In my article The feminist #metoo circle jerk on the Harvey Weinstein accusations for sexual misconduct, I pointed out that those women willingly accepted a quid pro quo, meaning that they traded sexual favors for movie roles and other opportunities. Yet, now that those women are well past their prime, good ol’ Harvey is suddenly worse than Hitler, or something like that. Feminist reasoning really is quite peculiar. If there was an issue with sexual misconduct, then why the hell wasn’t that brought to the attention of the public, or the police, in 1997 instead of 2017? The obvious conclusion is that those women clearly knew what they were doing: “Which hole, Mr Weinstein? Of course, Mr Weistein!”
This brings me to an article recently posted by leftist rag The Guardian, in which a confused female reader asks, “Should I report sexual harassment if I then slept with the man?”. That is the headline of the article, which tells you everything you need to know, i.e. that said female reader has more than a few screws loose. The subtitle is, “A reader wonders whether she should call out a senior staff member who pestered her inappropriately before they had a relationship”.
Yes, I had to take a deep breath as well when I read that.
I couldn’t even read the entire article without cringing. Here is a highlight, though, before I start bashing both the woman writing to leftist rag The Guardian and the woman responding to her:
In your case, whether you later had a relationship with this man, or used his reference, doesn’t condone his initial transgression, but it suggests enough ambiguity to make it worth examining your motives in coming forward.
Ambiguity? Ambiguity!? I must be dreaming. There is no ambiguity because the female reader who lusts for a few minutes of fame has no reason to claim sexual harassment. Let’s go through this one by one:
1) A guy hits on a woman. That is what guys have to do because women will never ever approach you. Fat, ugly, and old women don’t count.
2) After some back and forth, said woman submits to the man and willingly takes his dick.
I don’t even want to write about the fact that she fucked a superior at work and traded sex for a favorable letter of recommendation. This is Harvey Weinstein light. Attractive actresses get to bang Hollywood moguls. Average looking women who don’t get by on their looks try to trade pussy for a little bit of professional success in their chosen succession. In the abstract, those two situations are identical. If you don’t grasp this then, quite frankly, you are fucking stupid, or a feminist. However, the set of stupid people is a superset of the set of feminists, so there is no real difference for the point of the argument.
Let’s get back to the issue of sexual advances. Yes, dear horny reader with the massive cock, you, too, have to approach women if you want to get laid for free (spend a few bucks on my fantastic book Minimal Game, if you haven’t bought it yet, though). You’ll probably creep out a few chicks along the way, but that is par for the course. If you are smooth, there is essentially a zero chance that you will ever be accused of sexual harassment. Just focus on young and mentally healthy women, or leave the Western world, and that won’t be much of a worry for you.
However, her approval of you making a move on her implies compliance. A girl can’t spend months fucking you and swallow a gallon of your cum in the process and later on turn around and claim that she has gotten sexually harassed. The only logically consistent way out for a feminist with a feeble mind is to claim that women are unable to make a decision and turn down men. As you guys know, that is not what is happening in the real world. Women don’t fuck you out of pity and they most certainly don’t validate sexual harassment by having sex with the supposed harasser. How harassed could she have felt if she willingly had sex afterwards? Clearly, if she had sex with a guy, she could not have been harassed.
This is a prime example of a modus tollens, by the way, so let me teach you a bit of formal logic, even though it will make some of you stop reading this article. The pattern is as follows:
1) If A then B
2) Not B
3) (Conclusion:) Not A
This means you can refute 1) if you are able to find 2).
Let’s replace A and B to make it more fun. Set A to “Suzy has gotten sexually harassed by Matt” and B to “Suzy does not fuck Matt”. You look at this and already see that there is an issue. The only way out is to claim that sexual harassment is no big deal and not relevant to the question of whether a woman fucks you or not, but this would be colossally stupid as it would trivialize sexual harassment to the point that it means nothing anymore, which, frankly, is what feminists have unwillingly been working towards.
But onward, junior logicians! We now have:
1) If “Suzy has gotten sexually harassed by Matt” then “Suzy does not fuck Matt”
2) Not “Suzy does not fuck Matt”
3) (Conclusion:) Not “Suzy has gotten sexually harassed by Matt”
In plain English, this means:
2) Suzy fucks Matt
3) Suzy has not gotten sexually harassed by Matt
You learn logical reasoning like this within the first few days of a proper degree program, if you’re not motivated enough to study logic on your own. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing. Among others, it allows us to program computers. On that note, are there any feminists who can do even just a little bit of programming? No, I don’t think so either, and the reason is that they can’t figure out simple if/then reasoning and have no idea of what it means for a set of statements to be internally consistent. Otherwise, they wouldn’t come up with bullshit such as claiming that you can change after the fact, even decades later, whether something constituted sexual harassment or not. Oh, I just realized that you don’t even have to go all the way to logic to show that feminists are too fucking dumb for that. In a mathematical proof, for instance, you assign values to variables and once you have done that, you don’t get to change it. Once you write down “let x = 1”, the value of x has been set and that’s it. This shows that feminists won’t get far in mathematics either.
Did you like this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my books or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.
Jokes on you. I believe formal logic and its similars like newtonian physics and the scientific method have already been disqualified as tools of the patriarchy. I. E. You cant use these to disprove feminism. You would need to use something that has not been effected by the patriarchy, but I bet you cant. Because everything and everywhere is patriarchy…
#fullretard
The fact about feminins: they don’t care about logic. What matters is their ego and what they want – the way children behave. Truth will be defined by each women alone.
The reality of the modern work world (and academia as well) is that if you engage in a relationship with a female coworker or student and things do not end well, the woman might very well turn around and claim harassment, even if it is a long time after the fact. Employers (and school administrators) are obliged to investigate all complaints, and unfortunately, a lot of the people investigating these issues will be predisposed to view all men as predators and all women as victims. Even assuming you are cleared of wrongdoing, word gets out and a lot of people will view you as a monster. The aggrieved victim is unlikely to think she may have made a mistake and instead will claim that the workplace or institution doesn’t believe victims, and is not interested in protecting women.
“Peak feminist stupidity”
Why peak?
That’s based on the assumption that feminists can’t be any stupider, but that assumption may be wrong.
Compared to religions (mainly religious fundamentalists) feminists come a lot more stupid already. What goes to say they can’t get any more dumb. I think feminism is the new world religion. A religion for the internet age.
They keep proving us wrong. People have been saying “feminism can’t get any stupider than this” for a long time. They prove us wrong every year.
Things that were published in the onion 2 years previously, are actual things feminists actually do unironically in the current year. That’s been a trend for a while.
“x=1”
Oh, c’mon Aaron, variables are a social construct, just like gender! Variables have the right to be fluid! Of course they can change. VFT, man… Variable Fluidity Theory.
\s
Fantastic article. I liked the intermezzo on logical reasoning a lot.
Logic is a little off here my man. A implies B, but B does not imply A. Finding not B is sufficient to prove not A, but finding B is not sufficient to prove A.
You actually just made an argument against ypurself…
I don’t think you have had any training in logic, nor do I think that you fully grasp the argument I presented. What you are trying to argue for is an entirely different schema. It is the logical equivalence of A and B, i.e. whenever A, then B, and vice versa. In that case, it is a refutation if you show
A -> Band also showNot (A -> B). To prove the equivalence of A and B, you need to showA -> Bas well asB -> Aor, alternatively, the equivalence of code>Not A andNot B. However, the equivalence of A and B does not make any sense in the example I discuss.To make it clearer to you why your objection does not make any sense, just replace
AandBwith statements. For instance, do you think it is plausible that if you have sex with a woman then you didn’t harass her (plausible) and also that if you didn’t harass a woman then you have sex with her (sorry, the bar is normally quite a bit higher than that)? Alternatively: if a woman does not have sex with you, then you sexually harassed her (implausible because there can be many reasons why she does not have sex with you), and if you sexually harass a woman, then you won’t have sex with her (plausible). Do you see the problem with your argument now? Of course you have to keep in mind that all cases would have to be true. Thus, the equivalence breaks down straight away.Or let’s do it even simpler. Say you want to show the equivalence of “I am a man” and “I am human”, so you write down both directions of the implication arrow:
. If I am a man, I am human.
. I am human, therefore I am a man.
This does not work because we also assume women to be humans, thus your equivalence does not hold.
Feminism has been built on the Goebbles law. (Goebbles here is the same person as the nazi Joseph Goebbles) In it he said that saying the lie often enough and loudly enough is going to make it the truth. It almost certainly has not been built on logic. You are barking up the wrong tree.
The real world validates logic and reason, thus feminists bark up the wrong tree as they denounce logic and reason as mere constructs and tools of oppression of the patriarchy.
What I meant was that we should use the right tool for the job. Feminists are never going to be logically proven wrong. We should look for better tools for the job.
If you want to show why someone’s reasoning is wrong, you better resort to logic and reason.
You argument for using logic and reason is much like the argument Richard Dawkins makes about science vs. religion debate in which he surely is on the side of science. His credentials are numerous and one even is to say he is a fellow of the public understanding of science. But yet, when questioned about the effectiveness of his methods (like writing logically reasoned books) by none other than Neil Degrass Tyson, he once said quote “Science is interesting and if you don’t think so, you can fuck off!” unquote.
While true, logical and rational it is surely still the less effective method. By contrast, what Esther Vilar did was highly effective even though the distinction between you and her in this field is rather non distinct. Yet, her books are treated as the bible of the mens rights while (not to offend) Minimal Game may not have had the same impact.
I am just saying logic and reason may not be the best tools or rather weapons against feminists who plague everyone (men and more so women) and their way of life. For instance, making a popular (most importantly popular) movie with feminized female characters and masculine males is surely more effective than logic and reason at the same job. Just my two cents.
Well, you’re the one with nine figures in the bank. Go and make your movie. I’ll keep writing. Oh, and the next time you hobnob with Trump, tell him he’s a loser because Jeff Bezos is worth $100 billion.
Theres a problem with educated western raised ppl. They believe in the rational human and therefore democracy, when the average person is driven by emotions, so this is a weakness in democracy and economics that can be exploited. Intelligence is no panacea for (confirmation bias)
I can see that aarons response to you was emotional, thus proving the point. Maybe he should read some books on persuasion, like presuasion or win bigly.
This is also why the meaning of life is subjective and does not have an objective answer.
Nah, there’s just an ambiguous statement there – I read “if you can find 2 then you refute 1” as meaning “if you find B then you can infer not A”. Read a little further, logic is ok in the example.
My statements were not ambiguous, though. In fact, one of the main advantages of formal logic is that it allows you to unambiguously express a particular configuration of the world. You just chose to read right past that, jumping to conclusions that were not justified.
Jon: (Theres a problem with educated western raised ppl. They believe in the rational human and therefore democracy, when the average person is driven by emotions, so this is a weakness in democracy and economics that can be exploited.) Wow Jon i’m impressed. You are not rong on this one. But it’s not just democratic systems that exploit this human weakness. All political systems/religions/groups do this. Hitler made this point about democracy in Mein kampf btw. Are you reading it? Are you turning nazi Jon? You are making the exact same point Hitler did. It’s absolutely hilarious that of all people, you’re the one making this point. LOL!
No ben, im not a nazi, any similarity in opinions is merely coincidence. I think Hitler was an idiot. You dont massacre your most productive ppl it leads to ones downfall. .. The jews are so amazing I wish I was one. They are so productive and rich they have hundreds of nobels. Im so jealous. Being asian is fine too but its still like being no. 2.
Btw, Im proud of you ben, in a matter of months you went from somebody in danger of becoming nazi to become somebody who seeks out nazis and confronts them. Though your “nazidar” still needs some fine tuning considering your most recent faulty accusation.
I think we can credit my persuasion skills for that. Sorry for hypnotizing you ben, but it was for the greater good and its good that I saved you from further harm to you or you harming others. 1 down, 6 billion to go!
The pitfalls of democracy are well known to political science. I’d say the question is a bit more complicated than that, because people who might seem emotional or irrational to you are actually being rational but based on a different set of values than yours.
Thats what the left usually fails to grasp – if you vote differently you must be evil.
Conservatives on the other hand think leftists are stupid, rather than evil. I tend to agree with the latter.
Jon: You are my hero Jon! And you look real cute in your new white and blue superhero outfit.
http://www.heromachine.com/2013/09/14/cosplay-gone-bad/
LOL
Ben, im flattered thanks for the compliment but please dont idolize great men like me. Im just human and thus by definition fallible. Hero worship can end up in very bad things. so Im giving you permission to criticize me. Although, I understand where youre coming from, its hard not to look up to giant alphas like me, it must be evolutionary. You cant help it?
Yarara, thats why im a moderate centrist and taking a helicopter view above the left and the right. The right does bad things, it doesnt mean therefore i think the left are angels and i always agree with them. Always be thinking. Rise above the tribalism. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Holy shit that cosplay link had me laughing 10 minutes straight. It got nothing against them, I actually enjoy going to comic-con once a year… But damn some people have no sense of fashion… or costumes… or shame 🙂
>>Well, you’re the one with nine figures in the bank. Go and make your movie. I’ll keep writing. Oh, and the next time you hobnob with Trump, tell him he’s a loser because Jeff Bezos is worth $100 billion.<<
My nine figure bank balance is really not any of your business. Aren't you the one who can write a movie.
By the way, I don't even compare my self to Trump let alone Jeff Bezos. They are in a league of their own.
“This shows that feminists won’t get far in mathematics either.”
This argument will never matter to them because it is beside the point. The entire worldview of the Left now is that 2+2=5 or 3.
2+2=4 is just a relative social construct after all.
Even worse is that feminists claim that x exists, refuse to set a value to it, but at the same time assign any value to it later on, even if there are contradictions. To use your example, 2 + 2 could be both 3 and 5 at the same time.
2+2 is not 4, its 22. Wanna see proof? Check the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw
Thanks for sharing that video! It would be more consistent if the punchline was 20,002,000 instead of 22,000.
No amount of time, money, effort, heartache & opportunity loss can be worth the equal or subpar women you get from seduction numbers game.
For that I responded, isn’t marriage and relationships emotionally profound.
If you believe it is then it is. Even if it actually isn’t. It certainly isn’t rational to endure to archive subpar or equal results.
That is the outline of the conversation I recently had with a old uncle who was a player. Do you see it the same way?
Even though I said marriage is emotionally profound. I can’t see how marriage can be.