They say You-Go-Girlism but what happened to indie Girl Boss Feminism?

Feminists Moving The Goalposts When The Data Proves The Justification For Their Hypothesis Wrong

Liberals move the goalposts when the data doesn’t match their hypothesis, by updating their justification

  • X is Y because of Z
  • The t-shirt had the coloured ink peeling off, after a few uses without washing, as the company Z has low quality manufacturing methods (1 and 2 assertion and reasoning)
  • Maybe it’s because the company got sold to a different parent company (3 justification)
  1. Assertion (X is Y)
  2. Reasoning
  3. Justification

This will become a more polished blog article, later on.

Example 1: The gender disparity in STEM

If you look at how the liberals who say that gender is a social construct, blamed some vague type of discrimination for women being underrepresented in STEM, over the past 30 years, you’ll see that they’ve shifted their rationale, every time they were proven wrong

Back in the 90s, they claimed that there was REAL discrimination going on. Back in the 80s, Diversity Monitoring Forms didn’t exist, both in measuring numerical people and their life chances. Once these forms were rolled out nationwide with employers having to legally give it to job applicants, their rationale was disproven.

Then back in the 00s they claimed that teenage girls in school were not given the suggestion to study STEM after leaving school, especially passing comments made in conversation. After the (modern conservative) suggestion of Taster Week and After School Clubs was made, they were proven wrong.

Then moving on from the 00s to the 10s – wow one decade ago – they blamed two root causes, a lack of role models (eg. on tv and magazines) and discouragement (eg. men making kitchen jokes)

Remember when I said that liberals and feminists believe in the Self Assuredness Bias, where if a male teacher makes prejudicial comments alluding to stereotypes about girls being bad at maths, that it causes girls to perform worse at in-class schoolwork and at-home coursework.

Feminists and liberals also believed in using Name Blind job applications, which removed names from CV’s and sometimes even work history and university course choice if it had gendered connotations. When it was found that counter-intuitively, that women were hired more often in name-blind CV’s, they started to be PC by scrubbing and censoring the academic journal it was published in.

Luckily the MRA’s and conservatives made an online backup cache,

Even now, name-blind studies have been hijacked to remove history, to prevent higher talented programmers from being hired, as you need to be in the Top X% to work full-time for the Fortune 500 (not a contractor or freelance).

Stack Exchange including Stack Overflow

But remember when I said that the Fortune 500 and Silicon Valley and elsewhere have started adding a Code Of Conduct to appease and placate feminists. It is obvious who wrote or stewarded it.

Did you know that on Stack Overflow, they have a rule against “discouraging” comments?

Yes that’s right, it’s no longer enough to not post insulting, passive aggressive, condescending or flaming comments. Now there’s also discouraging.

To understand the contradiction with this, you have to understand that programming forums tend to have a METICULOUSLY METHODICAL guidelines for HOW to ask questions.

  1. Include a code sample
  2. Search Google before asking
  3. Show what you’ve tried before
  4. Don’t just say what you want the code to do, also explain what task you’re trying to accomplish
  5. Show a “steps to reproduce” if you are asking about a bug, glitch or quirk
  6. State your software version, antivirus software, windows version, etc
  7. Read the documentation. Don’t just come here asking “What is X?” or “How do I do X?” if you’ve made no effort to read and try things out
  8. No homework questions, meaning we are not your personal army. This isn’t Topcoder or CrowdContent. If you haven’t made an iota of effort to solve the problem yourself, we will not help you.
  9. Include a least reproducable example. If your code is 100 or 1000 lines of code, delete all the irrelevant code and only include the code that causes the bug
  10. If your code is longer than 10 lines, include comments for your code and give variables sensible names. We need to have a vague idea what your code does when we see it. This isn’t 2G WAP on Nokia phones with 52K internet.

The list goes on….. Programmers actually make websites to explain to newbies, how to ask problems properly

So what happens when a woman joins Stack Overflow with ZERO reputation, then a woman tells her to search for her blatantly obvious question on Google, or to show a code sample or explain what she tried if she cannot make one?

That would be seen as discouraging, as it could POSSIBLY seen as making a smart aleck comment.

But the How To Ask page says that she didn’t ask her question properly.

Do you see the contradiction here? How does a contributor or moderator, reconcile the two?

Look and see the change (moving the goalposts)

So even if their REASON stays the same, for the gender disparity in STEM

  1. Lack of role models
  2. Discouragement

Their RATIONALE has definitely changed

Now we can see in the 20s how they’re evolving their rationale, moving the goalposts when they are proving wrong

Young women explain what feminism means to their generation | Metro.co.uk

British feminists would say that there’s some lad culture or american feminists would say frat boy culture

I don’t know what specific terminology they use but now they seem to be speaking a combination of

  1. You-go-girlism
  2. Men are too abrasive or off-hand in their GENERAL mannerisms (toxic masculinity)
  3. Buddy project (like when the school teacher gets someone to be the buddy to help the new kid in the class intregate into the social structure and around them around)

What the relatively recent video, did and did not say

Look at the episodic word pairings they use

What they did say….

Lad culture
The teacher said it’s great that a girl’s doing maths

What they did NOT say….

A boy at school made a sexist joke about women being in the kitchen and sucking at maths

Memes about women not being able to get into university, repeated ad nauseum

I fail to see how that meme is gendered. That’s like me making a joke about women being worse drivers when EVERYONE knows that women pay cheaper car insurance. Everyone knows that women can and do enter university en masse

Example 2: Liberals expanding the definition of discrimination, using Case Law

But now they’ve expanded it, the meaning of discrimination, even further.

Keep note that when feminists use the word oppression, they sometimes also mean the word repression but as it’s time consuming and finicky to have to keep remembering whether to use the word repression or oppression, to keep things simple and speedy, it’s all oversimplified, intentionally, into the single word oppression. I think I’ll do the same here, for ease of argument.

Think about this diagram from hereon

Bollards (not barriers) (1990s)

According to the defunct Geek Feminism Wiki

double bind, or a catch-22, or a “choice of no lesser evil” is a situation where there are two options exclusive to each other, and where no correct or more beneficial choice can be made. It can be a form, but not the definitive case, of a false choice.

beauty duty: a woman can either be dismissed as a “failed woman” (by not fulfilling beauty standards), or be labelled “sexually free game” (by fulfilling beauty standards).

For all you foreign english speakers (or ESL’ers at Stack Exchange and Hi Native), there is a difference between the term Catch 22 and double bind.

As stated above about the STEM disparity

The reason they gave for the gender disparity of a lack of women in STEM careers, is that when children at school (and college in the UK at 16-18), that if the child was a male, then the teacher would provide the suggestion and maybe encouragement, for them to enter STEM, whereas if that child was a female, then such suggestions and encouragement wouldn’t be given, for them to be motivated or being sparked the idea for them to go study that in the first place. Changes were made in the 80s, to ensure that all children were given repeated, explicit and steadfast friendly suggestions. As was deemed, as was done.

The nature of oppression in the decade

To make sense of the 80s, you have to understand the preliminary conditions that came before it. The Sexual Revolution happened in the 1960s as before that, the following things were taboo….

  • Sex before marriage
  • Promiscuity (including bigamy and polyamory)
  • Having a child out of wedlock (called a bastard child)

Such taboos and stigma was enforced by social pressures and the stranglehold of the church being a cultural institution, unlike today. Although all three things in that list were legal, the public opinion hadn’t quite caught up to the law, much like how 2001’s legalisation of gay marriage hadn’t quite stopped gay footballers from paying publicist Max Clifford to “straighten out their image” to have false stories of them being straight in it, for fear of losing sponsorships if their homosexuality was outed.

Another thing that feminists commonly said, was “the male ideal” which isn’t something that you’ll hear from them nowadays. As gender roles were rigid, it was more like a poor working class person before the Industrial Revolution, being told “Here’s what you’re born as, those are your only available options, that’s what you’ll live the rest of your life as, now learn to live with it and just deal with it. Put up or shut up.” Women within the confines of a marriage are not subject to a “heteronormative put up or shut up” attittude nowadays but they were back then in the 1980s. So about the male ideal, it was all about women finding liberation in doing things that would normally be assigned or prescribed to men.

In the previous decade, the 1970s, one decade after the Sexual Revolution with its Miss Magazine and Spare Rib Magazine and one decade before the decade I’ll be focusing on for now under this subheading. Well Germanine Greer published a famous and cataclysmic book in the 1970s, called The Female Eunuch, which claimed that women being married to a man was oppressive against women in the form of (virtual) chattledom, anagolous to women being given physical chattles in the victorian times. Hence, the only way for women to liberate themselves from the patriarchial shackles of monogamous marriage, was to have lots of casual sex, be promiscuous and not dress modestly, which led to the miniskirt being a feminist symbol in the 80s with supermodels like Twiggy.

So back to my earlier point, the male ideal, the male ideal, the male ideal. Feminists being so convinced that teenage school girls would be given suggestions to complete different courses at university by their teenagers, than what the boys would be subjected to, changes were made.

The reasoning they gave for women’s underprivilege and the rationale behind their activist proposals

As with the school teachers example, feminists claimed that teenage girls and young adults, just aren’t given the same chances in life as men are, either by not having any such suggestions given to them that they’d give to the young boys, or that the adults (presumably men but sometimes women) would be handing out a subsequent lily pad for a woman to hop onto, to then snatch it backwards just as they’re trying to hop to it, then complaining about the women complaining by asking “Why didn’t you try? How can you complain about discrimination, misogyny, or sexism, if you didn’t try?”

Sometimes the fault would be on the man’s part, in question and sometimes it would be due to what feminists called a “double bind“, so are they going to make what they call a “patriarchal bargin” to get ahead in life or not? As to do not, is to receive less, for the sake of not feeding into the patriarchal system, on ethical grounds, when people do need and aspire for such things, that any such patriarchy or typecast femininity would more so easily and frequently give them.

Under safe and sound principles and policies, who questioned the method of the motion?

I was born in the 90s so asking me about the 80s is a little bit too old for me. I think you’ll have to ask someone else that question!

I think I read something similar that feeds back into what I was saying here, several years ago but I can’t remember the article. But I can say that what we would call sexist television and adverts against women, it was much more extreme in the 80s.

Billboards (2000’s)

As stated above about the STEM disparity

When I was in school, I’m sure they might have existed in the 90s but they definitely proliferated to become standardised and widespread in the 00’s, there was those Diversity Monitoring Forms. Every time a person applied for a job, interacted with a public sector department or charity, they were given a form to fill out, to disclose their age, race, nationality, martial status, gender, etc. However the form was optional so people didn’t have to fill it out if they didn’t want to. Once a year, these forms would be sent to the (local) council so they could analyse if there was any glaring patterns for them to be concerned about.

Though I’m sure there was some discrimination going on, often rife, I don’t think there was enough discrimination there to justify why women were under-represented in STEM. Hence a new terminology was coined (or created) called the glass ceiling to justify this. When the behavioural data didn’t match the earlier hypothesis, the feminists (who lean liberal), just moved the goalposts.

However interestingly so, the concept of the male ideal had faded, as there was lots of women inside traditionally men’s roles (or at least not enough to keep it an all boys club), as well as the taboo and stigma being gone, where a girl acting like a boy to be a tomboy, it was embraced and cherished in school. In fact the nerds who were stereotypically and often socially awkward and social outcasts, they would be bullied and joked about, much more than the tomboys or the tomgirls. How’s that for the absence of heteronormative stigma?

The nature of oppression in the decade

This was a time when toy shops still had designated pink and blue zones for the store, with the toys having pink and blue packaging with either a male or female child on the box. You can thank feminism for why photos of children don’t appear on the boxes of toy packaging, along with supermarkets, toy stores and department stores becoming gender neutral.

One thing there was in schools, which would look strange looking back now, is that boys and girls played different sports, depending on whether they were a contact sport. The rationale was that as contact sports tend to have, inadvertently and accidentally, a higher amount of hand-to-hand contact between the players, that it wouldn’t be as suited for women to play, even if the teams consist of only girls (with no boys in it).

cONTACT SPORTS FOR MENNON-CONTACT SPORTS FOR women
TennisBadminton
DodgeballBelow the line
BasketballNetball
RugbyChest-ball
British BulldogPin the beanbag (if I remember correctly)
FootballHockey
Rounders (going round all four bases)Cricket (going around just two or zero bases)

Interestingly so, it was also feminists who campaigned not just to have girls in school play contact sports but to also allow girls to play on the same team as boys. However the school teacher would add a caveat, that for every 3-4 males chosen, 1 female would have to be chosen, or that each team has to have the same amount of females in it.

Although the male ideal was an outdated and redundant concept in feminism nowadays, there was still a lot of gender mainstreaming to be done, as there was a soft cordoning-off amongst gendered activities, rather than a hard limit.

With the old nature of oppression gone, the 90s gave rise to the proliferation of media critique of pop culture, or better put pop crit being widespread and flourishing within the feminist literati and publications. In fact, Bitch Media, created in 1999 and fully funded in 2001, was created for this very purpose. It was impossible to see any feminist writing or video, without seeing some pop crit segmented or interspersed in it.

Feminism also made a seismic shift, by the british government, well the advertising regulator ASA, banning adverts which sexualise women under the basis of objectification theory, back in 2007. Lynx deodorant (Axe in america) was Public Enemy Number One. I remember back in the day, when I read an article in The Guardian written by a feminist, who said that as Dove and Lynx was owned by the same parent company, Unilever, that it was hypocritical for their viral Dove Evolution video to campaign against airbrushing/photoshopping to instead promote Real Beauty (no TM), all while the sister company Lynx was objectifying women, so she called for a boycott of Lynx. I also remember back in the day, when I couldn’t buy Lynx at Boots as Boots had boycotted Lynx. It took for the ASA to ban those type of adverts, for Lynx to return to Boots.

I predicted that this would enter the workplace, with the feminist detractors disagreeing, saying that I was jumping to conclusions but my predictions became true, as it did. That’ll be covered in another article.

I’m sure there was some other stuff to consider but I’ve spent enough time writing this article as it is, including research (14 hours) and it’s still not done. So maybe later!

The reasoning they gave for women’s under-privilege and the rationale behind their activist proposals

What would be my visceral reaction when someone tells me to check my privilege, regardless of what the rational and practical brain would think?

  • It’s not my fault I’m privileged. I never chose to be born this way or in this location. I never chose to win the genetic or geographic lottery.
  • Being privileged doesn’t make me a bad person and I shouldn’t have to apologise on behalf of my race, gender, or nationality etc. I reject personal and collective blame, for the things I haven’t done.
  • I can acknowledge and agree that I’m privileged (in the way you say I am) but why do you (and others like you) keep mentioning it, if I cannot exactly share my privilege with someone else, can I? What could I possibly do, to make things better for you, as it’s not like a pie where I can cut you a slice.
  • Why am I being treated with a vexed or resentful attitude, for the accrued privileges, social capital and cultural capital that I hold and exhibit, as if somehow, I’m gatekeeping it, when I’m not gatekeeping anything. Not in my words, actions, demeanour, postulating or attitude.
  • If you have such a begrudging nature against me or if you say you’re a malevolent pansy, why am I being held to higher scrutiny and a higher model if I commit a mea culpa , as if somehow, you were two-faced either looking for an excuse to take me down a few pegs or you were sufferably insecure to think I was being arrogant by rubbing my decadence and prestige in your languishing face?
  • However manaevolent your intentions are, please don’t crystallise me. Just because I’m privilged, doesn’t mean I don’t have feelings, just like how rich and famous celebrities still have feelings when they’re getting rolled on twitter and instagram.

The feminist response to being called a man hater, a feminazi or wanting female superiority, back then, would pretty much be something like this.

We don’t want to take anything away from you or assert superiority over men. We just want access to the same things and privileges that you do, without being put into a box or being left on the sidelines. It’s about lifting women upwards towards the level of men, not lifting men down.

I think such a thing would resonate strongly with men (like myself) in the 00’s, in such a way that it wouldn’t do so as effectively in the 10’s. The reason being, that there was a strong sense of men walking hand in hand with women, like the Buddy Programme that the newbie at school would be given, to have an assigned buddy be the one to help them settle in to the school to help show them around (and follow them around). If men and women were walking hand in hand, as so to speak, then men could easily if they had a ping pong ball in their hand, then they could easily pass it down the chain of hands.

If a man was X while walking side by side with a woman, he could easily __ to quell her fears so she could partake in that. If a man was X while walking side by side with a woman, he could easily __ to quell her fears so she could partake in that. If a man was X while walking side by side with a woman, he could easily __ to quell her fears so she could partake in that. You get the idea!

Under safe and sound principles and policies, who questioned the method of the motion?

Blabbers (2010’s)

As stated above about the STEM disparity

The nature of oppression in the decade

The reasoning they gave for women’s underprivilege and the rationale behind their activist proposals

Under safe and sound principles and policies, who questioned the method of the motion?

Bleeps (2020’s)

As stated above about the STEM disparity

The nature of oppression in the decade

The reasoning they gave for women’s underprivilege and the rationale behind their activist proposals

Under safe and sound principles and policies, who questioned the method of the motion?

So someone tell me! Are we using Sharpie markers, Berol felt tips or tip-ex?

So if feminists aren’t one monolithic group and there’s different types of feminists, then if we exclude the extremists and the censorious ones who weaponise the worst of the cancel culture, then how blacked out do they cross things out so thickly? What is the true feminism and which feminists should be excluded from the standardised definition of feminism amongst the general public? Well that’s another topic for another time! The related articles listed at the bottom of this article should help you out. In this series format of Your Label My Stance, I have to write four articles just to get across one overall point (or maybe a composite of points).

Tynamite’s opinion on all of this

There is no way that I could possibly give an answer of this that could be understood properly with the shift from collective understanding to sharded understanding, within the midst of the feminist cacophony and the concept creep. So you’ll have to read the follow-up article for that one.

Related Posts