turned men from being beta providers to being gaming pseudo-alphas and basement dwellers. Everything has a consequence. Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore consequences.

Also, she used the word "lynchpin" on Alternet. I'm surprised the editors allowed it, because it contains the word "lynch," which they probably think is a racist word (like "looter").

People need to appreciate that funding quality child are isn't just a work support issue, it's also a child development issue," says Danielle Ewen, the director of childcare and early learning at the Center for Law and Social Policy. "If we don't invest in early childhood care and learning, kids will arrive at school unprepared to learn. It will affect the number of children with special needs. It will affect graduation rates. It goes to the heart of what our public education system is all about."

For years, kids started elementary school at six or seven years old and they did well. America became the most powerful nation in the world without having kids start school when they were two or three. It sounds like Ewen is just another one of those liberal "experts" who wants to destroy childhood. Thirteen years of liberal indoctrination must not be enough.

For many of us, childcare subsidies play a critical role in the economic infrastructure, bridging the gap to provide a service as essential as food or housing. About 30 percent of all low-income families using child care centers, and 16 percent using an in-home care giver receive subsidies, about 14 percent of those who are federally eligible. Not only do such subsidies ensure that parents can work, they also place those children in healthy environments focused on development and learning. If subsidies disappear, many low-income families are forced into an impossible situation in which their income is less than the cost of paying someone to watch their child.

Once again, liberals fail to realize that actions have consequences. If these "low-income families" (liberal code words for "single black women and their brood of bastards with different fathers") can't support their spawn, then they should not engage in sex. Pretty much everyone other than pre-contact Australian aborigines and young children understands the relationship between sex and women having babies. It really is not a difficult concept.

It's a lifesaver," says Francine Almash, a Brooklyn resident and single parent who relies on subsidies to pay for daycare for her three children. Almash, who works as a freelance editor and splits her time between telecommuting and going in to the office, pays $5 a week to send her kids to a city-funded daycare center near her home. "Without the subsidies I'd have to pay a minimum of about $2,100 a month, even to put my kids in a city-funded daycare. There's no way I could possibly afford that. It's almost my entire income."

No liberal article demanding the government to spend money on something would be complete without a sob story.

Francine Almash is raising three kids in New York City while making around $25,000. She could at least move to a city with a lower cost of living. But that would involve "personal responsibility," a concept that is an anathema to liberals. What a dumb bitch.

When asked what she would do if her subsidy were cut, there's a long silence.

I don't know," Almash finally says. "I really don't know. Maybe I could try to keep one kid home? I'd probably just have to quit working and go on public assistance."

Perhaps Almash should have thought about this before she decided to raise three children as a single mother in New York City - not exactly a cheap place to live - while working as an editor. It's interesting to note that the author of this piece is also a single mother journalist. I wonder why so many single mothers are writers? If they are supporting a family on one income, they should probably

For families like Almash's, the loss of childcare subsidies would be devastating. The subsequent scramble for any kind of care, let alone a licensed quality provider, would force them to play fast and loose with their children's well-being.

In other words, they will have to deal with the consequences off their actions. This is what adults do.

"There are issues of child development and child safety at stake," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress. "Without subsidies, more kids will wind up in unstable care situations that the parents are managing day to day. They may be shuffled around to friends or relatives or even be left home alone to take care of themselves."

There's another solution: single, career women shouldn't have bastard children. And if they do decide to have children, get married first so someone can watch the kid. As for kids having to be home alone, I understand the concern about younger kids, but once kids are of a certain age (say 9 or 10) is it really that big of a deal to have them walk home from school and stay home alone for an hour and a half until their mom comes come?

For many, the juggling required to grapple with suboptimal childcare can lead to taking days off work, arriving late and leaving early. As a result, parents risk losing those same jobs subsidies are meant to help facilitate. In addition, cuts in childcare dollars mean that childcare workers, many of whom are women and many of whom are single parents, now face having their hours cut or their jobs eliminated.

"In part, we see childcare subsidies as a job program," Boushey says. "Without reliable childcare, many low-income parents are forced into a position where they are less consistent on the job because they are dealing with childcare-related issues. They risk losing jobs and losing promotions. And in a tight job market like we have now, driving people out of the workplace is the last thing we want to be doing."

A more effective job program would be to slash the welfare/warfare state, abolish the income and capital gains tax, and allow wealthy people and small businessmen to create jobs. Also, expelling all illegal immigrants and many legal immigrants would help, too. That would be a far more effective job program than providing single women with an incentive to pop out bastards. It would also be a lot better for society than subsidizing the increase in the number of criminals and teen pregnancies that result from single motherhood.

What also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle is how much such cuts could potentially cost individual states and the country as a whole. If I lost my daycare subsidy I would have to turn to food stamps, Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, Section 8, and every other social service out there to support my zero-income family. I would wind up the kind of financial burden no one's looking to take on these days. In addition, every child who doesn't get what they need in terms of early childhood care and learning risks costing the system more down the line in the form of behavioral problems or poor school performance.

If she would end up on welfare if she lost her daycare subsidy, she really isn't living a middle-class existence as she claims. She is living one artificially created with taxpayer dollars.

Also, due to the fact that her children are being raised by a single mother, they already are likely to have behavioral problems and poor school performance.

"Childcare faces a serious threat right now," says Ewen. "The short-term implications of the recession are very bad. We could see states making tremendous cuts, particularly once the stimulus money expires. The hard truth is that we can't make any reforms without resources. We know what we need to do -- develop a system in which the highest quality care is available to the widest range of families. Now it's a question of finding the means to do it."

The Obama administration seems committed to early childhood care and learning, pledging an additional $1.6 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2011 (a pledge that still has to make it through Congress). Advocates hit a major stumbling block when the Early Learning Challenge Grant --$8 billion stretched across eight years targeted for education and learning for children from birth to age 5 --wasn't included in the final health care bill passed by the Senate. Now it's up to Congress to allocate more money to the states and also to states to put their own resources on the table.

Naturally, Obama and the Democrats will step in and further subsidize the destruction of the family with stolen money.

We can only hope they see the bigger issues at stake. Investing in childcare means investing in the future of our children and our education system, in job growth and creation.

She becomes very Orwellian in this sentence and the following ones.

By "investing" in childcare, she really means "take money from hardworking people via taxes and give it to single women." That is not investing, it is taking money from the people who invest.

It isn't a handout.

...

If this isn't a handout, then what is?

It's a crucial step toward helping individuals to help themselves.

No, it leads to the exact opposite. When someone gets $2000 a month from the government, as Mooney appears to, this does not cause them to take care of themselves. If they took care of themselves, that money would go way and they would have to pay $2000 a month out of their own pocket, so there is no incentive to help themselves. People realize they do not need to take care of themselves because the government will do it better than they can. This is one of the problems with welfare and why it is so destructive.

If Mooney wanted to take care of herself, she should have either not gotten pregnant or got married to the father of her children. Or she could have exercised this "choice" that feminists are always clamoring about.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

Perhaps if Mooney is poor enough that her middle-class existence is endangered, she should find a more lucrative job than writing progressive political books for a non-profit organization (Beacon Press is run by a Unitarian group). And the reason why we are "not keeping up with our parents" is because liberals like her destroyed the society that our parents lived in, though I'm sure in her book she blames it on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

I hate single mothers. I really do. I don't hate widows or mothers whose husbands/boyfriends turn out to be deadbeats, criminals, or otherwise worthless, but I hate single women who decide to have children knowing there will be no father in their children's lives and then expect everyone else (via government taxation) to pay for their decisions. Not only do I hate ghetto black welfare queens running around with their brood of five misbehaving nigglets, but I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare (and the fact that school hours don't work well with office hours, that their employer won't give them time off to see their kids' school plays, etc.).

Nan Mooney is an embodiment of everything wrong with America.

"Sharing" Housework

Whenever I see a man pushing a stroller or wandering around with a baby in a papoose I wonder if since he does his share of childcare, does his wife mow the lawn? (And before any FRAs start complaining, no I do not have a problem with fathers taking care of their children, I just think the sight of men wandering around carrying babies in papooses looks ridiculous and emasculating.) Feminists, their "pro-feminist" mangina allies, and women in general often whine that men don't do their share of housework, but men do plenty of housework, except that it is outside or if it is inside it involves using strength and/or getting dirty.

Most of the people who I've seen changing tires, fixing cars, mowing lawns, landscaping and exterior decorating, doing fix-it work, cleaning gutters, and painting houses are men. True, this work might not take as much time as women's indoor work, but it is a lot more tiring and in some cases, dangerous. Plus, a lot of women's work is mostly automated. Women don't wash the clothes with a washboard and string them on a clothesline, they just dump them in the washer and dryer and later fold them. Likewise, cooking really isn't very labor intensive for the most part (unless you are preparing ingredients, mixing them, or stirring them), especially since most American women just throw something into the microwave or oven. And in households where the man works and the woman stays at home, he spends 8 hours a day working, so the least she can do is the housework.

To answer my question in the first paragraph, I'm guessing that the wives/girlfriends of men who wander around carrying babies in papooses while their wives work, shop, or visit friends probably don't repay the favor by doing yardwork. The kind of men they are married to are the kind of nice guys that believe that "equality" means women have no responsibilities or are "pro-feminist" manginas who are too meek to stand up to women (because that would be patriarchal and sexist).

Women March Topless in Maine & Get Mad When Men Watch Them

A few days ago, in Portland, Maine, two dozen women decided to protest the double standard in America regarding male vs. female toplessness by marching topless along a main street. Predictably, this rather unusual attracted the attention of many men, many of whom took pictures of this public event. The Portland Press Herald provides a picture, although it is a rear view. Judging from their pale skin, short and ragged hair, chunky physiques, and the Mirror of Venus painted on the back of one of them, it's safe to say that they were probably feminists and hipster girls, which makes me wonder why so many men were taking pictures in the first place.

Generally, women who go around topless protesting the toplessness double standard tend to be feminists and lesbians, usually ugly ones. Maybe they would have better luck fighting the double standard if they brought good-looking non-man-hating women to their protests, like PETA does. Until then, toplessness in America will be associated with fat, ugly feminists, lesbians, and goddess-worshipers and the double standard will not vanish because men will associate publicly bare breasts with the flabby one of such women.

The funniest part of this story is the fact that the marchers were mad that they attracted a crowd:

"Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on."

Societal attitudes are not going to be changed by a single march. This is probably the first time nearly two dozen women walked topless through this city - it was an abnormal event. If a jester walked along the sidewalk with a dancing bear, it probably would probably attract a photographing crowd, too (or maybe everyone would have ran away in fear). Even if the double standard is eroded, do they really think no one would notice a bunch of women walking topless along a street? In Europe, it is common for women to go topless on beaches, but if twenty women marched topless along a main street in Barcelona or Bucharest, would the men really ignore them?

"However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers."

Note the typical feminist/liberal response. If you don't like what someone is using, shut them down somehow. It worked on Tom Tancredo, Ann Coulter, American Rennaisance, et al. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian conservatives who were upset by this legal (in Maine female public toplessness is not a crime) protest, yet they didn't attempt to interfere.

How exactly is she going to discourage oglers? They are in a public place, so the oglers have as much right to be there as the marchers do. A lot of these oglers were probably men who had legitimate business shopping, eating, or working downtown; they weren't protesters trying to stir up trouble. The "aggressive" part suggests that she intends to use force to stop the oglers, which will result in them getting arrested (and probably praised on feminist blogs). There are instances in which getting arrested at protests is beneficial to the protesters, but the public wouldn't have much sympathy for a bunch of topless fat, ugly feminists and lesbians who attack men who watch them as they walk around half-naked in public. If they get "aggressive," it will probably just backfire on them.

Also, if the whole point is to draw attention to the double standard, it is pointless to discourage people from watching their protest. Generally, people who march around expressing their point of view want people to notice them.

However, I admit that I am also enraged that men were ogling the marchers. Really, what kind of man enjoys watching a bunch of fat feminists and man-hating lesbians walking around exposing their flabby breasts? There must be a lot of weird fetishists in Maine...

RapeLay and Ignorant Video Game Bashers

Feminists and the Old Media have rediscovered RapeLay, the Japanese rape simulation game that video game bashers love to use to attack gaming.

Before I discuss that, I wanted to mention an ignorant video game bashing (and male-bashing) article from the Times-Herald of Dubuque, Iowa, which I found via GiantBomb. I am posting the article in its entirety due to the fact that online newspaper articles, especially those from papers with relatively low circulation, have a tendency to link rot.

Monday, March 29, 2010
Change 'culture of violence'
Teach boys that abusing women and degrading others will not be tolerated.
BY TIM MOOTHART

You and I began life as a being without a propensity to harm others. All of us, yes even the mass murderer on death row, began life as a child who would never think of harming another human being.

However:

* Some 18 percent of women in the United States have been victims of a completed or attempted rape.

* Riverview Center in Dubuque served 1,100 children and adults this year related to violence.

Who is performing this violence?

* Some 64 percent of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date.

* Typical perpetrators are not aliens or misfits. They are your neighbors, your relatives, your co-workers.

What happened?

Jackson Katz, noted expert on gender violence, says, "Most men who assault women are not so much disturbed as disturbingly normal ... they are influenced by broad cultural beliefs about manhood that shape their psyches and identities. And ours. They not only learn to be violent, they learn that violence is manly."

Yes, all of us together have created a "culture of violence" and live with its logical outcome, a society racked with pain and suffering inflicted upon each other by acts of violence. Violence is a learned behavior and all of us have been its teachers.

What can we do?

Like any skill or learned trait, we can learn to approach gender violence from a different perspective. We can all be teachers of a new approach.

First, it requires all of us to believe that WE have the responsibility to change our culture. It's not just the perpetrators or "them" that have to change, it's all of us.

Next, reject the idea that violence is inevitable and that some men abuse women. Hold yourself to a higher standard. Boys learn how to be men from observing other men. In Dubuque, let's make sure they observe that degrading women and abusing others is not part of manhood and will not be tolerated.

Take a look inside yourself. Men, do you believe that men should be in control in a relationship? Do you act as if males are "the stronger gender"? Do you treat and talk about others as if they were objects rather than fellow humans?

Show our children how to respect others even when you disagree with them or they have hurt you in some way.

Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."

Join us as we work to change the culture of our community and our attitude toward gender violence. Help us educate all community members on its negative impact and what ALL of us can do to prevent it by the way we live.

Together we can learn to eliminate gender and domestic violence! What are you teaching?

The article reeks of the chivalrous male-bashing common among conservative nice guy manginas. He writes about how we need to teach boys to respect women and girls, etc., etc. Of course, no mention is made of teaching girls to respect boys and men. I am used to reading that kind of drivel so to me that was not the dumbest part. This was:

Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."

It's obvious that this man has never played or even researched much about the GTA series. He's just a lemming who read an article in the newspaper or saw a report on Fox News telling about how players in GTA can commit violence against women.

The truth is, GTA has less violence against women than most modern games. True, you can have sex with prostitutes, then kill them and take the money, but this is not part of the main storyline. Pretty much all of the enemies you fight and kill in GTA, including both police and criminals are male (which is odd considering women make up like 20% of most big city police departments), unlike in many games where there are many female enemies. So I wonder why Tim Moothart didn't say that GTA disrespected men?

Via Feministing, I found a story from CNN regarding a video game called RapeLay. First off, RapeLay has been out for four years and RapeLay has been known among gamers and the Internet subculture for a few years. It is pathetic that CNN is only catching on now. The Old Media is utterly useless when it comes to Internet-related news.

Anyways, the whole point of RapeLay is to rape women. It seems sick, right? But when you think about it, there are a lot of sicker games out there. In first-person shooters you slaughter hundreds of people, including unarmed civilians in some cases, to complete the game. In games where there is some sort of morality system present, such as alignment in Dungeons and Dragons-based games and the Renegade/Paragon system of Mass Effect, the player can do horrible things to people. In Mass Effect 2, you can beat information out of a prisoner (there's actually a few parts of the game that involve beating information out of people) and execute unarmed civilians and surrendered enemies if you go for the Renegade path. In Bioshock, you can kill little girls if you play as an evil character. True, you aren't required to do evil acts like you are in RapeLay, but the potential is still there and a lot of players do so.

Predictably feminists are outraged over it. I agree that stores should probably not be selling it, but their public outrage is only going to cause it to spread even further. It is something known as the Streisand effect - things that people try to censor on the Internet end up getting spread around more than they would have if they were just left alone. Indeed, CNN shockingly notes that the game went viral as a result of the feminists' protests and people can download it through tubes of the Internets. Who would've thought?

Of course, a bunch of feminist activists and Old Media reporters - or do I repeat myself? - wouldn't know anything about the Streisand effect or Internet culture in general. Which is probably a good thing. If they dug deeper into Internet culture, they would undoubtedly be horrified by what they would find, and we would get even more articles like this.

Predictably, feminists have a solution and it involves government regulation. For the article, CNN "interviewed" Taina Bien-Aime from Equality Now, one of the people who helped get the game removed from the shelves last year. Bien-Aime wants Japan "to ban all games that promote and simulate sexual violence, sexual torture, stalking and rape against women and girls." The fact is, as distasteful as games like RapeLay are, they do not hurt anyone. 0s and 1s are being "raped," not real women. Also, if governments can ban RapeLay, they will probably try to ban violent games and games with politically incorrect content later on. Yes, that involves a slippery slope, but when discussing government regulations the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is generally a legitimate concern.

Perhaps Taina Bien-Aime and her Equality Now should put more effort into fighting real, tangible oppression towards women, instead of calling for governments to censor video games they don't like in First World countries where women are very well off.

Are Nerds Really Manginas?

Over at The Spearhead, Ferdinand Bardamu (of In Mala Fide) recently wrote an article about nerds and gamers as manginas who worship women. He cites a new online service called PlayDates where men pay $8.25 to play a ten minute game on X-Box Live or a six minute casual Flash game with a female gamer. The whole business concept is pretty pathetic and Bardamu sums it up nicely:

“PlayDates” is quite appropriate, since the dorks who sign up for GameCrush are basically paying women like prostitutes, but without the sex. It’s like phone sex but just as pricey and only half as retarded.

The sad thing is, there are plenty of losers out there who are stupid enough to partake in this service. I agree with his criticism of PlayDates itself and the loser gamers/nerds who will undoubtedly frequent it.

However, he also makes the statement:

It’s not a stretch to say that most hardcore gamers are nerds, and while not all manginas are nerds, almost all nerds are manginas.

There are a lot of gamers and nerds out there who basically worship women and feminists, as manginas tend to do. However, I disagree with his assertion that most nerds and gamers are manginas.

About once a month on most gaming forums, a topic pops up regarding the presence of female enemies in a specific game or games in general. Female enemies are pretty common nowadays. Sometimes they will be bosses or elite enemies (like in Wolfenstein), but in many games they make up a good portion of the common mooks (i.e. Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Bethesda's games). Predictably, whenever these board topics about female enemies pop up, a few male gamers will write about how horrible it is to have female enemies in games and that they feel guilty about having to kill female enemies (somehow I doubt female gamers feel guilty about killing male enemies while playing as Joanna Dark or Lara Croft).

That's right, there are gamers out there who get sad when they have to "kill" women who exist only as a sequence of 0s and 1s in RAM. But these gamers are the minority. Whenever some manginas whine about "violence against women" in games, they get smacked down by the non-mangina nerds that greatly outnumber them. Also, the fact that most games nowadays have female enemies shows that nerds are not manginas in general. If nerds were manginas, there probably would be no female enemies in video games and female villains would be treated sympathy in order to avoid offending the supposed mangina audience. Additionally, the people who make video games are nerds (see this picture of Bethesda's Fallout 3 development team, for example) and if most of them were manginas, then they would go out of their way to exclude or demonize "violence against women" (a term that manginas love to use) instead of including it in their games.

Mangina nerds are pretty easy to distinguish from other nerds. They worship "ass-kicking women" and think women who can beat them up are awesome. They are the kind of nerds who get upset when his opponent in a game of Magic: the Gathering refers to a creature card depicting a woman as a "bitch," not due to the unsportsmanlike comment but due to its "sexism." He's the kind of guy who complains about how a new video game "glorifies violence against women" because it has female enemies, a female villain, and allows you to hit a woman in a scene played for comedy. Yet he not only has no problem with video games depicting women beating up and killing men, but likes such women because of how "empowered" they are. This is the kind of man who writes a feminist review of Portal.

I've met these kind of mangina nerds before. I've noticed that they tend to be on the less intelligent than the average nerd and perhaps as a result they try to act more "normal" than other nerds. That's the key. The nerds who are normal and the nerds who are not normal but know it are not manginas. It's usually the less-intelligent nerds who try to fit in with normal people who end up as manginas.

I call this the "uncanny mountain of nerdom." The name derives from the uncanny valley theory in robotics that basically states that as an object similar to a human becomes close to looking and behaving like a human, its familiarity suddenly and sharply plumets, then rises again.

In the graph of the "uncanny mountain of nerdom," as a nerd's normalness increases, there is a significant increase in his level of mangina-ness, prior to falling. This uncanny mountain is caused by beta male nerds who try to act cool like everyone else, but have difficulties inherent to their nerdom. And while they are still reasonably smart, they lack other nerd's high intelligence and its accompanying benefits. In order to attempt to attract women and fit in with our emasculated culture, they act like manginas both in person and on the internet.



While there are a lot of gamers who are manginas, I wouldn't say that a majority of gamers are manginas. I think such statements are as inaccurate as saying most nerds are omega males. True, there are some gamers and nerds who exude manginaness, but female-worshipping beta males, gamma males (per Vox Day's hierarchy), white knights, nice guys, and manginas - or whatever else you want to call them - exist in large numbers everywhere.

I think the reason why a lot of people hold such stereotypes about nerds and gamers is that the media portrays them as such. If they are not fat, friendless, omega losers, they are decent-looking but socially awkward betas/gammas who worship the ground that women tread on. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that the media is dominated by feminists and liberal men who act like manginas to appease the feminists. So when they portray nerds, they will either portray loser nerds for women (and non-nerd alpha males) to laugh at or mangina nerds so women can feel smug and self-important.

Unfortunately, these mangina, female-worshipping males tend to be the more publicly visible nerds, especially in the film industry. It probably has to do with the fact that they have slightly better social skills and far less misanthropy than the average nerd so they are better suited for the public eye. Video game industry leaders are closer to the average nerd, which is probably why the mainstream media, politicians, middle-class suburban mothers, and activist groups hate video games: they're not used to dealing with nerds - and men in general - who aren't politically correct manginas.

Note: I wrote about why not all nerds are omegas here.

"Street Harassment" and Freedom of Speech

Libertarians often make the statement that liberals are right on civil liberties and conservatives are right on economic liberties. The truth, of course, is that conservatives are awful on economic liberties and liberals are horrible on civil liberties. To liberals, racial and gender egalitarian trumps everything, including civil rights and liberties. This is why when a black thug murders people, they call for mercy, but when wealthy white college students are accused of raping a black stripper, they get out the pitchforks and torches.

Despite the fact that liberals are reputed to support freedom of speech, they really support a warped version of it (I refer to it as liberal free-dumb). They believe that freedom of speech means students can disrupt a Tom Tancredo speech or shut down an interstate to whine about budget cuts, but it does not apply whenever someone says something that offends NAMs or feminists. The recent shutdown of the AmRen conference is one example. Now an article has been written by a Huffington Post feminist arguing for legal restrictions on street harassment. For those of you who are unfamiliar with feminist buzzwords, street harassment is when say things, sometimes offensive, to a woman who is dressed sexily in public.

Holly Kearl argues that since sexual harassment is illegal in the workplace, it should be illegal in public. Of course, she fails to explain the legal basis for the illegality of sexual harassment in the workplace. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s (so much for Kearl's claim that workplace sexual harassment was illegal 19 years before she was born) that sexual harassment constitutes gender discrimination, which is prohibited by the Property Rights and Freedom of Association Destruction Act of 1964 (more commonly called the Civil Rights Act). I do not have a legal background so I do not know why the courts have not struck down the Civil Rights Act as infringing on freedom of speech, but I'm guessing it has to do with the facts that 1) as mentioned above, liberals have a different definition of free speech and 2) it involves businesses, which the courts have allowed the federal government virtually unlimited reign to meddle with since the 1930s.

Anyways, she goes on to praise the Egyptian Parliament's recent passing of a law banning street harassment and suggests that the same happen here. Considering that Egypt has been ruled by the same man since 1981 under a state of emergency, if Egypt passes a law, it's probably a bad idea to pass the same law here. The idea of the federal government banning street harassment reminds me of the South Park episode Cartman's Silly Hate Crime, where Cartman (a 4th grader) throws a rock at a black kid and ends up getting arrested by the FBI and sent to prison (before being pardoned when his friends explain to the governor how hate crime laws are a "savage hypocrisy").

A federal law that banned street harassment would certainly be unconstitutional even with a strict originalist interpretation - it literally bans speech in public places simply because someone finds it offensive (of course, it would also violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, but that's another topic). SCOTUS consistently ruled in favor of an expansive view of freedom of speech. For example, it ruled in the 1970s that it is not constitutional to arrest someone for wearing a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" into a courthouse, so I really can't see them upholding a law like this. And to enforce this law would simply expand the police state that liberals are so fond of attacking and would undoubtedly lead to the arrest of thousands of young black men. It would be amusing to see liberals' reactions when black men are disproportionately arrested under a street harassment law.

If women want to end street harassment, there's a really good way: don't dress like a slut. The fact is, when a woman wears a short skirt, high heels, and a sleeveless or strapless shirt, she is asking for attention. True, some of these "victims" are professional women dressed for the office, but many of these "professional" women wear only slightly more clothing than women going to nightclubs. Ten or fifteen years ago, professional women wore knee-length skirt-suits or dresses, closed-toed shoes, and hosiery. Now, it seems to be acceptable for "professional" women to go bare legged and wear sandals, short(er) skirts, glorified T-shirts, and even sleeveless shirts.

Yes, I realize I am being politically incorrect and "blaming the victim," but I simply do not care. If women do not want attention, then they should not do their best to attract it.

I find a lot of things that people say offensive, but I don't go around calling for laws to make them shut up. Kearl and other feminists completely miss the point of freedom of speech. The idea of freedom of speech is that people have the right to say things that offend others. If you don't like the fact that a strange man said something about your short skirt, then either insult him back, don't dress like you are trying to attract men's attention if you don't want it, or ignore him and get on with your life like an adult. Feminists wanted wanted to be treated like equals so they should act like it, instead of acting like helpless little girls. Plenty of men have been insulted or harassed by strangers in public, yet you don't see men clamoring for street harassment laws.

However, I really can't blame Kearl for want to ban street harassment. Looking at her picture, it's clear she's never been "street harassed" in her life. She's probably jealous.

EDIT: Fixed a minor error.

Why there are fewer female speaking roles

Over at Feministe, a couple days ago Jill posted (without comment) part of an article from the LA Times, which says that despite making up half the population, only 29.9% of movie speaking roles are (at least in the top 100 grossing films of 2007). The reason was pretty obvious to me: most of the bad guys in movies are men. While the good guys usually consist of men and women, most villains are male, almost all of their lieutenants are male, and virtually every mook/guard/redshirt is male.

Avatar is an example of this. While there were male and female protagonists, all of the antagonists at every level were male.

JJ Abram's Star Trek is another example. In Starfleet (the good guys), there were both men and women present - on the USS Kelvin, at Starfleet Academy, and on the USS Enterprise. Indeed, it looked like the producers and casting directors had gone out of their way to make the crews seem half-male, half-female.

The villainous Romulans, in contrast, were all male. Lucia Rijker (known for playing a boxer in Million Dollar Baby was supposed to play a female Romulan, but I didn't see her. Anyways, there was no way it could have been accidental that the good guys were mixed male-female and the bad guys all male.

Now, if the good guys are male and female and the bad guys are male, it follows that there will be more men with speaking roles than women. Of course, if films started showing more "bad girls," feminists would probably complain that the film industry is "promoting violence against women."