Rebuttals of the Week #37 : The key to all feminist thinking: Invent malevolent motivations for other people to justify your preferred conclusion. Declare yourself correct.


Wendy C: Quotas would stop the boys club voting for their collegues at pre selection to the exclusion of women. Labor did it and the quality of the female politicians is just as good as any male party member. Quotas work simply because it prevents the boys club ganging up and voting for their collegues to the exclusion of women.

Going to Getugly: Where is your evidence for your assertion that there is a ‘boys club’ that votes for “their colleagues at pre selection to the exclusion of women”?

Wendy C: Eh! Don’t suppose the 11 votes for Julie Bishop in the leadership tussel is any indication of a boys club!!!,or the number of women candidates put up for LNP preselection, compared to the number men and who voted for whom is any indication!!!!. Don’t suppose the number of male M.P’s in the present LNP party is any indication when the female population of this country is 50/50, you might have won on this one if we were talking of China’s popuation, which we aren’t.By the way don’t tell me women don’t put their hands up for Liberal pre selection, because a lot of good competent Liberal women are now independants. So yes, it is going to get ugly and you need to go back to the drawing board.

Going to Getugly: Nothing you’ve presented is evidence for your claim. It’s a masterclass in circular reasoning. There can be multiple reasons for everything you’ve listed… but you have arbitrarily excluded all of them and decided that the one interpretation that just happens to confirm your preconceptions is the single plausible explanation. You haven’t demonstrated why that would be… you’ve simply attributed your favourite motivation to the people involved and declared yourself correct.

Your 50/50 argument is a ‘red herring’. The percentage of women in the population as a whole is irrelevant. The percentage of women compared to men who choose to be involved in politics is the number that matters. And as far as I’m aware the statistics show that far fewer women go into politics than do men… which immediately accounts for the disparity in their representation in the political system compared to their male counterparts.

If feminists emphasised the logical principles of Occam’s razor over using state authority to force personally gratifying optics onto society we could focus on good governance… regardless of the gender of the politicians… rather than wastefully pandering to feminist vanity.


Rebuttals of the Week #31: Kavanaugh’s ‘temperament’ makes him unfit? No… you’re just a mouthpiece for propaganda.



This past week we watched as Republican nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself against increasingly wild accusations piled onto the original allegations of sexual assault from almost four decades ago which his accuser’s own named witnesses refused to corroborate under oath. Immediately following the hearings Democrats uniformly began promoting the same bizarre, cold and calculated narrative: That the emotion judge Kavanaugh displayed while defending himself is itself proof … wait for it… of his lack of fitness for the position on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the premise here is that  it is shockingly inappropriate  for a  man  under immense pressure to express indignation and anger at having his life, the lives of his wife and daughters and his reputation systematically destroyed in public for political purposes…. if he is a judge.

Why you ask? Well… because as everyone knows and as everyone has always known… the established norm is that when a judge’s life is torn to shreds under these circumstance the universally accepted standard is that he express no normal human emotion whatsoever or demonstrate any personal investment in the annihilation of his career, his good name and his reputation.

He must remain inert. Unmoved. He must accept being labelled a sadistic  serial rapist with  placid good humour. Anything other than that is abnormal; an indication of a ‘temperament’ that no one who has ever been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge would ever have demonstrated had he or she been subjected to the same thing. As more than one Democrat and their allies in the media have remarked, if this is how he reacts to having his life ruined for political purposes…. can you imagine what he’d  do with a couple beers in him?

Any objective observer regardless of their partisan preferences could immediately recognize this as nothing but the agreed upon, ruthless spin that the Democrats constructed to advance their political agenda of thwarting not just Kavanaugh’s appointment… but the appointment of any conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that this has been the political strategy employed by the Democrats well before Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein brought forth the allegations against Kavanaugh which she had been sitting on for six weeks. The quote below from the New York Times lays it all out:

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”

These are the extreme political machinations which form the context in which all of these events are taking place. This is a raw drive for power. Nothing noble. Nothing good. Sadly, many people are too ill-informed or too wholly given over to personal bias and blind ideological partisanship to allow any of this context to inform their interpretations or intrude upon their preferred conclusions.

In the naive, fixed constellation that is their worldview… all things Republican, Trump and conservative are malevolent and evil by definition. Their guilt and soullessness are preordained. This is treated as an axiom built into the very fabric of reality itself. There is nothing to think about. No generosity is to be afforded them. No one gets the benefit of the doubt. If you express anguish and anger as your life is systematically destroyed around you it will be interpreted as confirmation of your malevolence and incompetence. You will be openly mocked for it. If you remain stoic and detached your lack of emotion will be denounced as evidence of your guilt….”An innocent man would be furious if he was accused of such things don’t you know!”

At the same time, all things Democratic, liberal and ‘progressive‘ are unquestioningly accepted as intrinsically benevolent. They’re the tolerant, compassionate, empathetic morally excellent people after all. They must be. They tell us so all of the time. They deserve nothing but the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are always pure and they are preternaturally immune to self-interest, lust for power, dishonesty and corruption. Why would you scrutinize and question their practices, ethics and motivations when they constantly reassure us that everything they do is righteous and just?

It is this state of childlike belief in the inherent trustworthiness of one side of the political spectrum and equally childlike belief in the cartoonish malevolence of the other that renders people so receptive to propaganda. When this is coupled with the passive absorption of messaging from a 24/7 media presence with multiple sources all projecting the same handful of video clips, soundbites and interpretations…. you end up with the pattern we see now: Politically motivated, constructed narrative leaves the lips of viciously partisan politicians… is repetitively broadcast directly into minds already primed to receive the massaging… where it is instantly transmuted into personal opinion and conviction without reflection and repeated.

Below is one of many exchanges I’ve had online over the last few days with people who are reflexively parroting the official Democratic narrative… practically verbatim.. and treating it as personal insight:

Ian Hunter: The verdict is in: Kavanaugh does not have the credibility or temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. He failed the job interview.

Going to Getugly: You are yet another person here who is demonstrating just how effective the media is at constructing the opinions of people who are easily manipulated.

It has been very revealing reading comments on media outlets in the US, Canada and Australia since the end of the hearings and seeing just how quickly people began mindlessly parroting this talking point of the Democrats… almost word for word… which has been repeatedly broadcast by Democrat friendly media about how he supposedly “not fit for the highest court in the land”. The most chilling part of it is that you’re all acting like this is an idea that you came up with on your own.

Immediately after the hearing Democrats began uniformly repeating the same messaging which was clearly the official Party narrative that had been decided should be imposed:

Democrat Robert Reich: “demonstrates a temperament unbecoming of Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Diane Feinstein: I have never seen someone who wants to be elevated to the highest court in the country behave in that manner.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal : “My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he virtue of the screed that he sat here and gave us.”

Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “We know one thing… he does not have the temperament to be a judge.”

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s mere coincidence that these people on comment sections  just happen to be mimicking the Democratic narrative that the media has been repetitively broadcasting…

Ian H (Canada): “Just watching him answer the questions, he doesn’t have the fortitude and composure you’d want in someone in such a high position.”

Bek D (Australia): he clearly does not have the appropriate temperament or mentality for such a role!

Eli W (Canada) : “His demeanour and explicit partisanship alone should discount him. It is unprofessional.”

Eileen M (US): I felt that way at first but then watched him at the hearing where he revealed he is unsuitable for that important seat.

Itty R (Canada): “what I witnessed in his hearing showed that he is completely unfit to be on the Supreme Court or actually any judicial role.”

Maureen E (Canada) : “Kavanaugh was a belligerent bully who evaded all the question asked and lacks the dignity and unbiased demeanour required to preside over a court of law at any level.”

That’s a pretty widespread coincidence. It’s almost as if people are passively internalizing uniform messaging that has been broadcast at them and they are now regurgitating it as if it was their own idea.

Rebuttals of the Week #30: “Men are intimidated by smart women” and other self-flattering feminist fallacies.

‘Boys don’t like smart girls’. How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?


From the article: “This friend works in the science field and was involved in a discussion around the ABC story, and how it fits into a Women in STEM decadal plan she’s involved in looking at ways to increase women’s STEM participation and retention from school through careers over the next 10 years.

She told me about a colleague who was talking to a teenage girl, one who had just won a STEM award, about the biggest hurdles preventing young women from pursuing STEM studies and careers.

The young girl’s answer was, “Boys don’t like smart girls”.

How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?”

The old cliche about how “men are intimidated by smart women” that feminists seem so fond of repeating has never wrung true to me.  It’s just a little too convenient and self-flattering for a woman to use it as the explanation for why men aren’t attracted to her. Don’t you think?

“It can’t be that I’m doing anything wrong! In fact… it must be that I’m just too fantastic and that there’s something inherently wrong with all men!”

Besides,  if  it is true that girls are not pursuing certain careers because they think it will make boys less attracted to them as the article suggests…. then shouldn’t we be identifying girls as the ones with the issue that needs addressing rather than disparaging boys?

Of course, not all women buy into this nonsense as the selection of responses to this column from The AGE that I’ve included below my rebuttal makes clear.

Going to Getugly: How are you meant to ‘deal with an answer like that’? You tell the “young girl” who said it the truth… that she’s wrong and that she’s been brainwashed by feminists who want to manipulate the perceptions of females to believe that men are their enemies and that if anything doesn’t go their way in life then it’s men who are to blame.

Several women commenting had a similar response:

Helen S:  Not true.

Sally B: Rubbish

Ange Dav: Utter BS

Raewyn McC : If you believe that, you are not a ‘smart girl’ .

Daisy Ma: Since when?? Men love me and my intelligence is one of my most attractive features..

Lynne Os: Lazy journalism, let’s just fire another salvo in the gender wars.

Video – Brett Kavanaugh: Do Women Want Justice or Revenge?

In this Going to Getugly video: A lot of women these days appear to be suggesting that we sacrifice principles like presumption of innocence and due process in order to get results that are personally satisfying to them. That’s a very dangerous philosophy. It’s essentially inverting the long established principle of “It is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted” and saying it’s worth ruining the lives of 100 innocent men to ensure a guilty man doesn’t get away with it.

Video: Australian feminists shift focus from murder victim to themselves

In this video I discuss how feminists and the media in Australia used the tragic murder of Eurydice Dixon to promote divisive ideological narratives and to make the ‘story’ about themselves.

Video: Rebuttals of the Week! Feminists and Leftists don’t know how to think and I can prove it!

In this video I look at how ideologies of ‘identity’ like feminism are really just a means to justify the indulgence in self-serving interpretations and narratives.

Rebuttals of the Week #25: Feminists and Leftists don’t know how to think… and I can prove it!

gender bias

Kathryn: There needs to be the question asked as to WHY women are not applying. And if they do apply, why are they not accepted or why do they not complete the various science based programs.

If it is because of the way they are treated, humiliated, told to get the sandwiches or coffee because they are the only girl in the study group, then something has to be done about it. There are still cases where women with full PhDs are entering the meeting room and being asked if they brought the coffee. Until MEN get it out of their system and treat all women as equal, this discussion has to be made.

Going to Getugly: Kathryn, you need to learn to distinguish between presenting cliché, fantasy scenarios to justify your self-serving conceptions and knowing something true based on objectively demonstrable reality. Let me help…. What you, feminists, Leftists and all people who don’t know how to think do is you start with the conclusion that appeals to your ego… and then you subjectively generate self-confirming scenarios that seem to you to be the kind of things that would probably be true if your conclusion was true. And that circular, internal, completely subjective process is what passes for adequate reasoning about the world to you, to feminists and to Leftists in general.

You need to teach yourself to not do that if you want to stop mistaking your subjective impressions and biases for what is really going on out here on the other side of your skull.