If I Were President

Every once in a while, someone messages me and says "Hey Kristal I wish you ran for president cuz I'd totally vote for you". Pfft, like they'd ever let my arse anywhere near the White House. It's just not gonna happen mate. But that would be interesting though, so I'll dedicate this blog post to show you all what it'd be like if I were president. 

Firstly, I'd wanna have a nice little chat with you gun enthusiasts out there, you 2nd Amendment fanboys. I swear to fuck, you're the brattiest fucking toerags in the multiverse, you're practically unrivaled. All you do is flip shit everyday because the government wants you to surrender a little bit of your collection. NONE OF YOU have any reason to own an assault weapon. Your only reason to own one boils down to some unnatural fetish you have for military-grade guns that aren't even necessary for basic protection needs. Every last one of you have been safeguarded at the expense of others, and now you're throwing a fit because we're asking you to give away only a small portion of your unnecessary armoury? What is wrong with you bloodthirsty fuckwits? I'm so irritated by you. 

It's one of the most frustrating things ever to hear gun nuts in this country throw tantrums. "Oh woe is me. The government wants me to surrender my AR-15s. I'll go from owning 10 guns to 9. Whatever shall I do?" You're a bunch of fucking entitled pricks. You're gonna be fine. You're still strapped to the teeth with guns. How much is enough for you violent fucks? At what point do you say to yourself "You know, I have enough guns to protect my home as necessary. Maybe I'll chill out on my obsession with owning guns instead of buying enough to supply a strike force". But you never think that. You're too busy inventing scenarios in your head where you'll be disarmed and carted off to your death because something something Nazis were pro-gun control. Almost every single shooting that has been carried out in America since the Aurora theatre shooting was done so by use of an AR-15 and similar weapons. And the moment any politician proposed regulating gun ownership, you bloodthirsty bell-ends cried all the way to the doorstep of the NRA so they can lobby to let you keep guns that you realistically don't even fucking need whilst mothers grieved the deaths of their teenage children. To me, that's just plain evil. 

I've had it up to here with you entitled pendejos, so my first order of business is to prohibit the sale of assault weapons without a legitimate excuse. You wanting to own a weapon capable of mowing down a crowd of 50 people in minutes out of your sci-fi fantasies is not amongst these excuses. You gun owners claim that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Well in America, we have a gun violence incidents every bloody week. Where the fuck are these good guys with guns? It's infuriating, for real. The good guy with a gun narrative doesn't exist. Even those brave souls who do genuinely return fire at mass shooters as the carnage is happening are the exceptions, not the norm. Gun culture gives me a fucking headache. These gun nuts don't care about you, not in the abstract. Now gun ownership is not without its merits. It can provide security to those who feel they can't protect themselves otherwise. With all that firepower you gun nuts have stashed away, you could arm women, black people, trans people, anyone who's a prime target for hate crimes and help them live to see another day. Do you really think safety is achieved by keeping these weapons of war tucked in your closet or wherever all your life, only to come out when you wanna shoot empty beer cans? Of fucking course not, you know no one is safer this way. But you don't really care do you? You're only in it for yourselves. And don't get me started on the racism aspect because you know for a fact that if it were a black woman being shot dead by police for merely exercising her second amendment rights, ustedes would be more silent than a library after the apocalypse. 

I'm tired of fragile white men with zero personality outside of owning guns pretending shooting people is a core value of America. I couldn't care less about your sponsorships or any NRA stickers, I'm not gonna bow to you because I don't care if I get re-elected. I'll spend my 4 years in office doing the public a service and putting you selfish gun nuts in your fucking place for letting the public be in danger. Just try whining about the assault rifle prohibition gun nuts, see where that gets you. My next step will be to put you in jail for owning one. Don't test me. 

My second plan, and I mean like immediately after, would be reforming women's self-defence in this country. We demand women take full responsibility for their own safety when police action is not possible and then we punish them for using it? What the hell kinda backwards thinking is that? It's insane the logic we use here. Abusers killing their wives? Getting slaps on the wrists and often times escaping jail altogether. White supremacists who kill minorities? Escaping justice. Cops who kill unarmed civilians? Pretty much getting pats on the back the whole way. I don't get this society. By doing this, we only discourage anyone from taking measures to protect themselves since it's obvious they'll be treated like the bad guy for not letting themselves fucking die. So I would give a full presidential pardon to any woman who's been imprisoned for killing an abuser or any other attacker who made her fear for her life. I don't care how long you were sentenced, if you're in there for killing in self-defence, you're going the fuck home and I fully apologise that you were even there in the first place. 

This system is so fucking broken. Self-defence is an imperative method for survival. And instead of condoning and encouraging it, we let the predators and the evil ones feel safer and get away with harming the innocent. All we do by punishing those who were protecting themselves leads to is more innocent people dying. Haven't you people found it odd that you're getting fucked over? 

So I'm gonna be clearing the prisons of all the women who are in there for justifiable homicides, and then I'm gonna fill them back up with the slimeballs who should actually be in there. That's right, I'm talking about rapists. Rapists are literally living among you. These obviously predatory people are silently preying on civilians everyday, and only 2% of them ever see a day behind bars. What the holy hell people? You see what happens when you never make people face the consequences for their actions? The threat they pose continues and sometimes gets stronger. You have to give these people what they deserve. You need to show these gross pieces of shit to everyone and expose them for the scum that they are. Which is why I'll propose a new crackdown by giving civilians reasonable authority to deal with rapists by the means at hand. We'll clean up the streets of these bastards one day at a time and no longer take their deeds lying down. I'd do what no other president in history has ever done, and that is make rapists face consequences. It's a disgrace how no president has ever had the stones to do this. It really shows you where their interests lie doesn't it?

And also, I just have to ask: what the everlasting hell is wrong with the public? You all do realise that your own lives are in danger by letting these rapists run around without consequences right? They're endangering the lives of everyone around you right under your noses and you don't even care? You disappoint me and need to get your priorities in check. 

My next target is the church. By some accounts, the church takes in 170 billion USD in revenue annually. That's absolutely batshit insane. What the hell do churches need all that money for? It's not like they're using it for anything. And isn't it a sin to horde wealth? Sounds like they're not even taking their own advice. My proposition for this is to tax churches by 30%. That may seem like a lot, but even by then the church would still be much richer than they need to be. If they cannot survive by living on just enough for them to be set forever, then maybe the entire institution needs to be supplanted. 

And once we've taken care of taxing churches, reforming women's self-defence, and prohibiting assault rifles, we can focus on other matters, like immigration. There can be no freedom where humans are illegal. Name me one genuinely rock solid reason why immigration is a huge problem that doesn't boil down to a subconscious prejudice against brown people. Chances are, you won't find one. That's why I'd draft legislation to start open borders in this country. No more immigration police, no more 90 day visas, fuck them. Immigration should not be as complicated as America has made it to be. If you're coming here for a new life, nothing should stand in your way. I'll even strengthen citizenship processes to ensure immigrants who choose to live here permanently can be American citizens faster than before. No one should have to wait 3 to 5 years to finally be considered a member of this society. For real, if it's been more than like 6 months, chances are they're not going anywhere. 

And speaking of things that should be available and easy, so should housing. It's genuinely confusing as to how much every administration has dragged its feet in the mud in solving the homelessness problem in this country. We have a homeless population of 554,000 and tripled that amount in available houses. What the hell are we waiting for? No one should have to fight over finding a house. This country has all the resources to ensure homelessness and poverty never exist and we just let it go to waste so billionaire scumbags can line their own pockets with it. Not on my watch. And so with all the money we get and save by taxing churches, I'll start socialised public housing for everyone in this country, all fully maintained and insured so you never have to worry about losing everything in the event something goes wrong. We can help abused women and children, college students, and the homeless find shelter without having to wait in line. Now if you still want to buy these huge houses and pay thousands in mortgage, go right ahead, doesn't matter to me. But if you can't afford that and need a place to live due to certain circumstances, the government will help you as necessary. We will set up all sorts of housing choices, apartments or houses, whichever you want at the price that's right for you. Housing should be a right for every person. I'll make sure you get it. 

I'm Madame President Kristal Colt and I love every single one of you little bastards. I'm honoured to bring this country to greatness, and liberty and justice for all (except Fortnite gamers). 

Feminists Are Allowed to Hate Men

Oh boy, it was only a matter of time before I addressed this topic in particular. What was it I said in a previous blog post from last year?

"I don't hate men"

Oops, looks like we all make mistakes XD. 

So as it turns out, after seeing the horrors of male rapists getting absolutely ludicrous punishments, or lack thereof, for some of the most vile rapes ever set before my eyes, men who rape and beat women run for office and come close to winning elections, and anything incels have ever fucking done, let it be known that the misandry flows through me and vitalises me like no other stimulant. Let it also be known that whilst I do currently have distaste for men as a whole, I'm more than just a simple-minded hater. There are men I like besides my husband, and I do appreciate having male allies around. That said, I'm not gonna pull any punches here. For any good men out there reading this, this likely won't apply to you, but if you do get offended, you might not be as good as you think. 

So what caused me to finally talk about man-hating feminists? To be completely blunt, I am at my wit's end with these "cool feminists" who are too afraid to piss men off to get their point across, how the system is the problem and not men, even though men created the system that kills women and men alike with toxic gender roles and violent abuse. Plus, why the fuck can't women hate men? How many men have actually died at the hands of misandry? I mean actually died as a result of socially integrated man-hatred, not just MRAs blaming men's deaths on feminism. I'll give you a hint, the answer is 0. Even the most patient of feminists admit that they are fed up with men's shit. The kill count of misogyny is kilometres long and there's not enough days in a year for me to go down that list right now. 

The idea of hating your oppressor is one that I'm very fond of, because having negative feelings against a person or group of people who've wronged you for so long is a natural thing to do. Then there's the phrase "don't fight hate with hate", which is basically a gaslighting technique at this point. It makes it as if taking any sort of harsh action against an oppressor suddenly brings you down to their level. That's like saying stopping home invaders with force makes you the real criminal. It doesn't work that way, and being too nice in these times where human rights are up for debate (somehow) is what got us into this mess. A woman saying she hates men isn't comparable to a whole nation hating women so much that they'll elect a man who's been accused of sexual violence by many women (speaking of that, notice how all the people saying Hillary defends rapists suddenly cried about Trump supposedly being falsely accused of rape. I think we found out who's really on the side of rapists) just to show them what for. I want you to think about the most radical man-hating lesbian feminist you know. Have you ever heard one say raping and abusing men should be legal? How about them saying husbands are property of their wives? I bet you haven't, but you'll see many men saying these things about women (hey incels, it's been a while hasn't it?), and the men who think and say these things are sitting down proposing them as laws right now. Misogyny is a threat at large here in the states. Misandry isn't. 

But really, the over-obsession of feminists hating men, as if that's the worst thing anyone can do, is not unheard of or at least it's not like I don't see why that's the case. Since society was even a thing, humans have overvalued men even when it wasn't earned, and it still persists today. Men's behaviour is always backed by some pitiful excuse. The whole "boys will be boys" mantra refuses to fizzle out meanwhile girls are policed for every little thing they do. So if males are allowed to just roam freely and be nigh-immune from consequence, why are females expected to just go with it and kiss arse just to be accepted as people? Like I said before, this whole "fighting hate with hate" rhetoric is a form of suppression. It implies that any resistance or force against the enemy makes you as bad as them. You might as well say whoever kills Hitler is the new Hitler, or that the Marine raiders who killed Nazis in WW2 were the real Nazis for "continuing the cycle of violence", which I also think is pretty problematic on its own but that's a story for another time. 

The point I'm trying to get at beyond my constant off-topic proximation is that if you're willing to concede that people have the right to feel angry that a certain group of people dealt them a shitty hand for an extended period of time, why should feminists, and by extension women, be the ones you police? Because you happen to belong to the group they hate? That's not an excuse. When gross misogynist men commit acts of violence, people are lightning fast to blame the woman for "not giving him a chance" and find it reasonable for men to hate women based on the principle that "bitches be crazy", but women can't hate men for all the abuse and torment they've received at their hands? But sure, bring up equality when it suits men, I'm sure you'll sound smart eventually. One more thing before I let you go, typically when you learn someone hates you, you tend to wanna find out why or get them to not hate you. I think men should consider following that dynamic if they're so concerned about "misandry". 

Are Celebrities Only Allowed To Be Leftists?

So in the latest installment of "Things That Aren't Censorship But Are Still Considered Censorship By Right-Wing Fuckwits", Roseanne Barr, sitcom extraordinaire and reputed racist, has had her show cancelled following a now-deleted Twitter rant where she called Valerie Jarrett apelike. Naturally, her description of a non-white woman being similar in appearance to a primate generated a negative reaction from her rebooted show's parent company NBC and now thanks to her idiocy, her co-stars and many other show workers are now out of a job. Now shortly after, Samantha Bee unleashed on Ivanka Trump, calling her a 'feckless c*nt'. Samantha apologised in the heat of it, meaning it was genuine regret, and wasn't punished for it. This resurged the long heated talking point regurgitated by the right known as this: celebrities are only allowed to publicly showcase liberal beliefs. 

To be quite frank, whilst I don't agree with that sentiment in the least bit, I can understand why people would think that. It seems like having a right wing opinion is grounds to tar and feather a person whilst left leaning celebs appear to breeze through everything with no issue. Only problem is, there's a good reason and excuse as to why that's the case. The big idea is the fact that the right has delved into a cesspool of monolithic and selfish shitlords who care more about offending and pissing people off than making any societal change. And when the political party that fought against Nazis suddenly decides Nazis are ok because they "trigger the libs" then it's time to vilify that party to the extreme. At worst, the left is annoying. At worst, the right is perilous. I've swung way far left at this point where I don't see myself agreeing with anything a conservative will say. That said, I challenge any conservatives reading this to throw something we can agree on my way ;). 

So are celebrities only allowed to be leftists? Well, the answer is no. There are some celebs with right wing beliefs that aren't hated. Need an example? Chuck Norris. Chuck is one of the grossest bootlickers I've ever seen. As a surprise to no one, Chuck is a down home Republican, and lately the one thing he's been doing with his time is being very anti-LGBT+. He's even against a campaign that protects trans students from bullying. Now tell me, when's the last time you heard anyone shit talk Chuck? I got more of these. Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry are republicans and last I checked, people still go crazy for the Bad Boys From Boston. Hell, fucking Dave Mustaine from Megadeth is right wing, going as far as to being an Alex Jones fan, supporting Ted Cruz, and claiming the Sandy Hook shooting was a facade. Megadeth isn't blacklisted now is it? As you can see, being publicly right wing isn't a one-way ticket to street justice grabbing ya by the neck. 

What also bugs me is that left-wing celebrities don't get off scot free either like conservatives claim. Trevor Noah for example is loathed by conservatives and even people who are "centrists" for his leftist ideals. Same goes for Mark Hamill, one of the biggest movie stars in history. Once he started being critical of Trump and his administration he was immediately branded an "SJW" (fuck that term btw). Obviously being a leftist isn't as easy as conservatives want you to think. These same people want to say that leftism is the only acceptable ideology yet you'd find them on Youtube videos made by small feminist channels with like 50 subscribers blasting the poor girl's video with thousands of dislikes and supplementing them with extremely disgusting rape threats and the like. So yeah, tell me again about free speech going both ways? 

Speaking of free speech, did you know that the White House wants to cancel Samantha Bee's show over her insulting Ivanka? Yeah you know what it's called when the government wants to end a public TV show because the host said something they don't like? CENSORSHIP. Ya know, that word that's basically meaningless now? Censorship specifically and only applies to LEGALISM. If your network cancels your show for saying something discriminatory, that is not censorship. If you are sued by the government for writing an article and having your entire social media tracked and being fined each time you publicly post, that is censorship. If the government is attacking and limiting the rights of people who display leftist beliefs, then that's a pretty damning sign that being a leftist isn't all that accepted. What's more is that the government and by extension the President is supposed to hold themselves to a much higher standard than the average citizen, not a lower one. So if Captain Grapefruit wants someone's show to be illegal just because the host said something mean about him, he needs to step the fuck down because he is not fit to do this job. I know he won't, but he needs to.

I can't entirely say I'm surprised this turned into the hell storm it did, but the fact that these instances were at the forefront of news reports instead of the 5K death count of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico or the THOUSANDS of missing immigrant children thanks to the negligence of ICE just infuriated me to levels I did not anticipate. Roseanne Barr is an ignorant trollop, this is not news. She dressed up like Hitler during a bakery photoshoot and now people are somehow shocked that she called a non-white woman apelike. Her getting her show cancelled is HER FAULT. She very much had this coming by shooting her mouth off. Samantha Bee is not comparable because all she did was get furious with Ivanka being all glitters and rainbows whilst her family destroys everything good in the world. It's not nuclear armageddon because a bland sitcom from the late 20th century had its return cut short, and there is no SJW propagandist wrongthink going on. Get the hell over yourselves. 

What Is Psychopathy?

Let's talk about psychopathy. Psychopathy is kinda meaningless now. Or at least it must be because the way this word is used irritates the fuck outta me as a counselor (yeah turns out a lot of things bug me now that I'm a counselor XD). Psychopathy has become stripped of its original meaning and description by movies and armchair activists and is now ascribed to anyone who does something bad. That's not psychopathy. Simply being a bad person is not psychopathy. Sociopathy is not psychopathy, despite how much they might crossover into each other. I will not only be examining the differences between sociopaths and psychopaths, but I will also be talking about what a psychopath is and how you can spot one, because I am very sick of how overused this word has become. 

To begin, psychopathy is a mental disorder. One does not simply become a psychopath; you have to be born as one. One thing that psychopaths and sociopaths share is antisocial personality disorder, though with psychopaths, the case is more complex and difficult to deal with for reasons I am about to explain. With a psychopath, their actions come from nature. What I'm about to say might be controversial, but it's important to keep in mind that psychopaths aren't malevolent, they simply...are. They don't have any specific reasons for their bad behaviour. They just do them. They tend to rationalise their actions by saying "this is just who I am and people will have to accept that". Most of what people know about psychopaths is just glamourised Hollywood tropism. Movies portray psychopathic villains as bloodthirsty tortured souls or are batshit insane, both of which are misconceptions. There are plenty of evil people out there with completely normal mental states, normal meaning fully functioning hypothalamus and amygdala, both of which are impaired in psychopaths. Plus, psychosis and psychopathy are not the same thing, even if they tend to overlap. Hollywood also tells you that psychopaths are geniuses, when the reality is that on average, psychopaths are actually pretty dumb. Keep in mind that just because they have brain disorders and typically don't know better, that doesn't justify their bad behaviour. 

Another thing psychopaths are known for is lying. When a psychopath becomes aware of their affliction, they will try their damnedest to hide it from others. They will be cool and calm, tell some jokes, put on a noticeably fake smile, all of that to hide their instability. They're also pathological liars, and can form cover stories as they go along. One thing to note is that whilst psychopaths regularly lie, they're also kinda bad at it. It's easy to catch them in a standard lie, since they don't carefully plan them out if they're making it all up right then and there, and you can pick up on some discrepancies that contradict something they said. That's why sociopaths aren't psychopaths as many people would confuse. A sociopath would be upfront with what they're like, and they were socialised to be the way they are. Psychopaths are worse off than sociopaths, since their mental state is natural and can't be fixed, only treated, but sociopaths are more prone to violence than psychopaths, since their violent impulses come much more unpredictably and they have very short fuses. Psychopaths have specific triggers. Not like shell shocked people, but they have a specific type of tick that causes them to lose their shit. However, once their episode is done, they'll resume as if nothing happened. Also, contrary to popular belief, psychopaths and sociopaths are capable of empathy, but very little of it and it tends to be selective. 

What about their patterns of violence? This is usually the defining difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. Sociopaths are volatile and destructive and don't care about the mess they made. Psychopaths on the other hand hate sloppiness and will make sure no one sees what they've done. Psychopaths don't bathe in their victims' blood (unless you're Richard Chase but I digress), they don't make sunglasses out of fingernails, they don't do anything of that sort. Sorry Hannibal Lecter :/. In fact, DC Comics's Joker is a prime example of the mislabeling of a psychopath. Whilst he meticulously plans out his schemes, his volatility and impulsion ultimately makes him cross over into sociopath territory. Sure he's insane, unlike most people with APD, but he's still a sociopath nonetheless. But what if you're dealing with someone who's just plain evil? Well, for starters, "evil" isn't really a medical term, and is simply an adjective. No therapist or mental hospital is gonna diagnose someone as evil. If someone is just pure evil and shows no signs of APD or psychopathy or sociopathy, then their mental state is normal. People like Hitler and Bashar Al-Assad are what we consider evil since they don't exhibit psychopathic tendencies and have/had clear reasons for what they do/did. Being a murderer or criminal doesn't automatically make you a psychopath, as I mentioned before. I could easily say that the members of ISIS and the KKK are psychopaths, but I'd be wrong. 

One thing that may freak you out is that the general population exhibits plenty of psychopathic traits. We've all lied to cover our arses, we've all thought of violence or committed it, but that doesn't mean we're mentally unstable and are bound to destroy a nursing home or whatever. People aren't perfect after all. 

The last thing I wanna talk about is the concept of remorse, which psychopaths apparently are incapable of. This is also a misconception. Psychopaths can feel remorse for what they do, but the level of remorse they feel is not enough to create full on guilt, especially since they never fully realise the gravity of their actions. They'll treat breaking a person's arm as if they accidentally bumped into them, for example. Either that or they'll blame you for it, even if it wasn't your fault. I'm not trying to scare people into thinking that psychopaths are all over the place, because they're not. The world population of psychopaths is around 1%, and you'll likely have run into one of these folks at least once on the street and just don't know it yet. That might sound contradictory, but the fact is that Hollywood has planted seeds in your head that warp reality about these people just to get you to buy a ticket about some guy who launches nuclear missiles at people when he hears the word "chicken". 

So what false facts about psychopaths did you believe? Did this help your perception of them? Do you now feel like you can properly identify one? Psychopathy is still a mental health issue, let's not let the movies force that out of our minds. The better we understand something, the more effective we'd be at dealing with it. 

The Problem With 'Reversing the Genders'

One thing I'm absolutely tired of seeing is the 'reversing the genders' argument. I already kinda touched on this in an earlier blog post, but I'm gonna go into more detail here since I don't think I highlighted the real issues with this philosophy. It usually goes like this: "if it were a woman doing X to a man then no one would care" or "if it were a man doing X to a woman then it'd be a national crisis". To any rational person, you'd see the flaws of this. It also gets thrown around when discussing race or religion, but I'm focusing on gender because it's never been more prominent than there. 

Let me bring up the most relevant example: a couple weeks ago on American Idol, Katy Perry snuck a lip kiss onto a 19 year old man without his consent. She had promised him a cheek kiss but instead she toyed with him because he admitted he'd never kissed a girl before. On the surface it seemed like a nice gesture, because let's face it, I'm sure a lot of guys wouldn't mind doing something like kissing Katy Perry, but in this case, Ben, the victim (yes I'm calling him that for framing reasons), was clearly not on board with this, and she should've picked up on that and understood the basics of consent. Now Ben was pretty brave about it, and he claimed that whilst he was embarrassed and wanted his first kiss to be special and on his own terms, he didn't feel assaulted. Now I and a lot of other feminists infer this to be denial, since admitting to being assaulted is a rather embarrassing thing to do. Then a bunch of slacktivists on the internet quickly threw this gem out: "if an older man kissed a 19 year old girl on TV there would be World War 3". 

I have a HUGE problem with this statement. The obvious being that men get away with this shit all the time. In fact, the only people I've seen criticising Katy for what she did are feminists. Everyone else is cheering her on and saying how lucky Ben is, further reinforcing this harmful idea that men should just deal with getting sexually harassed. Hell, even Luke Bryan and Lionel Richie, Katy's fellow judges, were jumping for joy. Katy had previously done a similar thing by constantly flirting with another male contestant, with Luke immediately calling him 'dreamboat' as soon as he introduces comes in. It's obvious that they think that consent doesn't apply to guys, which it does. But people act like men immediately get shot for doing this. Where was the lynch mob coming after Ray Rice when he sucker punched his fiancée in an elevator on video as it went viral? Nowhere. In fact, people were defending what he did because she hit him first. But when a woman on Facebook shares a story of her beating up a guy who was groping her, suddenly waves of idiots come out and say that she was overreacting and rushed to excessive violence. But I guess men are just allowed to be violent right? And Whoopi Goldberg's stupid arse defence that "women shouldn't expect men to respect them all the time" or whatever didn't help matters. 

Plus, most men assault women in private, which is why you don't hear about it that much. Katy did it on live TV like a moron, which is why that one was a bit easier to go after. Did she think that she would've gotten away with it? Perhaps, and from the looks of it, American Idol doesn't have any intentions of dealing with her behaviour. I'm not gonna deny that people do generally get more angry at men committing sexual violence than if women do it, but at the same time let's not act like women always get away with these things. When female teachers commit statutory rape with their male students and are quickly charged with the crime and yet male rapists get anti-humourous sentences for the same crime, I fail to see the double standard against men at play here. Female victims aren't treated better than male victims, they're treated differently, to quote the Angry Feminist. Women get told that they were asking for it or are just looking for attention, men get told that they should've enjoyed it or that they are lucky. Which would you prefer? Neither is the correct answer. 

There is a way to cover male victims of assault without having to throw female victims under the bus. In fact, a male victim of abuse by a woman even publicly stated that he absolutely hates it when people use the "reverse the genders" bollocks because if anything it exploits his pain for political means. Stop promoting victim competition and start promoting the deconstruction of institution that rich celebrities have created to get away with abusing people. It's a fine solution wouldn't you think? 

When Women Grope Women "As A Joke"

Say it ain't so, a feminist actually criticising something women do? Well ok, it's not unheard of from me, I did after all lambast The Red Pill, which was directed by a woman. See I'm not ready to go on about how "females nowadays" are spoilt c*nts who think they can get away with anything they want, because I'll send anyone who says that all the way over to India, where your father can pay your arse off to marry a man who you won't meet until the engagement party. I'll send them back to before the 1920s when women couldn't vote. But one thing I've noticed is unique to this generation of women is that they think that sexual violence doesn't apply to them. They think that there's a loophole in sexual assault where if a woman gropes another woman, then it's fine cuz it's all in good fun. And I've noticed that it's slipped under many people's radars. Of course you have MRAs saying that lesbians are just the epicentre of abuse and rape, but they don't actually know or care what they're talking about. So how about a perspective from a half-lesbian ;D. 

Let's answer the initial question. Can women be sexual predators? Yes of course they can. I myself in fact get groped by females quite a lot myself. Of course, men do it more to me, but there are some ladies that tried getting a piece of my pie. Chances are, you're a woman who's been groped by another woman at some point. Naturally, we don't necessarily see this as serious as if a man were to do it to us, which is understandable. After all, the stats do say that men are much more of a threat to us than our own sisterhood. But let's disregard all that for a moment. The reality is, she touched you without your permission. But how did you react? You likely stayed silent, which is fine, there's no correct way to respond to being sexually violated. But if you went to call her out on what she did, she'd probably either play the woman card (which honestly is very unlikely) or she'll say "it's just a joke". But is it really though? Why is that a woman can grab another woman inappropriately and it's funny when that's not the case if a man grabs a woman inappropriately? Well, it's because we've been socialised that way. However if a woman was raped by another woman, she certainly wouldn't be in on the humour.

The main gist of what I wanna talk about is when straight women who are friends with each other grab each other's breasts and bums. Now, I can confirm that this happens, in fact it does in my circle of female friends too. This can be boiled down to some inherent trust amongst women. We're much safer around other women than we are around men, and as such we probably take advantage of this more than we should. Sometimes the playful butt-touches will become a hand straight in your crack because you happened to bend over in front of her. And yes, I've had that happen to me. But to be clear, it's ok if you, a straight woman, touch your female friend's butt. Just as long as it's, say it with me now, C O N S E N S U A L. Even if the consent is "implied", if at any point she's becoming visibly uncomfortable, or tells you to stop and you keep going, congratulations, you've committed sexual assault. You aren't joking around, you're hurting her. It doesn't automatically become "ok" if you're both straight women. Not to mention it just looks bad for women everywhere because when they go to report any assaults that they were involved in, people are just gonna be like "oh yeah? Well women grab each other all the time and no one cares". And I'm sure we can all agree how fucking annoying that is. Remember when Melanie Martinez was outed for raping a woman? I can't count the times on my hand that I saw someone say "women can't rape women".

To conclude this post, this idea that women can freely grope women as they please without an ounce of consent is just wrong. I can sort of understand if it's some kind of reclamation of our sexuality, but if becomes a regular habit and you start doing it to women you've never met before, then you're a predator, plain and simple. Just be chill. Women don't exist to be grabbed, and if there's anyone who should understand that better than anyone else, it's women. 

Stop Comparing Anita Sarkeesian To Jack Thompson

Ah, GamerGate. Easily the hottest topic in all of contemporary feminism. So why am I coming to it when the movement has essentially subsided? Well, because it's making a comeback, and boy is it not pretty. Truth is, though, I can't call it a comeback because it never really went away. We just stopped talking about it. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Nothing's changed with them. They're still racist, sexist, and desperately trying to convince us that they're just a noble movement aiming for fair and balanced journalism. I would talk about their recent resurgence regarding NBC supposedly calling all gamers racist neo-Nazis, but honestly I don't know all about it and it isn't really relevant to my blog. Instead I'm gonna talk about one of their more famous and favourite flagship points, that being their comparison of Anita Sarkeesian to Jack Thompson. The argument cropped up a few years ago, but I'm gonna talk about it anyway because people still bring it up as if it's a valid thing to say. 

Before I debunk the comparison, I'm gonna give a rundown of GamerGate's version of the ordeal. This analogy came from none other than Christopher Maldonado, better known by his YouTube name Chris Ray Gun. He described Jack Thompson and Anita's history fairly accurately with a few exceptions, which I'll get to. Jack Thompson is a former DA who in 2009 claimed that video games cause real world violence. As you might've predicted, this was not taken well, and was debunked almost right away. He was constantly harassed, received death threats and eventually lost his job because of his stance on gaming. He is still universally hated today. A couple years later, Anita comes into the fray and states that video games cause real world sexism. Same thing happens, people attack her for what she said about video games. She was even doxxed and had to leave her home. However, despite her huge ongoing hatred from GGers, she was defended by the gaming journalism media and was considered a sort of heroine for not backing down against her haters. Now according to GamerGate, they think that Anita got a free pass because she's a woman and of course pulled the misandry card. 

Here's the actual truth. Jack Thompson did in fact receive notable flak for his stance on video games, but he was not disbarred from the Florida bar for it. He was disbarred because he was corrupt and even framed a political opponent for possessing child pornography. In that scenario, it's kinda impossible to defend him. Anita on the other hand never claimed that video games caused sexism. She said that sexist elements in video games reflected reality, that's about it. She never even wanted to take legal action against video games, just for the industry to improve. Plus, Anita used the leftover money from her GoFundMe to buy a new home and register Feminist Frequency as a C3 charity organisation. What has Jack Thompson been up to? Framing guys for kiddy porn. Yeeeaaaaah, starting to look pretty dumb now ain't ya? Gender had nothing to with it. Anita's just a more likable person, plain and simple. 

I'm sure plenty of people are gonna come at me with their what-about-isms and claiming that Anita really is the devil's favourite demon and I just don't see it, but fact is, GamerGate's always had it wrong (no surprise there). The double standard exists because it's not a double standard. It's just that it's easier to defend an innocent woman than a fucked up individual willing to slander anyone he dislikes with a massive claim like child porn possession (btw good on the MRAs for ignoring the fact that this counts as a false accusation, but I guess it's only bad when women make them :/). Hopefully now I'll actually have drilled through some thick skulls.