7 Arguments Against Male Privilege, And Why They're Bollocks

So let's have some fun today, shall we? Whenever the topic of white/male privilege comes up, you're bound to hear this at least once: "But what about situation X where this one guy faced some sort of adversity?" as if that actually means anything. This time I'm gonna take some of the most common arguments against male privilege and dispel them one by one. Before I start, understand the idea that having male privilege does not in any way mean that men have perfect lives. It means that they're at a systemic disposition to have better lives than women. Now that I've clarified that, let's begin the epic takedown. 

1. Men Take Up The Majority of Combat Deaths in the Military

Might as well start with quite possibly the first thing out of anti-feminists' mouths as soon as you bring up male privilege. Firstly, this is true. Men do in fact die more in the military than women. However, let's look beneath the surface here. And to do that, we'll have to use facts, something antis claim to care about until the facts are used against them. The most glaring flaw with this argument is that men are the overwhelming majority in the military. Women only take up 15% of the US Military, whereas men take up 85%. Furthermore, women were barred from combat roles for the longest time. And to cap it all off, you can't really be oppressed by something you chose to be in. No I'm not saying that soldiers deserve to die, not in the slightest, but they can't be oppressed if they willingly enlisted, trained, and dedicated their lives to being in the service. Before anyone brings up military conscription, literally no one of this generation has been drafted into war. That shit died in the 70s. If it was still around you'd maybe have more of a case to go off of. But it's not around, and you don't have a case. So shut up. 

2. There Are More Men In Jail Than Women/Men Get Harsher Sentences Than Women For Identical Crimes

I always laugh whenever this gets thrown at my face. Why is that? Because it's incredibly clear that antis didn't research a bloody thing about the issue. Whilst it's true that men take up the prison population more than women, it certainly isn't a result of sexism. It's no secret that just about almost every perpetrator of crimes is a man. As of 2014, men committed 98% of rapes, 90% of homicides, 77% of assaults, and 87% of robberies. Assuming these convictions were true, as they come from the FBI, it's hard to consider that oppressive. These men could've easily not killed, raped, or robbed anyone, but they chose to ruin others' lives. On the flip side, most of the crimes committed by women were nonviolent offences, such as shoplifting or vandalism, which normally carry much more lenient sentences. As far as identical crimes go, I have absolutely no idea where they're getting that from. Whenever a woman rapes a young teenage boy, usually in those statutory rape cases, the woman's rightly carted off to jail for a few years. I cannot say the same for men because they either never get convicted or only serve a few months. Or ya know, become elected officials. Sure, sometimes women get off easier, but that is not the norm. In the case of violent crimes, the reason women are likely to get more lenient sentences, especially when it comes to domestic disputes, is because 9/10 women who hit their husbands, or anyone else for that matter, do so in self-defence. 

3. The Majority of Workplace Deaths Are Men

This is probably one of the easier ones to debunk. Mostly because the main reasons for these workplaces fatalities is due to a failure of equipment, aka accidents. The biggest way to solve this issue is just to take the proper safety precautions, which can be done by dismantling the idea that men taking steps to make themselves safer is wimpy. What's more is that the number one cause of workplace fatality for women is homicide. No really.  Can only imagine what they'd say to that. However I have a feeling I may not like the answer. 

4. Men Are Victims of Homicide More Than Women

Ok can I just say that it's incredibly dumb how much dying is a motif for MRAs and such? It's getting to a point where I literally am starting to hypothesise that they think women are immortal or something. As stated above, men are the primary cause of these homicides happening in the first place. Also, women are statistically just as likely to be a victim of a homicide as men, and this isn't even including how many women are murdered as a result of intimate partner violence. In fact, the stats for that are just gutwrenching. Like, there are more women killed in domestic disputes than there are soldiers killed in the Iraq war. One can only imagine what the stats were for any other time. 

5. There Are More Homeless Men Than Women 

Yes, but women are also more likely to live in poverty. The difference here is that women are more likely to seek out resources for their situation. This, as you could guess, is a result of patriarchy backfiring on men. If you want to solve the homelessness situation, encourage men in financial turmoil to seek benefits and tell them that it's ok if they do so. This also applies to suicide. I'd bring that up, but I already made a blog post about that a while back. 

6. More Men Are Raped Than Women If You Include Prison Rape

This is merely bollocks since the claim itself is based on incomplete data, or at the very least the data was highly misinterpreted. You see, the Daily Mail article this originated from is not only a Daily Mail article, which therein is a good indicator of quality (or lack thereof), the study only accounted for one Ohio city. It reported that only 50,000 women were raped in that city in 2008 and 2011, but within those years, there were 200,000 male inmates who had been raped by fellow convicts or prison guards. The article's actual data contradicted its headline, which claimed that it accounts for the whole country. I did some digging on the topic, and the highest percentage I could find for prison rape statistics that included both men and women was 20%. 17 million women are raped a year as opposed to 2 million men according to RAINN. Sure, prison rape is a pandemic, I'll grant them that, but to say that more convicts are raped than civilians is just simple dishonesty, no more, no less. 

7. Women Win A Majority of Custody Battles

And finally we reach this little nugget. I'm getting kinda sick of having to argue patriarchy each time, but it's never been more prevalent here. One, gender bias in court is greatly exaggerated. The reason women win most of the time is because both parents agree that the kids should go to the mother. This is also a result of patriarchy dictating that a woman should resign to being a housewife upon the birth of their first child. Despite what MRAs will tell you, women don't get custody of the kids right away just for being women. If that were true, Bristol Palin wouldn't have lost her custody battle. There's no dark magic at play that gains women complete control over divorce court proceedings. Stop thinking one episode of Judge Judy mirrors reality. In fact, studies say that 70% of fathers who fight for custody are likely to get it. I think it's time dads got up off their arses and actually put in the effort to win these things since the scales are tipped in their favour. 

So there you have it. 7 arguments against male privilege totally dismantled in one short post. I know a bunch of these articles exist already, but I don't care. I have my own perspective on the issue and I'm gonna give it. I just hope you learnt something from this, no mater what your biggest takeaway from it was.

Stop Oversexualising Latinas/Hispanic Women

I know I talk a lot about the sexual objectification of women, but I don't think I've ever narrowed it down. After all, not all women are objectified equally. White women are objectified for their submissiveness, hair colours, eye colours, weight, and possibly other racist reasons, black women are objectified for their posteriors and "twerking", Asian women are objectified for reasons that make me wanna vomit shards of my own pelvis, and Latinas are objectified for their posteriors, breasts, faces, skin tones, and even attitudes. I'm gonna focus on Latinas and Hispanics given how I am in fact half Spanish. Here I'll go over the stereotypes and ways which the media reduces Latinas y hispanas to nothing more than flagrant and offencively dehumanising trophies. 

The biggest example of the stereotyping of Hispanic women in the media is Gloria Pritchett from Modern Family. Sure she is played by the Colombian Sofia Vergara, but just because you have an actress for a non-white character, it doesn't mean you can write them however you like. I brought up this problem with Watch Dogs 2, where Marcus, a black male, was written like a white guy. I won't touch too much on that since I'm not black and that isn't my battle, but many things apply here too. Sofia employs a much more emphatic (and somewhat annoying) accent for Gloria to add to the idea that she is a South American immigrant. Sofia's natural voice is not that grating, I promise you that. But because the show is written through the white gaze, which is the racial equivalent of the male gaze, Sofia must have her character appear as obnoxious as possible to her own kind. But that's not all. Her character isn't a strong Hispanic woman, she's your standard sexy mum, because apparently all Hispanic women are just walking sex appeal. Even her 13 year old son sexualises her. That is fucking disturbing. Say what you will about American Dad's Steve Smith wanting to fuck his mum, but at least that show knows to make Steve's oedipus complex look unnatural. Plus I expect gross humour from Seth MacFarlane. I don't expect Modern Family, which prides itself in having a mixed and gay couple (though the gay couple isn't revolutionary either), to pull this bollocks. Every single joke revolving Gloria is how hot she is. At this point I expect the show to just make her go nude every episode and have her breasts swing around at all times. 

Another one is Eva Longoria's character Gabrielle Solis on Desperate Housewives. At first glance, she is portrayed as a strong and in-your-face no-bollocks type of woman. Sad thing is, she still falls victim to the hot Latina stereotype. You see, since Gabrielle is attractive, she's allowed to be a strong lead. But "ugly" Latinas like Consuela from Family Guy (I know she's Mexican but same idea) are just jokes. Consuela is an obnoxious housemaid, another bigoted stereotype of Latinas, and Gabrielle has her shit together. Not only does Gabrielle exist through the white gaze, but the male gaze as well, a killer combination. That's why you won't see black actresses in roles that aren't racially demeaning 85% of the time, but again, not my battle. Zoe Saldana is a small exception to this. She is a black Latina, but mostly is cast in roles that aren't total bollocks. She went from being a world-class assassin in Colombiana to the strong-willed María Posada in The Book of Life. Both of these roles go against common tropes laid out for Latina characters, and the Devil must be given his due. Unfortunately, Saldana alone can't break boundaries for Latinas everywhere, but she's a fine place to start. 

Now it's time for the most common depictions of Latinas and Hispanic women: we are aggressive and violent. Almost every angry Latina in film and television has at least one scene or even episode of them beating someone up with a shoe or a broomstick. Well I dunno about you, but I haven't clobbered my husband with any kitchen utensils. Sure there's that one time he tickled my foot and I mule kicked him in the chest, but that was an accident :P. Back on topic, this paints Latinas in a very bad light. It makes it appear that if you end up with a Latina, she's gonna beat your arse over the most trivial shit. And it's usually venial screw-ups that set movie Latinas off isn't it? Forgot to leave the toilet seat down? SMACK. Accidentally got crumbs all over the floor? SMACK. Woke her up 5 minutes before her alarm? SMACK (ok that one's kinda justified XD). I sometimes say violent things, but you won't see me act on them. But movies and TV shows like to make Latinas and Hispanic ladies look like the fucking Hulk. It's not true. But still, you don't wanna piss us off :P. 

I think I've kept you waiting enough. I'm finally gonna touch on the sexualisation of Latinas and Hispanics. We are incessantly, and I mean INCESSANTLY, turned into sex objects. More so than any other race or ethnicity in fact. If there's a Latina character in a movie or show, there's a good chance there'll be a see dedicated to staring at her bum. Latinas barely have any diverse body types either. They're either rigidly fit with massive bums and breasts, or have giant legs and small torsos. Trust me, my girlfriend is a white Italian and has a bigger bum than me, and I'm British and Spanish (British girls are known for having big bums too BION). You're more likely to find Latinas with a UK size 6 than anything else. We're also expected to have perfectly round bums that glisten off the sunlight. Well hate to burst your bubble boys, but that ain't the case, or at least not with me. I've got cellulite, stretch marks, and blemishes back there. I wouldn't want it any other way if it means destroying stereotypes. We're allowed to have our own insecurities and imperfections. And I'll be damned if they tell me otherwise. 

Just let me say right now that I can't speak for every case. I'm just giving my perspective and the prevalence of these tropes in my immediate surroundings. So what can be done about these stereotypes? STOP TOLERATING THEM ON ANY LEVEL. 1 in 6 Latina women are victims of sexual violence, and the sexualisation they face today helps not. It really isn't that difficult to assign personality to a Latina character, why not start now? 

Bisexuality and Open Marriages

As you recall, I am bisexual. I know I identified as "bi-romantic" before, but things have changed and I'm a full-fledged bisexual. But one thing that I'm sure spans across the board with all bisexuals is the killer urges we get to act on our bisexuality (note: I'm gonna be saying bisexual a lot here). For some, it's harder than others. Now for this reason, most bisexuals remain single so they don't have to worry about being hitched to a man but desperately want to have it off with a woman, or vice versa. But to those already married? You might find yourself in a pickle. You might pleasure yourself to pictures of models of the opposite sex, or you might boldly go where few are brave enough to travel. That's right, I'm talking about open relationships. Or at least more specifically, ones where you're dating both a male and female partner.

Now if there's one needlessly oversensationalised taboo, it's polyamory. You've got people saying it's practiced by rapey Muslims in the Middle East (they say as they go on to cheat on their wives with a new street walker every week), you've got people saying it's selfish and ruins the sanctity of marriage, which is incredibly laughable, or that if it gets legal then slippery slope and all that shit, and you've got these libfems thinking that polyamory is just a way for men to control women, which I honestly don't get the impression that that's the case. If anything, a man with multiple girlfriends is pretty much on thin ice XD. 

Let's get one thing out of the way: Polyamory is one of the most wrongly attributed matrimonial/romantic practices out there. Why is that? Because stupid men use the banner of polyamory as a defence when they get outed as womanisers, or as an excuse so they can cheat on their wives. That's not what polyamory is. Having sex with new people whenever you feel like it is not polyamory. Polygamy is not polyamory, even though they are used interchangeably. Polygamy is multiple marriages whereas polyamory is just an open relationship. Polyamory is more meant for people with high sex drives or just aren't cut out for monogamous relationships, since honestly, being with the same person for all your life can get pretty tedious and often leads to divorces and bitter breakups. Not every bisexual person is polyamorous but the ones who are typically describe their experiences as positive. Marriage counselors have stated that bisexuals in open relationships usually are happier and their relationships last longer, which makes sense. However, not everyone's partner is ok with this and often times will lash out and accuse them of infidelity. As an alternative to polyamory, simple experimenting is also a recommended method to help bisexuals in monogamous relationships sate their desires to be with the opposite sex. 

Just remember that you are not biphobic for not being comfortable with such a thing. Poly relationships are something that require immense levels of trust in order for them to prosper. What WOULD make you biphobic is hating your partner and saying "I should've known you bisexuals were sleaze bags". And if you do happen to be in a poly relationship and at one point you feel you prefer monogamy, you're free to stop at any time. Bisexual love doesn't have to be taboo. All that matters is doing what you're comfortable with. 

It's Totally Normal To Take Nudes

Hey ladies, you taken any good nudes lately (I SWEAR I'm not coming onto you here)? I bet you have because women are just like the sexiest things ever :D. As fun as photographing your naked body is, for whatever reason you feel, you'll probably have run into some roadblocks from that pesky patriarchy. If you take nudes, you must be a whore. Or if you take nudes, you must only have a quintessential body or else you're ugly. Hell, sometimes YOU don't like the nudes you've taken because you yourself don't like your body. Or maybe you do like your body but something about taking nudes rubs you the wrong way. Whatever it may be, I just wanna say that taking nudes isn't weird or gross. It's actually perfectly fine. 

I'll be straightforward with everyone. I take nudes a lot. Like, almost all the time. Not only do I love my body, but it helps me to appreciate my imperfections. As confident as I act, sometimes I don't always feel so happy with my body. To be truthful, my 44 year old mum has a better body than me. She's all fit and in shape and looks 15 years younger. I have rolls, my thighs jiggle, my bum is fat and saggy, I have stretch marks under my breasts, and I have a bit of a belly. Essentially, I have the body of a mum, even though I don't have kids. Photographing my body in the nude makes me feel free and reminds me that I'm in control of my body. I'm gonna let you in on a secret, something most people don't want you to know. Taking nudes is actually an art form. You heard that right, it's art. Not every nude you've taken will probably be art though, just to warn you. If you take nudes in a position that's obviously sexual, then that's just a literal labour of love. But a regular picture of your front or back in a modest position of some sort is artistic. I mostly photograph my bum since it's my favourite thing to take pictures of :).

Now here comes the tricky part, whether you should share the nudes you've taken. This can be difficult since nudes often get leaked when things go wrong between friends and soul mates. Believe it or not, your lover shouldn't be the one you trust most with your nudes. Whilst it would be nice if you could trust them, just remember that breakups can go nasty, and they'll have that HD photo of your breasts at the ready to ruin you. It's pretty much tradition for us girls to share our nudes with some of our closest female friends, so don't leave em out. But always remember not to send them your nudes unless they're ok with it, otherwise you'll have committed sexual harassment. And yes, that counts. Plus, don't go crazy and show your friend nudes like every single day, you might give them the wrong impression. Sharing nudes is rather important, almost a bit more important than taking them since showcasing your nude body willingly is a sign of strength and humility. Be cautious when sending them: hide your face (or crop it out), conceal any tattoos or markings you have, and be sure that your surroundings are either not where you normally live or are unidentifiable. This way, should your nudes be leaked by some arsehole or you accidentally reveal them in the wrong place, no one can really prove it's you. 

Taking nudes isn't slutty and it's certainly not deviant behaviour. Millions of females have done it, it's practically a hobby for us at this point. You have every right to embrace yourself as a sexual being, so you might as well showcase it. It's time we stop making nudity a crime. 

Are Trans People Gender Conformists?

Lately I've had this proposition thrown my way in the case of trans people. They say that trans people are gender conformists because they begin to act like the stereotypes of the gender they're transitioning to, and that somehow goes against the deconstruction of gender norms that feminism works to achieve. I do think it's a genuine question that requires an honest answer. However, I advise you all to remember that I'm a cis female, and that what I tell you is not to be taken as the be-all and end-all of the matter. All I'm gonna do here is give my educated insight on gender conformity and how its connection to transgenderism isn't that clear cut. 

Firstly, we must analyse what gender conformity is. Gender conformity is, as you would assume, adhering to what society deems you to be according to your gender. It's like if I remained a housewife and my husband was the breadwinner; we'd be following gender norms that have existed for years. And since trans people, namely trans women, tend to act a lot more like feminine stereotypes, it could come off as them being gender conformists. But just because something feels a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way. I'm womanly as fuck. Sure I do things that could be considered masculine, but I never let anyone forget I'm a woman, I'm far too proud to be one. And whilst I'm more than capable of taking care of myself, I do sometimes act like a stereotype, as in I like to embrace a more vulnerable appeal. Mostly because my husband treats me extra special because of it :D. 

But this question stems from a rather big misunderstanding of why people transition in the first place. Transgenderism isn't just an obscure personality trait, it stems from psychological confusion, either through gender dysphoria or social conditions (please keep in mind that not every trans person has dysphoria, and that having dysphoria doesn't automatically link to transgenderism). Trans people don't transition because of some arbitrary reason, they transition because they feel they'd be happier if they were the opposite gender. As such, they act in a way that corresponds to their preferred gender. So if a trans woman feels she has to be womanly by wearing dresses and pouring on a megatonne of makeup, let her. In regards to how this contradicts feminism, I answer that with this; feminism has no problem with women or men adhering to gender norms. They only feel the need to step in when it's done some sort of damage. Feminism lets women choose if they wanna be vulnerable housewives or tough breadwinners, that's all up to them. The thing with gender conformity is that it's almost always forced, and that's where feminism comes in. Feminism also allows people to define their gender identity anyway they like. Trans people also do such. Trans women can still do masculine things and trans men can still do feminine things. That's not exactly rocket science. And let's not forget one of the most important factors:

NOT EVERY TRANS PERSON IS A FEMINIST. 

I can't believe I had to say that, but it's true that some trans people are against feminism. Either because they don't know what's good for them (ahem Blaire White) or for some unfortunately valid reasons. Some gender critical feminists and TERFs argue that trans women are really just men disguising themselves as women so they can infiltrate women-only spaces and rape them. Now, that's obviously a heap of bigoted bollocks, but it's equally as important to stress that the chances of a trans person running into one of those undesirable elements is pretty low, and there are many more feminists that would welcome them with open arms, me being one of them. 

Now it's time to render a verdict. I vote in favour of the idea that trans people are not necessarily gender conformists on the account that any person can identify their gender anyway they wish. Trans women can be stereotypical princesses, and trans men can be stereotypical sports fanatics. As long as they're not hurting anybody, it shouldn't matter whether they are adhering to gender norms or not.  

Settle For More Review

No, not all of my subsequent blog posts are gonna be reviews. It's just something that I find fun and I just felt like adding more variety to my blog. Besides, I always try to include some feminist idea into the things I review, like what I did with Watch Dogs 2. This here I'm kinda debating if it's feminist since whilst it certainly is a topic worth discussing as a feminist, the subject in question is Megyn Kelly, a very polarising figure in politics as far as feminism goes. The topic of today's review is her book, Settle For More. It was published last year and goes for $30 USD. The book is essentially an autobiography and tells of her experiences in journalism and the various hardships she faced for being a woman in the politisphere. And let me just say right now, it's an amazing read. 

To be clear here, I'm not exactly a fan of Megyn. Yes, she's gorgeous. Yes, she could be seen as an inspiration for young girls to chase a political career, but I don't really find myself adoring her. But after reading this, I have newfound respect for her, and I do plan to pay closer attention to her ventures. I'll touch on that later, but for now let's begin the review.

One thing that everyone should know about Megyn is that she's not a republican or a democrat. In fact, she's an independent. Now I know that independents can be obnoxious in other facets of politics, but Megyn is legit. She pretty much sides with whoever's making the better argument whilst still being level-headed. This largely comes from the fact that she was raised by parents with conflicting political views. She has voted for both parties, but I don't think it was any secret that she was very anti-Trump (as anyone should be). I'm not gonna reveal too much here since I want you all to enjoy the book for yourselves, but I will cover the more important things, specifically her time with Fox News and her famous quarrel with Trump. 

Megyn, like just about any woman who's hung around conservative men for an extended period of time, has faced unwanted sexual advances from her coworkers. They came from none other than Roger Ailes, the founder of Fox News. For anyone unaware, Ailes was a slimeball who isn't just guilty of creating the network in the first place, but has countless sexual offences to his name. His worthless life came to an end in May of this year, and as such, his record was hung up for all to see. The things he did to her were borderline traumatising. Hell, I felt damaged just reading the what she dealt with. And as a victim of daily sexual harassment (seriously I get groped like every single day), I can totally empathise with what she had to deal with, and I even started crying when I learnt of how he treated her. He grabbed her and tried to kiss her nonconsensually, commented on her "sexy bra straps", and even tried gaining sexual favours so she could get a promotion, which is something many women have dealt with when at work. What made things worse is that she couldn't report the harassment since she'd be the one going down, not him. This is a harsh reality for a woman. When she's been violated by her employer, or anyone for that matter, her word is never heeded. They only care about the man's reputation, as if that's the most important thing we have to worry about. 

Now comes her relationship with Trump. Believe it or not, she and Trump actually got along well before his presidential run, which I'm sure is how a lot of people felt. Thing then fell apart when he started running. He began threatening her with slander and that he won't give her respect unless she cordially apologised to him when she wasn't even in the wrong. It's made even stranger by how she might have had an assassination attempt done on her. Before she went to moderate the debate, she drank some coffee [compliments of the man who drove her there] and she felt sick and started vomiting profusely and almost had to cancel. She carried on, but notified her lawyer of the incident. Things didn't get any better post-debate. Once it was all said and done, with many thinking that Trump made an arse of himself, I included, Trump's raving army of idiots sent death threats to her constantly. It got so bad that she brought a bodyguard with her family when they went to Disney World. It's also worth noting that Trump tried bribing her to say good things about him, even though if he was really that good to her he wouldn't have to force a good opinion from her. Even then, debate moderators are supposed to be neutral, so she'd be breaking conduct if she took a side. 

The book isn't all about these horrific experiences. It includes her years spent as an attorney and journalist, which made me go from thinking of her as an amateur to thinking of her as a veteran. Trump's fan brats were giving the book harsh negative reviews upon its release, but the book nonetheless sold well. And I encourage you all to support the book legally. There's an eBook of it as well, and I'm sure it's free, but whatever you do, don't pirate it. Megyn and her book deserve the honest support. Regardless your opinion of her, she's proven that she's tough. And that's something that all women need to be at least once in their life. 

The Red Pill Review

So I actually went ahead and did the disservice to my psyche by watching The Red Pill. Why did I do this? Well I can only assume it's because my Asperger's knows no bounds. But all jokes aside, I'm just gonna come out with it: This is by far the worst movie I've ever watched. It's one of the whiniest, angstiest, and ill-informed movie anyone could hope to make. Apparently the film is so powerful that it has the ability to change any feminist's mind. Well thankfully I'm one of the smart ones who wasn't sucked in by manipulative agenda setting and framing. All I did after the movie was over is break the disc. No I'm not kidding. I legit broke the CD because I don't want anyone else wasting their money on this. The rumours weren't shitting you. It really does use every dirty, underhanded tactic to make you feel sorry for a group that has zero likability for good reason. Let's take a look at The Red Pill and why it does not deserve anyone's time.

First, time for a brief explanation of what the movie is. It was directed by Cassie Jaye, and is essentially her first try at film making. Well if this is any indication, she's not very good at it. The movie, which is actually a documentary but whatever, is supposed to be a feminist's adventure to the men's rights movement. It doesn't make sense for her to try and delve into the movement since anyone in it will give you an apt idea of what it is; just a bunch of angry white men who think women are the scum of the earth and the root of men's supposed eradication. They're pretty much what people think feminists are like, but they take it to even bigger extremes. Cassie feels a bit generous though, and wants to hear them out. She finds various MRAs, some popular, some not, and evaluates their experiences and why they turned to the MRM to begin with. And let me tell you, these interviews so to say are just the biggest indicator that Cassie cherrypicked as much as she possibly could to make this documentary. It's at a point where I'm starting to think she paid these people to say what they did. 

She interviews several MRAs based on MRA talking points. And by some random surge of magic she was able to find men who've been screwed in divorces, male DV victims who had no access to shelters, and men who've attempted suicide. Now you're probably asking "but these are genuine concerns aren't they?" and you'd be right. The problem is, this is simple appeal to emotion. You know, that thing that feminists are constantly accused of doing? If feminists were to go around grabbing random female rape/abuse victims, women who became pariahs for having abortions or suffered permanent genital damage from reckless abortionists, or women who've faced street harassment and had shell shock because of it, everyone would be like "THAT'S NOT OPPRESSIVE CUZ IN DA MIDDLE EAST THEY'D HAVE BATTERY ACID THROWN ON THEM" as if the Middle East is just the yardstick of how bad you have it, even though there are higher levels of female oppression in non-Arab majority nations. Hell, Africa's violent misogyny could make King Salman shudder. Another example is the decriminalisation of DV in Russia signed by Putin not too long ago. Oh and Australia. Just Australia. 

To better explain why these instances Cassie selected were cherrypicked, I'm gonna pick them apart one by one. Let's talk about divorce courts since MRAs seem to bring that up the most. They like to think that men are always and forever treated like subspecies garbage in divorce court. This is not true, like, at all. Sure, there are fathers who are cheated due to vindictive parents, but those cases are in the minority, and there are studies that show that fathers who fight for custody (and I mean actually try to win it) are more likely to get it 70% of the time. Most custody cases are usually mutual, and both parents decide that the mother is more suited to raise the kids. There are other factors like mothers taking care of the kids and that pesky gender norm that resigns women to be child bearers for all their lives. If child custody is such an issue, maybe it's time to reconsider what the real culprit is. That's the problem with this documentary, all it did was highlight why men need feminism more than MRAism. That'll become more apparent as this review continues. 

Next I wanna discuss male domestic violence. According to the MRM, 40% of domestic violence victims are male, and there are no shelters for men only, and the only ones that do exist hold both genders. This is utter horseshit if you couldn't tell already. The real statistics are 15% of men being victims of spousal abuse. That doesn't mean it ought not to be taken seriously, but men aren't actually at much of a risk as MRAs would try to tell you. Now regarding the amount of shelters, yes it's true that some unisex shelters exist, but they're actually in very small numbers. This is because victims of either gender aren't very comfortable being with one another (though it's mostly women being afraid of being around men). Fear not, despite what you might hear, Arkansas's all-male shelter is not the only all-male shelter in the whole country, just the first one in the state. Here are some numbers: There are currently 1,500 shelters for female victims and 500 for male victims. Those are some equally vapid numbers judging how there's 300 million people in America. Sure these shelters can house hundreds of people, but that's still not enough. What's even worse is that there are 3,800 animal abuse shelters. The country literally has more protection of animals than human beings getting the shit kicked out of them by their partners, and I think that's something everyone can come together on and say that's pretty damn bad. As for why there are less men's shelters than women's shelters? Well that's not really sexism and more so pragmatic thinking. Since women are victims of DV more than men, it'd only make sense that they'd have more resources open to them (and even then they still can't get a hold of them, so there goes that argument). But yes, there needs to be more shelters in the country for each gender. 

Lastly, the suicide argument. Now I've already made a blog post about suicide and its relation to gender, but for a quick refutation, men are often told to repress their emotions as a construct of the patriarchy, not other women. Plus, men use more brutal methods like guns and jumping from high ground. The problem is men being shamed for showing emotion which is apparently a bad thing and an extension of misogyny since crying and weakness is considered feminine. Not getting pussy is not a reason to drink a whole bottle of rubbing alcohol. Stop trying to say it is. 

Now here's where things get REALLY bad, as if the misinformation wasn't bad enough on its own. Cassie invites some of the most reprehensible MRAs onto the documentary and through some bullshit editing tricks, she paints them as the heroes. She gets Paul Elam, a guy who thinks that women who get drunk are begging to be raped, Warren Farrell, who thinks that women shouldn't have the right to vote (or any right for that matter), and Honey Badger Radio, a group of female MRAs who just act like the way MRAs portray women in general. They all say their usual debunked bollocks and Cassie just eats it all up like a schoolgirl on her first day at a new school. She also invites feminists onto her documentary. So who does she get? Fucking Big Red. You know, that one feminist with the pixie cut who's been used as a strawman of feminism since like 2010? Yeah, her. For fuck's sake, you couldn't have displayed your bias any more than if you chose Anita Sarkeesian. Oh wait you wouldn't do that because she's actually been harassed by MRAs and her experiences would shatter your documentary in 3 seconds flat. I understand now.

So this next thing I'm about to bring up isn't necessarily about the movie itself, but it does kinda put things into a much bigger perspective and it really makes the whole thing make sense. Not the actual bullshit in the documentary, I mean why she made it. You see, when Cassie flew back to Australia, she was interviewed and the story of a boy being killed by his father in a domestic abuse situation came up. Her response? Applying gender to where she could push an agenda. She highlights the fact that the victim was male and not the fact that the perpetrator was male. Judging how the overwhelming majority of homicides, rapes, muggings, assaults, and spousal violence instances are caused by men, that not only is a flagrant display of ignorance but it really shows that she really doesn't care about the greater good and would rather shower men with a victim complex. 
AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT FEMINISM HAS BEEN CRITICISED FOR TIME AFTER TIME. 

To conclude the review, this documentary is not to just be chuckled at and assumed to die in the recesses of a Best Buy. This is a danger to anyone. It willfully spreads lies and makes you sympathise with a group that condones violence against women and only pretends to care for men. Do not watch this. At all. Don't even try to see what it's like. You have nothing to gain from it. There are SO many better things you could be watching. If you want a better documentary that evaluates the idea of masculinity and its negative repercussions on males in modern times, check out The Mask You Live In. It's a well directed and better paced film that actually recognises the root cause of men's issues without trying to make it look like feminists are Galactus in a bad mood. Better still, just watch something of actual substance, because The Red Pill isn't gonna give you that. 

I'm Comin' Out (I Want The World To Know)

I'm sure I've caught your attention with that apt Diana Ross reference in the title. So in honour of pride month, I think it's time I revealed a rather newly developed characteristic about me.

I am bi-romantic.

For anyone unaware, bi-romance is not a sexual orientation, but a lesser form of bisexuality. What it means is that I'm romantically and physically attracted to both genders, but my sexual orientation remains the same, which in my case would be heterosexual. Bi-romance is probably a lot more common than most people would imagine, but it's often glanced over, possibly because of how trivialised it is by the media. You know what I'm talking about, having two drunk straight girls make out with each other in a movie or male athletes slapping each other's fannies in the locker room. 

Who can be bi-romantic? Well, anyone really. With bisexuality it's kinda obvious that you'll go for men and women, but bi-romantics don't go all the way. For instance, a gay man can be only sexually attracted to men, but can still want a romantic relationship with a woman. For me, I'm still happily married to my husband, by I sometimes would think about taking some female friends on a lovey-dovey date (with lots of kissing of course ;D). Now I've never acted on my bi-romantic urges and quite frankly I don't see myself doing so in the foreseeable future, but I do wanna be more open about it. Bi-romance is also common amongst asexuals, who are indifferent to intercourse. Whilst they remain abstinent, it's not unheard of for them to have make out sessions with their partners. They might even grope them too. Nudity might also be involved in bi-romantic relationships

I'm not expecting to be worshipped for my unique orientation nor do I beg people to, I just want everyone to get a clearer understanding of what bi-romance is. Who knows, you might actually have a friend or acquaintance who is bi-romantic, and now you'll know how to interact with them or what they're like. This was kinda a short one, but I'm hoping I tided you over until I finish the Red Pill review. 

4 Reasons I'm Not A Perfect Feminist

I usually like bigging myself up as this immaculate default setting of what a feminist is or what a feminist should be like. Truth is, I'm probably one of the worst feminists out there, which is fine since I didn't really become a feminist until 2 summers ago. I mostly examine my behaviour to make sure I'm really aiming for an egalitarian society where women won't continue to get the short end of the stick, but there are aspects that might contradict my goal but I've never remedied since they likely have little effect on my quest as a whole. I'm gonna list off 4 reasons that don't make me perfect. Who knows, maybe some of these apply to you.

1. I Like Women More Than Men

Ok, to be clear, I don't hate men. Some of my closest friends are men, I love my husband dearly and I don't know what I'd do without him, I don't think killing all men will solve all the world's problems (no matter how fun that sounds >:D). Sure, man-hating and the revocation of men's rights (not the MRM, I mean the actual rights men have) go against the idea of feminism, but plenty of feminists you've met probably do have an inherent personal bias towards women, and I'm one of them. It's not really anti-feminist to admit that really, especially since many anti-fems flat out admit that they like men more than women yet receive little to no criticism for it. But I generally feel safer around women, I trust them more, I do think we do things better than dudes, but that doesn't mean I won't stand up to injustices committed by women. Nonetheless, sisters gotta stick together dontcha know? Plus women do have more of a reason to not like men than men do for not liking women. Sorry fellas :( you're cool too though.

2. I'm Not Very Independent

Everyone knows that feminists are busy bodies who can handle anything that gets thrown their way right? Not true. I've done pretty well for myself. I have a well paying job, I'm a homeowner, I'm married to the love of my life, I miss no meals, and I'm pretty active. That said, I can also be pretty lazy. My husband prefers to cater to me on behalf of how hard I work during the week (and just because he loves me that much) and I kinda enjoy that more than I should. Don't worry, his favours don't go unnoticed and I let him know how grateful I am, but it feels a lot better to have someone make your food and keep your drinks ready for you when you want to unwind as opposed to having to do it all by myself and inconveniencing myself further. This isn't to say I don't do my share of housework. In addition to paying for pretty much all of our bills and such, I do a hefty amount of cleaning. My husband's presence cuts my workload almost in half. I'm not even factoring my Asperger's here either.

3. I Gender Things Too Much

Look, gender neutrality benefits the oppressor and no one else. So saying things like nail polish and dresses know no gender is dumb. I do refer to things like light beers and colourful juices as "girly drinks" because I don't care if they are. I want society to accept things that are considered feminine, not pretend they don't exist. Now this I actually think I should do something about, but as it stands, I won't be afraid to gender something if I think it's appropriate.

4. I Like Violent Video Games

Anita Sarkeesian's gonna kill me for this XD. You wouldn't know it, but I actually am a fan of games that are violent or have sexual themes. Hell my favourite game is The Witcher 3 despite my awareness of the sexist elements in it, such as Geralt being a womaniser. Thing is, violent video games are kind of an outlet for our frustrations, and plus killing monsters is a hell of a lot of fun. The way I see it, if no one's getting hurt, then have all the enjoyment you can from a game, even if the game in question is Grand Theft Auto. 

And those are the big reasons that don't make me a perfect feminist. And that's fine. Feminism isn't about perfection, it's about acceptance of women being humans deserving of basic rights. If any of these apply to you, then don't feel embarrassed or anything. Don't let anyone tell you you're less of a feminist or that you're the real oppressor because you're not this pristine complacent freedom fighter. As long as you're still fighting for the good of women's lives then you're as feminist as you need to be. 

Ghost Recon Wildlands review (spoiler free)

Ghost Recon Wildlands is exactly the game that Ubisoft needed to redeem itself with after the gutting disappointment known as Watch Dogs 2. I mean that entirely. I'm not gonna lie, when it came down to either this or Horizon Zero Dawn (which I might get at some point in the foreseeable future), I decided to pick this up first. Mostly because I wanted it to be Ubisoft's redemption from Watch Dogs 2. Needless to say, they succeeded. 

To start, I'm gonna go over the basics. Ghost Recon Wildlands is a tactical team based third-person shooter set in an open world environment. Now I know what some of you might be saying to yourselves right now, "oh it's The Division all over again". I promise you, it's not. Sure, there are some apparent similarities, but given how they were presumably being developed/planned at the same time and were created by the same company, it's bound to happen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is now a contemporary shooter instead of the more sci-fi futuristic shooters that the Ghost Recon series has been going in. And I think going back in time a bit was a pretty good idea here as it serves for a breathe of fresh air and diversity in the current market that is kinda saturated with sci-fi shooters at the moment. 

Before the game begins, you are taken to character creation. While I still yearn for the day a shooting game will allow me to give my character long hair (especially judging how long my hair has grown out lately), I love the customisation options Wildlands leaves me with here. My character actually does look very similar to me if I was a narc XD. You're allowed up to teams of four to embark on missions, but it is still possible to play alone (just expect lots of frustration). You're given different options for entering missions, such as driving there or parachuting from a whirlybird (which is my personal favourite). I would say you can also walk there, but I know you won't, hehe. 

The missions revolve around stopping a Bolivian drug cartel called Santa Blanca. They're a bit generic if I could be honest, and are outfitted just as you'd expect them to be. They are however very fun to fight. Upon completing missions, you can spend points and cash earned on weapons and armour. Similar to The Division, the enemies will have armour ratings and damage counters when you attack them, and can be fought at complete random whilst traversing the overworld. Speaking of that, the overworld in this game is immense. If I were you, I'd seriously spend my first moments of free time during the game just admiring the atmosphere this game gives you. The graphics are phenomenal like you'd expect from Ubisoft (excluding Watch Dogs 2). Not only is the world beautiful, but it's actually designed like a wilderness, with salt flats, woodlands, and canyons. There's no limit to the things you can do. While the missions can get repetitive, they're a hell of a lot of fun and they never feel like a waste of time. 

Now let's talk about the combat. Wildlands does not utilise a duck and cover technique (PRAISE FUCKING JESUS) and that makes sense since there's not many places to take cover behind whilst in the wilderness, ya know unless you just so happen to be stranded in the Forest of Bulletproof Materials. In that respect, Wildlands encourages you to be more risky and upfront with your playing style, a more fight or flight approach instead of just getting behind a dumpster and mashing R2 at an enemy you're barely fixated on. The controls are also very quick to get used to and easy to remember, so you won't have to worry about fidgeting when you start out like you would with any other game.

If I had to give some criticism to this game, it'd be the vehicle controls. Driving in this game isn't very fun, unfortunately. I don't mean just the terrain, I mean with maneuvering. You may find yourself nearly breaking your fingers just trying to do something as simple as shoot down a machine gun nest. It's kinda a problem when driving and spraying isn't even an option in a game where that'd be massive amounts of awesomeness. The helicopter controls? They've got sins to answer for too. Oh what's that? You want to land properly? Why, that's such a ridiculous request. Next you'll be telling me that you wanna be rushing behind road guard after road guard whilst popping in and out of combat to avoid dying in 3 hits. And we'd never do that at all (ok, I think that's enough shitting on Watch Dogs 2 for one blog post wouldn't you say?). The game, expectedly enough, had a plethora of glitches and bugs upon release day and the moments thereafter, but they were soon patched up for the most part and it runs fairly decently now. 

I have to be honest, this was the first Ghost Recon game I played since Future Soldier, and I'm glad I jumped back to the series with this installment. I bought it thinking it'd be just The Division with Ghost Recon spray painted on it and ended up realising it's more an indirect sequel to The Division more than anything else. The graphics, the gameplay, and the story all come together to make a B+ game. Seriously, pick this up first chance you get. You'll enjoy it, I guarantee you. 

My Life As a Woman with Asperger's

I'm just gonna come out with it now: I have Asperger's syndrome. And it's so refreshing to just freely say that since I've spent most of my 22 years of life keeping it in. I barely told anyone, I sometimes thought I was a freak or a contaminated wretch. But overtime, I became a bit more comfortable with my condition, and overcame it in my teens by becoming more social. I accepted my uncontrolled faults and told the world to take me as I am or don't take me at all. I put both my feet down and decided to hit my challenges head on. Now it's time I told you what life has been like as a woman with Asperger's.

To clarify, Asperger's syndrome is a minor form of autism that effects social activity. Most autistics are recluse, have difficulty carrying long conversations, and are more likely to feel embarrassed of even the simplest of actions. Autism or any of its variants is not a disease, it's a neurological disorder. The faster society gets that under its belt the sooner we can deal with it better. It effects developmental skills like reading and writing. I usually have to condense writings to compensate for my admitted inability to make huge pieces (ironically enough my blog posts tend to be gargantuan). I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was 2. I even spent most of my primary school days in a special ed class. In secondary school, I spent it wit a TA. In high school, I had to dedicate 10 minutes of free time to the counselor to discuss my progress through my classes with my condition. I always felt so alienated from my peers, and some would often refer to me as a sped, aspie, sperg, retard, etc. My Asperger's became a burden for most of my life, and pretty much no one but my family knows it.

So why do I consider it a feminist issue? Well, despite males outnumbering females in autism diagnoses, girls get ASD a lot more than you're probably told. If you look up the percentage of female autism rates, there's no definite statistic that tells you how many girls actually have it. That's because society has basically swept autistic girls under the rug, so much that I've been told that I'm faking my Asperger's. No one has anything to gain from saying they have ASD unless that person is a masochist who looks forward to the torment ahead.

Autism and Asperger's are used interchangeably but are not complete mirrors of each other. Autism is more behavioural whereas Asperger's is more academic; those respective traits are shared but one is more common in the other and vice versa. Despite the educational obstacles I encountered, I was a pretty good student throughout all my school years. In terms of behaviour, whilst I was initially shy, I attempted to be more outgoing and made good friends but still decided to keep talking on my end to a minimum. I also have a pretty monotonous voice, which has been described by those who've heard me speak as cute or even sexy at times (British accents for the win :D). I'm also kinda clumsy and trip over things at least once a day. I even trace my finger along with my hand when applying eyeliner so I know not to poke my bloody eye out. 

What does Asperger's feel like in your adult years? Honestly, sometimes I forget I even have it now. I can't speak for every case since some have low functioning autism which severely effects motor skills, but for Asperger's patients we'll, for the most part, be able to carry on with our everyday lives. I was able to land a high paying counseling job in October in spite of my condition, and I married the love of my life, so all's well that end's well. 

Autistic women are an unspoken minority, and they've been ignored for too long. We're regular people deserving of basic rights and attention. Some disorder floating around our cortex shouldn't be the deciding factor there. Feminism must provide a voice for all women, and that includes us women on the spectrum. 

Equality Vs Equity

One thing civil rights groups all profess is that they stand for equality. You know, racial equality, marriage equality, economic equality, and gender equality. The word equality is a flagship of politics. But what if I told you that equality was actually not the word we should be using? Standing for a equality is fine and all, but it's actually erroneous of oppressed groups to call for it. The word we SHOULD be using is equity. 

Let me explain how these terms are actually noninterchangeable. Now according to the dictionary, equality and equity seem like they mean the same thing. Even within the context of social rights, they seem to be evenly matched. However, equality means treating everyone equally, which actually doesn't help. Imagine it like this. You have 3 people, one man, one woman, and one child. They're all trying to watch a baseball game, but a picket fence is blocking the woman and child's views. Now equality would mean that the woman and child get a box to stand on, but so does the man, meaning the man still has the better view than the woman and the child. In essence, treating them all equally would give the privileged party more benefits and leave us one step behind. Equity on the other hand would give the woman one box to stand on and the child gets two. The man would not get one since he already has a perfect view. Equity gave the woman and child the same view the man has, but distributed the privileges to where it was necessary. 

In laymen's terms, equality would still favour the privileged classes. Equity would give benefits where needed. Instead of the term gender equality, we should say gender equity. Now I'm not entirely against saying equality in certain contexts, as I'd probably understand what you mean, but keep in mind that MRAs have a habit of twisting our words around to make us look bad. I know it can be annoying how we're always switching up our language, but you might find it'll serve you well in the long run. 

What Makes An Issue A 'Gendered Issue'?

So here's something I keep running into whenever I discuss, well, anything regarding women's oppression really. I always get these "egalitarian" types coming at me with this gender neutral bollocks. Yep, you know the ones:

"rape is a human issue. Humans shouldn't rape humans. Stop making everything about gender"

The argument typically follows this bend of logic; since men get raped as well, that automatically makes the issue gender neutral. The main problem here is that this argument is one-sided, or is used as a one-sided argument because it's never applied to when the topic of discussion is men, only women. It's become yet another way to derail the conversation and to tell them pesky womz that they should suck it up. 

But wait, you might say, what about men killing themselves as higher rates? What about most homeless people being men? What about all of those problems? What about men being drafted? Why aren't they considered gendered issues if men are at the forefront of victimhood?

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THERE'S MORE TO MAKING AN ISSUE A GENDERED ISSUE THAN JUST SIMPLY SUFFERING FROM IT MORE.

You see, in order to attach gender or race to something, the principle must be rooted in a hierarchal idea. Suicide, homelessness, and military services were not built upon the idea of men being inferior. Things like rape and spousal abuse were in fact built upon the idea that women are weaker and are to be dominated by their husbands or boyfriends. Even when women started doing the inverse, it was still widely regarded as a woman's issue, thus requiring we feminists to fix it. 

Which brings me to my next point. Gendered issues are important to recognise as gendered because it's the easiest way to combat them. Being "colour-blind" or "gender neutral" is stupid because you're essentially turning a blind eye to white supremacy and misogyny. How are you meant to attack your enemy if you know nothing about them or are not willing to see them for what they are? I'll give you an example of that. Rape is sometimes referred to as a gender neutral issue. The fraction for women getting raped is 1 in 6. The fraction for men is 1 in 71. Yep, TOTALLY gender neutral there. That's why there's violence against women and not people. Women are attacked because of their gender, men are not. 

Perhaps another more recent example was last year's X-Men Apocalypse billboard poster which showed the titular villain Apocalypse strangling the female villain/anti-heroine Mystique. It rightfully was met with outrage from women's groups and predictably they were met with backlash from masculinists. They were all like "OH BUT IF IT WAS A GUY THEN IT'D BE FINE". They didn't understand that the problem wasn't Apocalypse strangling Mystique. The problem was that it was being used as a selling point for the film. We know villains do bad things, that's common knowledge. But that particular poster was almost glorifying violence against women, which is kinda a widespread problem. 

So the next time you hear a topic about gender politics come up, instead of butting in with your gender neutrality bollocks, hear them out for a minute and listen to their language. Look deeper than the surface. An iceberg is more than what you see above water. 

Why I Won't Just 'Get Over' Trump's Presidency (And Why You Shouldn't Either)

So this is sort of a follow up to my blog post from November where I talked about what we could expect from Trump's presidency. Well I'm on the verge of flat out deleting that post because I was wrong. I was horribly wrong. There is no way at this point to dissuade me of the idea that these 4 years will be anything but rocky. I originally thought that because the GOP had disowned Trump, his policies wouldn't receive backing. Well it turns out that the GOP and Trump are all buddies again. Isn't that wonderful? 

But what REALLY gets me is peers telling me to just "get over it". I keep seeing this everywhere the second someone expresses negative thoughts about Trump. Not only is it everywhere, but it's highly insensitive to those with mental trauma over the fact that someone who represent racists and sexists is now running things. Firstly, you can't just "get over" an election result. Presidents have 2 4 year terms, and 4 years is far too much for Trump. Hell, even being in the runnings was too much. You can't afford to treat the election like a small paper cut. As much as I'd like it to happen, Trump isn't just gonna go away if you ignore him long enough. He'll announce himself every chance he gets, and his followers will do the same. 

And don't be surprised at the comparisons between Trump and Hitler because they are very much alike. All that's needed are internment camps where Muslims and Mexicans are shipped off to die (I pray to the stars above that won't happen). Trump voters should've known very well from the beginning that we would have a problem with this. You don't just elect a racist, sexist despot and just expect it to go over smoothly. And the worst part about this is that they didn't care. It's obvious they didn't care because if they did, Trump would be in his tower sucking from a pacifier and whining that no one sought him to be a leader of the country. But nope, we gotta keep them pesky womynz from even suggesting some sort of national decision. 

Which brings me to my next point. Apparently everyone cares about corrupt politicians when women are the ones with a dirt sheet. The 44 men who came before Hillary? Nah, they were all pristine model citizens. I guarantee you if it was Bill, no one would care as much. Another thing that annoys me is that people say social justice is to blame for Trump's victory. That's like saying the Jews are to blame for the Nazis ruling Germany. No, you know who's to blame for this? Racists and sexists. They were given that platform and came out in droves to grasp their opportunity to have their behaviour condoned again. You remember how they were pissing about Obama harshly penalising crimes against women and people of colour. They've been conditioned to believe that being criticised or judged for your inflammatory behaviour is oppressive when that's not how it works at all. 

And since it's relevant, I think I should bring up the Trump protests and rioters. I don't entirely hold any acrimony against them. I don't agree with their methods, but I can understand why they'd feel that way. Of course though, the privileged white dudes living in gated communities all rejoice at the reinstatement of their stock image lives. That is, less of them darker skinned fellows. Also I absolutely love the whiners going about "property damages" and how "these darn leftist crybabies are destroying everything because they didn't get what they want". It's funny cuz the rightists are up in the US government destroying lives systematically with the laws they pass. Anyone can destroy something with their hands or weapons. But the one who carefully plots the downfall of a society with nonviolent tactics is a true villain to fear. I'd be much more fearful of someone who brings me to tears with just their words than someone who just beats me up with their hands. 

There is no comparison to the far right and the far left. One holds all the power and one doesn't. The right still have a massive advantage over the left, and that advantage has been used to constantly hold down people with lives and families. White people are afraid that police will slap them with a hefty fine for doing something mildly illegal. Black people are afraid of getting shot just for being outside late at night. Men are afraid that their phone will die whilst they're out partying. Women are afraid that they'll be raped, killed, or both whilst out partying. Straight people are afraid of, well, I'll get back to you on that. LGBT people are afraid of being beaten on the side of the road for not being "normal". The left has different priorities and different concerns. Concerns that deserve and require a limelight of their own. These are human beings we're talking about here. I'd be kinda remiss if I didn't remind everyone about the tremendous amounts of racism and protest that Obama got when he was elected. Which brings me to protesting a voted election. Did you know that this is totally valid? No seriously, there is nothing paradoxical about protesting a fair election (leaving aside how it was most likely rigged). Saying the protesters are bitching that they didn't get what they want is a gross oversimplification. It's one thing to lose the election. Giving a position of political power to someone who stands for racism, sexism, heteronormativity, and a bunch of other things I can't name off the top of my head is a whole new ballpark. If your new boss was a guy who went around sticking dildos on your chair for you to sit on, would you honestly just go with the idea of "put up or shut up"? Yeah, didn't think so. 

Before I close things here, I must bring up the fact that the idea of the president not having as much power as we think is pretty much null and void. Congress is loaded with republicans, and checks and balances mean nothing if everyone is in complete agreement. If Hitler had a congressional board, I doubt the other Nazis in office would reject his propositions. At this point, all we can hope is that most of what he said during his campaign was mere jargon. But again, hope can only get us so far. These 4 years will be hard, no doubt. But maybe 2020 will be our light at the end of the tunnel. Just maybe. 

Watch Dogs 2 Review (Spoiler free)

If I had to choose a poster child for one of the most disappointingly slapdash video games to come out of 2016, I'm pretty sure Watch Dogs 2 would be a runner-up for first place. And it really pains me to say that. I think its no secret that 2016 was a terrible year for video games. Only like 2 games that came from last year were anything good, those being The Division and Uncharted 4. Everything else was substandard rubbish. ReCore is boring, No Man's Sky is pretty much the equivalent of selling hard rock albums to 80 year old people, and Final Fantasy 15 is just flashy generic edgy white boy game #42,958. But Watch Dogs 2? Oh boy do I have quite the bone to pick with this. 

Let me just be clear here, I was actually looking forward to this game. I thought it'd be the improvement that the expected series would need. Around the time Bad Blood was released for the first Watch Dogs game, I was a bit on edge about the direction the series was going in. But not only was Watch Dogs 2 the unnecessary sequel that many were thinking it would be; it might've just been worse. Watch Dogs 2 is repetitive, unfinished, and one of the most horribly unfocused games I've seen in quite a while.

Remember how all of Watch Dogs' detractors were going on and on about how it's just a pale imitation of Grand Theft Auto? Well it seems that Ubisoft took that a bit too seriously because Watch Dogs 2 is literally just GTA 5 with a Watch Dogs skin slapped on it. Sure, Watch Dogs 2 takes us to the beautiful vista of San Francisco, but that's about as far as visual aesthetics go. The textures look like an early 7th generation console game and it all just complements the cartoony atmosphere in a negative way. The game tries so desperately to deviate from the original's dark tone so much to a point where it feels like some sort of wacky sitcom from the mid-90's. 

Now let's talk about the story and characters for a bit. The game follows Marcus Holloway, aka obnoxious token black kid. He's kind of a centre of criticism for me because of how badly written he is. I wouldn't mind too much except the fact that this is Ubisoft we're talking here. These guys made the fucking Assassin's Creed games, where many of the protagonists are foreign people. How did they suddenly fuck up writing a black character? Seriously the whole game his mannerisms just scream "I'M BLACK CAN'T YOU TELL?" and it's rather disappointing given the racial diversity message this game was aiming at. But instead of a black man, Marcus feels more like what a white guy thinks black men are like when they're not being painted as thugs and hoodlums. His story is that he was framed for a crime he never committed, except not really because he was guilty of a crime when he was 11 but the ctOS system is retrying him for it. So it's up to him and his friends, who are way better characters btw, to help clear his name. Oh did I mention that's only like a fifth of the story? No really, the rest of the game is just spend doxxing and wrongly attributing other people that Marcus doesn't like because I guess hypocrisy is fun now. 

And the gameplay, my god the gameplay. Watch Dogs 2 is legit a duck and cover shooter. Not a good one either. First, the actual story can be completed in 8 hours. I'm not joking there. In 8 hours, you're done. The first game took at least a week and a half to beat. Instead of doing what The Division did in terms of making the missions challenging, Watch Dogs 2 thinks it can try and pull a fast one by "letting you play your own way", which is a total lie because the game punishes you for doing anything other than what it secretly wants you to do. Oh look at all these ways I can do the mission! Except why would I choose any method other than the one that actually is effective? The stealth mechanics? They're not much better. If you're spotted, everyone in the bloody area automatically knows your location, even if you're in a giant building. You can say it's because of their tech, but given how the only way to lose enemies is to leave the AO, that's not stealth, that's cat and mouse. Back to the shooting. This time around, Marcus is a fucking pincushion in contrast to Aiden being a bullet sponge. There's no balance here. If a bunch of enemies are raining down on you, you're pretty much forced behind cover otherwise you're dead in seconds. 

The hacking elements are a slight step up from the last game, but even then it's still the same old "push a button to fuck around" routine. You have more options this time and can select up to 3 things to do with a hackable item. Unfortunately, most of the options are inconsequential. Drive a car forward? Why would I need to do that? Which leads me to the driving. It's slightly better but the vehicles are still incredibly hard to control and are barely durable. They still don't allow you to shoot from your car, which is a shame since that's one thing that would've definitely been a good addition. 

And since this is a feminist blog, I think it's time we talked about the women in this game. One criticism against the first game was the poor representation of the female characters. Only 2 types of woman existed: the damsel in distress, and the strong character that gets killed like a punk. Watch Dogs 2 gave us Sitara, and holy fuck did we get cheated. She mostly takes a back seat and just plays music for Marcus when she's capable of so much more. I was thinking to myself, why wasn't SHE the protagonist? That aside, Watch Dogs 2 introduces female enemies like security guards and police officers, which is kinda cool. That is until I came to the realisation that I'm just gunning these women down or bashing their skulls in with an 8 ball. That was, discomforting, to say the least. 

Speaking of that, one thing I honestly did not care for was their advertisement of moral choices. The first game had these already, and it made sense in the narrative because you were playing as a vigilante. Why are they bigging this up now? Will there be more than what we were given in Watch Dogs 1? Lol nope, it's the same thing. The only "choice" you have is to use take downs instead of guns, and that makes no sense since non lethal take downs still involve the enemy being hit with moves that would kill them. Why am I being told that I have moral choices when the only options I have are to be a complete cyber terrorist or a sleuthing batterer? 

Then there's the online, which was a huge letdown. Watch Dogs 1 had a terrible online component, so them saying Watch Dogs 2's online component would be an improvement made me a bit giddy. But instead of doing what GTA 5 did, all they gave us was the ability to dress Marcus a different way and do game modes like Team Deathmatch or kill each other on the street in the open world. How am I supposed to feel like my individual self if all my fellow players are the same guy? That's like if Metal Gear Online made everyone play as Snake with absolutely no individuality. You might as well just fuck around in the single player because there's nothing worth doing in the online mode. 

Watch Dogs 1 had a pretty deep story that was complemented by adequate gameplay. Here we have mediocre gameplay with a story that barely tries, and that's not what an open world video game is a supposed to be like. Watch Dogs 1 left an influx of emotions through every player, with all of them hoping to see what was next for them, and to see it followed up with this is so disheartening. This is one of the most disappointing games I've played since Duke Nukem Forever, and I'm not even exaggerating. I may be in the minority here, but truth is, when Ubisoft announces a third game in the Watch Dogs series, the one thing I'll be thinking to myself is "at least it can't be as bad as Watch Dogs 2".