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 #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: 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.

Video: Conformity and the Language of the Left

In this Going To Getugly video: White privilege. Mansplaining. Rape culture. Wage gap…. It seems that as quickly as these terms are manufactured they are adopted and parroted by people eager to demonstrate their conformity.

Going to Getugly Censored By Facebook For Criticizing Feminism!


Yes folks… if you are critical of feminists and mention the objective fact that they are women you will be reprimanded by Facebook, have your comments censored and be at least temporarily banned from their platform. They also warn that unless you learn your lesson you could be banned permanently. So you better behave.

I received the message above from Facebook today along with notification that I’ve been locked out of my account. As you see, they provided a copy of the comment that allegedly transgresses the high standards of respectful discourse that we all know Facebook dutifully and uniformly enforces for anyone commenting on the feeds of major media outlets like the CBC, the ABC, The AGE, The Globe and Mail, CNN etc..

In this circumstance the comment was on the Facebook feed of  the Australian public broadcaster’s weekly panel show Q&A. It was in response to a video clip taken from a recent episode in which an audience member posed a question to panelist Harriet Harman of the Labour Party in the UK. The question loosely referenced Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson’s critique of the standard feminist conceptualization of the ‘gender pay gap’. I encourage everyone to watch the clip below and decide for yourself if my criticism of Harman’s response isn’t at least justifiable if not spot on.

Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with my assessment of Harman’s response, to claim that it represents an “attack” on anyone “based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability” is blatantly false. It is a lie.

Remember the old saying attributed to Voltaire about how to identify the truly privileged class in society? It goes like this: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Isn’t it oddly Orwellian how often it is these days that the very people who constantly proclaim themselves to be the victims of societal systemic oppression are precisely the  people who are protected from criticism by that very same system?

As anyone who has even a casual familiarity with the degree of uninhibited maliciousness that routinely passes Facebook’s incredibly rigorous ‘Community Standards’ will know… the idea that some policy of  prejudice-free, moral excellence compels them to  remove posts that ‘attack people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability‘ is an absurd and dishonest joke.

And of course, the fact that my comment doesn’t meet any of their own criteria for censure doesn’t really matter. The only thing I ‘attacked’ was the willingness to engage in “intellectual dishonesty” by the people who are pushing the discredited notion of a ‘pay gap’. The fact that those people are women and feminists is… sorry folks… just that, an objective fact. I clearly didn’t ‘attack’ anyone because they are women. What  I ‘attacked’… or to put it less hyperbolically, what I criticized…. was the atrocious and disingenuous reasoning demonstrated by using deflection as a tactic to avoid addressing the flaws in their argument.

In other words, I criticised their ideas. I did not ‘attack’ their gender.

Now contrast my comment  with a small sampling of what the arbiters of respectful discourse and decency at Facebook apparently regard as meeting or surpassing the lofty ideals of their Community Standards. Pay particular attention to the deep commitment these paragons of virtuous elocution demonstrate to the noble principle of never ‘attacking’ anyone based on race, gender, age, blah blah blah….

Mandy Noone: It’s not about what any guy (let alone OLD WHITE GUYS) thinks

Sharon Knighton: How unusual that a MIDDLE AGED WHITE MAN doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McDermott: It looks so sad to see OLD WHITE MEN insisting that women arent in danger of being oppressed. im guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Robinson: Another WHITE MIDDLE AGED MALE mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.





Video: The Left Demonize People Who Can Think

New Going to Getugly video: Just as ‘progressive’-Left ideology manufactures a flattering generic identity for its adherents… it also manufactures a generic, dehumanizing identity for anyone who doesn’t conform to its worldview.