It’s been awhile since we heard from Janet Bloomfield. So, I figured I would let her catch you up on her work. She’s still banned from Twitter over some bullshit, unfortunately. I know her voice is very much missed on that platform. She’s on Facebook, though, so check her out over there. Also check out her website, linked above.

You covered me back in December when I was banned from Twitter for quoting Jessica Valenti back to herself. I’ve recently been busy shining a spotlight on feminists, who bleat from the hilltops they are only interested in EQUALITY, and their curious opposition to … equality. Feminists oppose shared parenting. They literally oppose equality. Within hours of my article going up at Thought Catalog, NOW removed all its statements opposing shared parenting. Curious. Does NOW endorse equality? Or are they just hiding?

https://theralphretort.com/janet-bloomfield-responds-to-twitters-failure-to-police-feminist-bullying/

Gloria Steinem once famously said “women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it,” a sentiment that is both easy to agree with and likely true. Feminism loves to refer to the dictionary definition of itself, and point smugly to the central concept of equality, but something happened between Gloria Steinem and “Christmas is a goddamn clusterfuck that oppresses women” Jessica Valenti. Somewhere on the journey, feminism became about hating men, keeping all of women’s traditional privileges and actively opposing any version of equality that doesn’t embrace the two basic tenets that govern everything feminists represent: men suck and women deserve their privilege.

 

Don’t believe me?

Let’s look at the history of shared parenting. The majority of this research was conducted by historian and citizen blogger Prentice Reid. As early as 1986, the president of one chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization in the US, complained about the unfairness of equality when it meant giving up a traditional female privilege. Women, feminists argued, are equal, except when they are special and then equal doesn’t count and is unfair and won’t everyone please remember that men suck? In 2001, feminists refused to even sit at the table with men to discuss men and women sharing, equally, the responsibilities and decisions involved in parenting.

What is the rationale behind opposing equality? Men suck. That’s what feminist opposition to equality boils down to.

 

Broken links:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/Instances-of-NOW-opposing-shared-parenting-bills-in-2005-and-2009-along-with-the-actual-bills.pdf%20

http://www.nownys.com/leg_memos/oppose_s2913.htm%20

Archived links:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/the-NOW-opposes-bill-to-give-fathers-shared-custody-2009.pdf

http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/Instances-of-NOW-opposing-shared-parenting-bills-in-2005-and-2009-along-with-the-actual-bills.pdf

http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/national-organization-for-women-opposes-shared-parenting-joint-custody-bill-2010.pdf

Article at Thought Catalog that prompted removal within hours:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2015/03/if-feminism-is-about-equality-why-do-feminists-oppose-equality/

**************************************************************************

So Twitter is now suspending politically conservative users, in addition to suspending users who are critical of feminism?

https://twitter.com/Bobcat665/status/577602473164058624

http://www.infowars.com/twitter-bans-womenagainstfeminism-founder-for-saying-christmas-is-not-oppressive-to-women/

Are you sure this how you want to play?

Please verify and restore the accounts of all users who are engaging in criticism. Criticism is NOT harassment.

 

I will second that last bit. Twitter really needs to stop censoring opinions that don’t fit in with their radical San Francisco attitudes. Keep your eyes on the site. I’ll have more posts before the morning.

38 comments
  1. I don’t understand. Is there no process on twitter to appeal a banning *ever*? How does this just go unnoticed and unresponded to?

    1. The nature of Twitter and its managements idiotic policies. They don’t know their arse from their elbow. Basically, if ten people decide they don’t like what you are saying and team up to report you, you are screwed. Even if you said nothing wrong and just stated an opinion. It is a way to silence any dissent and keep a very select group of people in a given discussion.

    2. Probably not. It’s not really a 1st Amendment issue as Twitter is a private company, not the government. I don’t know what their terms of service are, so I couldn’t tell you if there was any mileage in that or not. The most you can do is call them out and publicize their ideological leanings.

        1. I didn’t say it wasn’t censorship, only that it’s not something you can apply the 1st Amendment to. Is it crass, depressing, and indicative of a lack of moral fiber on Twitter’s part? Absolutely. Unfortunately, it’s also legal, and the best recourse is to vote with your feet — i.e., don’t use Twitter.

  2. So Twitter is now suspending politically conservative users, in addition to suspending users who are critical of feminism?

    They actually banned conservatives several years ago during the presidential election. Not sure if intentional or not, but that’s where I first heard of the term Twitter Gulag, certain liberals would group up and report an account as spam just to get it banned. I’m sure it happened the other way too, it’s just people know how to game the system.

    1. I remember that, reminds me of the stories from my mothers side of the family about ideological purges.

    2. Considering many (if not most) of us reading this and participating in all of this are not even remotely conservative, let’s not turn it into a left-right thing. The right is about as sane and sensible as the left. This is specifically _anyone_ that doesn’t support a very specific philosophy and dares to speak up about it. Whether you’re right, left, libertarian, unaffiliated. It’s irrelevant. All that matters is that you said something contrary to the “new establishment”. Even if you’re “one of them”. Speak up, get knocked down.

      1. With one difference: The Right has gotten its ass-kicking. Last decade and early this one conservatives, especially of the moralistic variety, wore out their welcome with society. In the White House was Bush, who had so much faith in his righteousness that he entered two wars with little strategy about how to win them, costing lives and tax dollars. On the streets were “God Hates Fags” protestors, whose decisions to picket more at places where they’d be seen by the masses instead of where they’d be seen by actual homosexuals probably shifted people in FAVOR of homosexuality. At the pulpits were psychos calling Satanic things that made money, and thus uncomfortable allies to the economic right. More fringe still were those who made predictions about the world ending, and then were wrong. Somewhere along the line, society had enough and threw them out, and I think the Right is now actively purging those moralists who screwed them over. Maybe it’s a matter of different cultures, but last decade I doubt you’d have seen conservative journals hiring people like Milo Yianopoulis.

        That’s not the case with the Left. For decades now, the genuine liberals haven’t had cause to look too closely at their allies in the more hardline, self-righteous reformers who fancy themselves as the heirs to Che Guevara. They had a common enemy in organized conservative ideologues, so why should they have? Similarly, the people who were anti-racism were able to be led on by the SJW talking point that all CULTURES, too, should be equal–except for many SJWs, it seems to be more that other cultures than one’s own deserve more leeway.

        We’re in the process of that changing. The moral Right being gone, Leftists are looking more at each other, and fights are beginning. Simultaneously, events like the Charlie Hebdo massacre are waking many liberals up against the Left’s traditional policy of being softer on illiberal foreigners. Yet we aren’t there yet. I think maybe, the Left needs a catastrophic defeat like Bush got last decade. Obama may be heading for just that if he does not begin to take the threat of Islamism much more seriously, which I believe would do more than anything else to kick identity politics out of the Left.

        1. Social issues are irrelevant distractions meant to make teenage girls feel like they’re part of the political process.

          The right in your country needs to shift from old-guy conservatism to revolutionary nationalism.

          1. As someone who has suffered bigotry, I disagree with the first part; socially progressive policies to help people like me and the gays get a fair shot are very important. Yes; Obama rides on them much too hard to remind people he’s liberal, but I doubt it’ll matter if the Right becomes much more tolerant if it gets back in.

            As to revolutionary nationalism, I’d take that from EITHER side, and some have talked about it, but it remains to be seen who does anything about it.

        2. This is true. While the Tea Party is a pain in the ass, the moderate Beltway conservatives are pushing hard against the culture warriors. The left hasn’t had to worry about the skeletons in its closet since the Dixiecrats left.

          And you’re absolutely right on Obama. He’s going to dove the Middle East into a nuclear power hell-bent on our destruction to the point where the next president has no choice but to send a shit-ton of troops in, and that’s going to make tolerating Islamist rhetoric nigh-impossible. Combined with the infighting we’re seeing among feminist factions (like we saw between the religious Republican factions of the 90s), and we’re seeing the death of the extreme left in mainstream politics.

          1. “This is true. While the Tea Party is a pain in the ass, the moderate
            Beltway conservatives are pushing hard against the culture warriors.”

            Even the Tea Party, I would argue, represents an acknowledgement, on some level, that the United States is an inherently liberal nation in which the Right can only get support by invoking liberal sentiment, phony though it may be.

            “And you’re absolutely right on Obama. He’s going to dove the Middle
            East into a nuclear power hell-bent on our destruction to the point
            where the next president has no choice but to send a shit-ton of troops
            in, and that’s going to make tolerating Islamist rhetoric
            nigh-impossible.”

            The problem with Obama is he sees bombing ISIS without sending in ground troops as the happy medium between letting ISIS ravage Iraq, and going in and “ravaging” it ourselves. In fact, with his bombs focusing on ISIS, he’s enabling Iran’s Shiite stooges to ravage Iraq, and they have neither a strategy that can lead to lasting peace and stability in Iraq, nor ambitions that mean anything good to the outside world. If Bush’s error was fighting a war with an unclear endgame and victory condition, Obama’s problem is that the endgame we’re heading for now is rather clear, and he hasn’t done enough to steer away from it.

            The US has made some terrible mistakes in its history with Iraq, but to its credit, it did finally put an end to the longtime policy of throwing unconditional support behind one sectarian or other. Unfortunately, it is not doing much to curtail the efforts of those who still want to maintain Shiite sectarianism in Iraq, which will only ensure Sunni radicalism continues as well.

            I see only two viable options for what to do here; either we have to send our own troops in to liberate Sunni areas under ISIS control before Iran’s thugs overrun them, and show the Sunnis much more tolerance than the Shiite militias would, thus restoring our credibility, or we support Kurdish desires for autonomy and independence, arm them to the teeth, and tell Baghdad and Ankara to fuck themselves when they object.

            “Combined with the infighting we’re seeing among feminist factions (like
            we saw between the religious Republican factions of the 90s), and we’re
            seeing the death of the extreme left in mainstream politics.”

            Actually, I’d say the extreme left already doesn’t have much voice in MAINSTREAM politics. If they did, we’d never have saved the Bosnians or the Yazidis. Yet they remain a concentrated tumor in places like universities, which is where I’ve seen most of the drive to connote any criticism of foreign politics and ideologies as racism, and paint the US as the worst imperialist monster ever. None of these sorts will get into office, but they still hold sway with enough leftist voters that anti-war sentiment is at least a talking point for Democratic candidates. What we need now is an extremely prolific event that will show that segment of Che Guevara-worshipping, Islam-pardoning, identity zealots up as the enemies of liberalism that they actually are, so liberals finally throw them under the bus and they have nobody left to turn to.

          2. You are right that the universities are the big issue, I think it’s telling how intolerant of differing opinions liberal students have become, especially in comparison to conservative students. I wonder if the university system’s shift from liberalism to far-left extremism has promoted the shift of moral crusading from the right to the left.

      2. I wasn’t trying to make it a left/right thing, just pointing out that twitter has been used to silence people for a few years at least. The conservative thing is just the first one that comes to mind outside of gamergate. Mostly I consider myself libertarian, neither right nor left, each have their problems, enough that I want to distance myself from being associated with either one.

  3. Infowars?

    Really Ralph….did you just wander across the line? You are sourcing stuff via Alex “Jarhead” Jones now?

    Mate, even muckrakers and shit-shovellers have to have some standards.

  4. Well it looks like Twitter is going up in flames. Luckily I don’t use it so I don’t have to worry. I’m not sure if Twitter has a competitor but right now it looks like if there is any now would be the time to start making themselves known. “Tired of Twitter’s bullshit come over to us!”

  5. Fuck San Francisco attitudes. Should an invasion happen, it and Hollywood should be the first places taken.

    1. Good stuff, Janet. Though I really wish women would stop lobbing off the tips of their boys’ penises because that foreskin is there for your pleasure as much as it is for his. It’s meant to be like a ribbed condom, bumping up against your sensitive lady parts. It also helps with lubrication. Size then becomes more important to the cut penises since they don’t have the “extra” skin to bump the clitoris.

    2. Yeah, I’ll bet you would. You’re a Traditionalist who thinks all women who choose a career over being a stay at home mom are destroying society. You’re a parasite.

      1. Incorrect. I think women who choose to raise their children in institutions are ruining society. Nothing to do with a career. Smart women choose a career that allows them the flexibility to raise their children at home (including choosing to marry a stay at home Dad), but thanks for playing!

        1. Bitch, you claimed that a female surgeon (married to your husband’s coworker) was dropping a career – that would earn her 8 figures over the course of it – in favor of being a stay at home mommy. Because that would make her “truly happy”.

          You then go on rant after rant about how women shouldn’t try to enter STEM fields because they’re less likely to have high IQs (simply by way of gender) and thus will likely never accomplish anything worthwhile, so why bother trying? Better to let the menfolk do all of the important things, while women should indulge in baby fever.

          Then there’s the intellectually dishonest bullshit that you and your cohort Paul Elam, MRA Extraordinaire, engage in regarding MGTOW. That is, coopting an offshoot men’s movement to mean “do whatever you want”, effectively watering-down the label to nothing, in a sad fucking attempt at bringing more views into Elam’s site A Voice for Men.

          It’s pretty shit that you were silenced on twitter by the PC crowd, but don’t come around here and act like you’re some hero of libertarian values. You’re a traditionalist disguised as an anti-statist. You’re a grifting opportunist, just like Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian.

          1. How the hell do you imagine it’s possible to combine being a surgeon with taking care of children? Operating rooms tend not to be very toddler friendly. She should farm her kids out to a day orphanage for money? And you do realize that babies have this weird habit of growing up? Children are young for a finite period of time. Leaving the workforce to care for them is the humane, sane and rational thing to do. In your alternative, who is taking care of children? They are all in baby factories? What the hell? Families who raise their children at home are not exploiting anyone or anything. They are raising children in the best possible environment, assuming there is no abuse or neglect going on.

          2. Thanks for making my point for me. Much appreciated.

            No, really, I honestly couldn’t have done anything to better represent your brand of crazy than to let you do it yourself. “baby factories”, “farm her kids out to a day orphanage”, LOL.

            Back on Planet Earth, people have older family members, nannies, and neighborhood kids covering the babysitting when necessary. Some of them even use daycare (*GASP*). Everyone I grew up with in a major US city’s suburbs back in the 70s/80s had working parents, and we all turned out just fine.

            Grift on, baby. Grift on.

          3. And many people consider it immoral to have children you do not plan to care for. Why is it any of your business how my husband and I choose to care for our family? Happy letting the nanny raise your kid? Good for you. Have fun. Taking responsibility for my children and family and prioritizing them over money is a decision both my husband and I think is best. It’s pretty arrogant of you to think you get a say. You don’t.

          4. Holy shit, really? How is my criticism of you any different from your criticism of working parents? Why is it any of YOUR business how they do things?

            You write rant after rant, make video after video, claiming that working moms and dads are neglecting their kids and ruining society, but when I criticize your choices, then suddenly I’m “arrogantly” inserting myself into your private life? Sorry, “buttercup”, you don’t get to have it both ways. If you’re going to put yourself out in the public realm with your tirades and condemnations of women who choose differently then you, then you’d best be ready to get the same in return, and you don’t get to cry foul when it happens.

            Jesus H Slap-happy Christ, if you’re going to engage in misdirection tactics and playing the victim, at least have the decency to be good at it.

          5. We are seriously derailing a thread at someone else’s blog. That is impolite. We can continue at my blog, but I am not going to disrespect Ralph any further.

          6. Ralph doesn’t give a shit, but thanks – for the 3rd time – at proving me right. Run away, buttercup. Run back to Esmay, Elam and the rest of your grifting buddies.

          7. You ignored almost every point about your past history and behavior, responded with amateurish misdirection tactics on the ONE point you responded to, and after I ass-blasted you on your hilarious hypocrisy, you want to run back to your home turf.

            But no, I’m the absurd one. Thanks for playing, indeed. XD

          8. You’re blue and a space alien. Wow, I can make bullshit claims, too! This is fun!

            EDIT: May I just say, it’s absolutely hilarious that you accuse ME of sexism, given that A)Nothing I said was sexist, and B)Bloomfield has GONE ON RECORD in her videos claiming that women should not endeavor to pursue STEM careers. Why? Because, according to her, virtually all major accomplishments have been and will always be achieved by men, so why bother?

            I shit you not, she actually goes on to justify this by claiming that women cannot have IQs high enough to match the highest IQs in men. No, really, I’m serious. Go have a look at her YT channel sometime, it’s fucking amazing.

            Next time, know what you’re fucking talking about before you make an ass out of yourself with backward-ass accusations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.