Chicks Are Dumb

Luminary Steven Pinker reports that it is a fact that, at the 760 SAT mark for math, males for outnumber females 7 to 1. Of course this is not entirely environmental, it's because men have superior brains. And, by the way, (and as Steven Pinker says), the truth cannot be sexist!

Although, at the risk of being referred to as a misogynist, I'll say that men and women have different aptitudes. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sarcasm, yes. I say this at the risk of getting myself fired. Damn it, but I think some radical Marxist feminazis I work with found this blog and MIGHT read this.

Also (quoting Pinker) "if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, I guess sex discrimination wasn't so bad after all, or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal".

And he's absolutely right, folks. On average chicks simply are not as smart as men. Oh, and that woman have, or still are, being discriminated against is largely bullshit. Not that there has been NO discrimination, but the meme that we live in a "patriarchy" is asinine bullshit.

Women need to shut the hell up about "equal pay", "rape culture", and similar crap made-up by the regressive Left. Sorry, but yes. Oh, and make me a sandwich and fetch me a beer. Ha ha ha.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-295.

On The Fact That Former Fox News Anchor, Gretchen Carlson, Is Now Accusing Her Former Boss, Roger Ailes, of Sexually Harassing Her On The Job

Yeah, I strongly suspect that this story won't be leading off the Kelly File, Hannity or duh Factor any time soon. The other networks - that's a different story!!

Me, I think the biotch should have just slept with him. I mean, the primary reason Fox hires the skirts is as eye candy, and for that reason Carlson should have been grateful for her job. And to her boss, who approved her high salary. Was he that out of line to expect a little sugar in return? I say no.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of misogyny. LLIN-288.

On Those Who Won't Debate The Luminarias Islamophobe Sam Harris

If you're a non-Islamophobic media figure you should agree to debate the Islamophobe Sam Harris or STFU. Sam Harris, like me, knows that Muslim ragheads are awful. In that they're totally backward. By which I mean they hold views 100 percent incompatible with our values (rational Western Whites such as myself).

One such person (someone who refuses to debate the luminarias Harris) is Abby Martin, some bimbo journalist with a BA and a job on some marginal cable channel in which she spews forth nothing but paranoiac and condescending SJW bullshit. BTW, by "paranoiac" I mean that she truthfully acknowledges how our economic system is rigged to benefit the wealthy.

Although that's something wealth-worshipping stooges like myself like to keep on the downlow. So we deny, deny, deny. Because, if a problem is widely recognized to be a problem, then people might start demanding that their elected representatives do something about it. Which I (and my fellow wealth-worshipping buddies) absolutely do not want. Which is why my standard line of BS is that the system is NOT rigged.

In any case, Abby Martin might have a BA, but that in no way indicates that she's intelligent. I know for a fact that she has an IQ somewhere in the mid-90s. Although, to be completely honest, this is a "fact" I pulled straight out of my ass.

Still, I think it's likely that Martin is a moron. Because she won't debate Sam Harris. And, as everyone knows, the ONLY to determine who's right and who's wrong (when two people have opposing viewpoints) is for them to debate.

The lack of self-awareness here is staggering. I mean, does this slant-headed bitch actually think that she would stand a chance in a debate with Harris? ON ANYTHING? My lord, Harris is a genious! (a "fact" I know in the same way I know Martin is a mental midget).

And she's a woman, so that's another factor working against her. What with women generally not being as intelligent as men. And Leftist women (in particular) always (as far as I know) being deficient, brain-wise. They wouldn't be Leftists if they were smart. Duh!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of Islamophobia and Misogyony. LLIN-274.

On The Elegant & Original Photography Featuring Ballet Bitches & Circus Hos By Vermont's Jeffrey M. Lewis

While his subject matter is extremely varied and excellent across the board, I ask you to draw special attention to these ballet bitches and circus hos in that they are utterly amazing. I mean, they'd be even more amazing as nudes, but they're still pretty amazing! Please, check out his web-site. The prices are reasonable and the editions limited (the archive with all of his images).

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of Objectifying Women. LLIN-271.

Feminazis Need To Accept The Fact That Men R Superior & Halt Their Persecution Agenda!

My thoughts on nature and equality are that the former never got the memo about the latter and it is highly doubtful that it ever will (nonstop social-engineering notwithstanding). Obviously men are biologically superior to women, explaining why they are in charge and make more money.

Radical Marxist feminists (AKA feminazis), via their nonstop social-engineering, think they can change this reality. Their agenda being a flipping of the script. Something they have been successful at to a frightening degree. Which explains why in today's society men are the sex being persecuted and oppressed!

The feminazis' tactics include falsely accusing men of rape, falsely accusing men who they've had sex with of fathering their bastard kids (when they likely got inseminated by some lesbo using an infant medicine syringe and the sperm of some gay dude - resulting in the indentured servitude of innocent men), and whining about a "patriarchy" that doesn't exist!

P.S. And, no, I don't live in Europe or CanaDUH so you can't arrest me. Sorry.

Image: Picture I found that does a good job of relating the facts regarding the many ways in which a man's brain is superior to a woman's. Excellent graphic, with the exception of crediting an imaginary "God".

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-244.

Radical Marxist Feminists Whining About "Patriarchy" Piss Me Off!

American women didn't have the right to vote til 1919. Yeah, that was bad. But you know what else was? Try the fact that men got drafted and served up as disposable fodder for a bunch of moronic wars (the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine War, and WW1). I mean, you can't cast a ballot when you're dead, right?

Further proof that this "patriarchy" nonsense is just that. Total BS being peddled by the Marxist feminists (who I hate). Men going to war and dying while women got the easy job of keeping up the household and raising the kids (while the man pays the bills)? It makes me want to puke. How easy women have had it, that is.

These ungrateful bitches should be thanking men for allowing them to take advantage of them for so long. But women taking advantage of men is the norm, being the weaker sex. Or lazier sex (more like it). Patriarchy is supposedly "a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property".

I say "patriarchy" is, however, a system where the women have tricked the men into doing most of the work while they take it easy (shopping, eating bon-bons while relaxing, etc). And then, when the men (rightly) demand payment for their work, these bitches falsely accuse the men of rape! How pathetic are women?

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-242.

Message To Hillary Clinton: I Hate Your Mother-F*cking Corrupt Pandering Pantsuit-Wearing Guts!

Does Hillary Clinton read this blog? I doubt it. If she does, however, I'd like to take this opportunity to let her know that I hate her mother-fucking corrupt pandering pantsuit-wearing POS lawyer guts with the intensity of an octillion hydrogen bombs detonating after being fired into the sun!

Frankly, I doubt I've ever felt this intensely regarding any human being who has ever lived, except for Bernie Sanders. Which means that I hate Hillary almost as much as I hate Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, the two wickedest and most power-mad individuals to ever hold the office of POTUS/CIC.

The problem with crooked Hillary is that the evidence shows she could be just as evil, IMO. I mean, the bitch accepts Saudi money via her "Global Initiative" slush fund (all the while never uttering a peep about how that country treats its women like shit)! And she's determined to win the presidency no matter how many lies she needs to tell. Which explains why she's gotten into a contest with Bernie Sanders regarding who can give away the most free stuff!

Because the bitch Hillary Clinton is a lying piece of shit lawyer who is about to be indicted, perhaps, just maybe, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate? Perhaps they can beg and plead with the studly Jim Webb to accept the nomination?

Yes, Miss Hillary claimed that Colin Powell also had a private email server when he was secretary of state and so she said "what's the big deal"? But this is utter bullshit. The fact of the matter is that NO previous Secretary of State has ever had a private email server running in their home from which they sent and received ALL of their correspondence while in office. The good news for her is that she (arguably) has plausible deniability as to whether or not she knew that the emails were classified. The bad news is the fact that if she asserts this as a defense she looks like a total incompetent and an utter moron.

Then there is also the fact that Hillary Clinton told her family and the President of Egypt that the Benghazi attack was an organized terrorist operation that had absolutely nothing to do with a video and then told the American citizens just the opposite. If that isn't proof-positive that the chick's a fucking liar then nothing is. And she also told this lie to the families of the four victims the same BS story, and that that the government was going to go after the fellow who made some Youtube video! Now she's implying that the families are aLL Lying (this Despite the Fact that the father of Ty Woods Has an in-time journal entry which substantiates his version of the story). SHAME!

But back to Hillary being evil. Do you think she made a deal with Satan to secure the Democrat nomination? I don't, given the fact that Satan is imaginary. But if he were real? Yeah, then I definitely think the shrill, shriveled up old hag would have sold her soul in order to become the leader of the free world. Fuck her!

Perhaps some day a woman might run for the White House who would make a good president. Maybe. Although, perhaps not, given the fact that A) chicks have babies and when raising those babies miss out on life experiences (which explains why any given man, by and large, will be more qualified), and B) women lie constantly (about things such as rape). Hillary herself has lied (and continues to lie) about the rapes committed by her husband.

My point is that the woman president we're waiting for is NOT HRC! Also, should we really have being a woman be one of the factors we use in selecting the leader of the free world? As opposed to choosing the person best qualified for the job (regardless of sex)? So that person will likely ALWAYS be a man. But that isn't sexist. Although the last time out the electorate chose a man, but they chose him just because he was Black! What's next pRogressives? Some transgender for president?

Byline: This outraged commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-241.

On The Fact That Men Need To Step Up Their Game In Domestic Violence Situations

According to researchers such as Erin Pizzey and Warren Farrell, male victims of domestic abuse are more likely to get arrested themselves than they are to be helped by the system. The reason for this, obviously, is because the police can't believe that a man would be such a pussy as to be "abused" by a woman.

They either assume the man is the abuser, or they laugh their asses off when the man says his woman hit him and that he needs help. Obviously in such situations the man should beat the crap out of his woman. In order to teach her a lesson and make sure she never dares to raise her hand to her man again. These radical Marxist feminists need to learn that their place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Patriarchy, patriarchy, where for art thou, patriarchy?

On the other hand, the Department of Justice finds that women make up 84% of spouse abuse victims. The DOJ also found that 84% of spousal murder victims are female, and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouses than all other types of assailants combined.

So the patriarchy isn't doing that bad. Still, that doesn't mean that men don't need to step up their game. Bitches need to know their place, and that these stats are not all 100% is obviously troubling.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-239.

76 Bitches Be Lying About Getting "Raped"

It's a fact that, according to feminists it doesn't matter how many times that a woman says, "yes, yes, more, more", tirelessly pursues her supposed abuser (substantiated by a "paper trail"), or even lies her ass off about the event, the "victim" must never be doubted or even questioned as consent can be withdrawn whenever a woman Wants, even AFTER a consensual act has taken place.

Specifically I'm referring to Canada feminists who've been critical of the Ghomeshi verdict. This was a case where Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi was (in late 2014) arrested and charged with four counts of sexual assault, and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, in relation to three complainants. Although 16 people actually accused him (including one man who said Ghomeshi grabbed his nuts).

Kinda reminds me of all the women who are lying about (my hero) Bill Cosby "raping" them. Bill Cosby is a successful Black man who realizes Blacks are to blame for their own poor predicaments and not "racism". Mr. Cosby tried to administer some tough love to the black community just a few years ago. They responded by calling him an Uncle Tom and senile. Yes Houston, we definitely have a problem.

The current Cosby problem is that 60 women have accused him of "rape". And, according to the feminist bitch lawyer Gloria Allred, "I can assure Mr. Cosby that there are still more victims who will be courageous enough to come forward in the future".

"Victims"? While it's easy for me to believe that 60 (maybe it's more by now) women could all be lying, I also have to confess here that when that legendary publicity-monger, Janice Dickinson (maybe the ugliest and stupidest supermodel ever), jumped into the fray and claimed that she, too, was raped by Mr. Cosby, a LOT of doubt creeped in. Now, I'm thinking this could definitely be a bum's rush. And yes, I said "possibly" before, but cases like Ghomeshi (16 lying accusers) caused me to rethink my previous comments.

BTW, that "paper trail" consists of one "complainant who had previously testified to having no contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults [but who was then] confronted with two emails she had written to Ghomeshi more than a year afterwards, one included a picture of her in bikini [which] she described... as bait to get him to explain why he attacked her". Sure.

There is, however, the fact that Ghomeshi's own employer [CBC] investigated and issued a report that stated he "consistently breached the behavioural standard... of CBC by yelling at, belittling and humiliating others [and engaged in] "sexualized conduct and comments... in the workplace". But the "investigation was led by Janice Rubin, a prominent lawyer and leading authority on workplace harassment". So, another lying bitch, in other words?

Now Cosby is apparently going to trial? I sure hope he catches a break (like Ghomeshi) and the witnesses against him screw up and the charges are thrown out. Because bitches ganging up to attack innocent men has become an epidemic, IMO. Hopefully the patriarchy will display a backbone for once and put a screaming halt to this bullshit (and, yes, by bullshit I'm referring to hard-core indoctrination in which radical Marxist feminist orthodoxy is the unquestioned cynosure).

Men need to lay down the law because women's demands (to not be raped) are really getting out of hand, IMO. Fucking lying sluts.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of defending rapers who are falsely accused. LLIN-235.

White European Feminist Chicks Aren't Objecting To Getting Raped By Brown Muslim Men Because That Would Be Racist

The following from World Net Daily, my go-to trusted news source (1/31/2016 article by the incomparable Joseph Farah).

Europe's Muslim Rape Epidemic (excerpt) When 850,000 so-called "refugees" – mostly male Muslims – stormed the borders of Europe earlier this year, a looming rape crisis was predictable from the start. What happened in the microcosm of Rotherham, England, between 1997 and 2013 should have been still fresh in the minds of the public and the officials who resettled the mostly Sunni populations in Germany, France, England, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Finland and Switzerland – all of which experienced a 2016 New Year's Eve nightmare of sexual assaults. (link).

Did you also know that it's a fact that a great many Leftist feminists in Europe would rather get raped by one of these illiterate, violent and egregiously medieval piece-of-shit scumbag savage ragheads than have one of their White European male counterparts defend them (as many were during the 2016 New Year's eve sexual assaults in Germany)? Why? Because that would be "racist".

BTW, by "piece-of-shit" I mean they have brown skin; brown being the color of shit. A prime example of the slow-bleed suicide Europe is committing. Me, I'm with Farah who points out that the solution to this problem is to not let in these raghead "refugees".

Yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that all these male ragheads were sent here by ISIS/Muslim terrorists (organizations that are VERY representative of Islam) to pretend to be refugees in order to rape White women. On this candidate Trump was another individual who got it absolutely correct.

Next on their agenda is the United States (they want to send "refugees" here to rape our women). And Barack Obama is, for some inexplicable reason, helping them! Something that makes me wonder if he might really be a Muslim/terrorist Manchurian candidate. I mean, I actually voted for Obama the first time (NOT the second). But now?

Byline: This outraged commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-219.

On That Woman I Got Drunk & Raped Now Threatening To Press Charges

Bullshit! I say that we were 2 consenting adults because we were BOTH drunk. Apparently in situations like mine only the fellow is considered a rapist? How is THAT not sexist; a) to the man in terms of unfairness and b) to the woman for treating her like an infant, or at the bare minimum a double-standard? It sure as hell seems like those things to me.

Yeah, and that this bitch is now threatening to ruin my life seriously pisses me off. Fucking slut wanted it.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-212.

On Why The Presidency Is Better Served When There Is No First Lady

Over on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly I made a funny when I asked who the greatest First Lady ever was... and answered that for me, it's a tie between Mrs. Buchanan and Mrs. Jefferson.

The joke being the fact that Martha Jefferson died 12 years before husband Thomas became president and that James Buchanan was a confirmed bachelor. Ha ha ha ha. Good one, right?

In any case, the take away here is that the best First Lady is NO First Lady. Which is why I say the position should be eliminated. At the least Congress should pass some legislation that says a First Lady can do nothing. I mean, this is NOT an elected position, right? So why the hell is the First Lady able to do anything, let alone EXPECTED to do things?

Do we really need some dumb bitch telling our kids that they should "just say no" to drugs or that they should exercise more? What a colossal waste of taxpayer money, I say! Leave the child-rearing to the parents and cut out the nanny state BS. Or "mommy state" (when it comes to the First ladies, apparently).

Presidenting should be for men only and the ladies should be prevented from doing anything when their husbands are the ones elected. But that's just my opinion. Call me old fashioned if you like.

Another reason (as if one were needed) not to vote for that liar Hillary!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of being old fashioned. LLIN-187.

On the Fact that Women Commit 10% of the Murders but Only Comprise 1.5% of Those on Death Row

Hi, Willis Hart here to tell you that I think this is an example of "male privilege" rearing its glorious head YET AGAIN!

But seriously, we all know that male privilege is a myth. Meaning it does not exist. Something else we all know is that every case of murder results in sending the killer to death row... or it should. Right? No matter if the murdering scum is a man or a woman. Yeah, you heard me. I absolutely do not buy the following argument.

According to the Justice Department, roughly one in 10 homicides are committed by women. And when women kill, their victims are more likely to be someone close to them, like their children, boyfriends or spouses. Forensic psychologists and criminal profilers say women who kill have backgrounds and motivations that are often quite different from their male counterparts. Compared with men, women are more likely to be related to their victim, less likely to plan in advance and less likely to use extreme violence. "Women are different in whom, how and why they kill", said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. "The victims are younger, they're more often related to them, they kill with means other than guns. "The traditional female role is a nurturer, not a murderer. Extreme violence is far more alien to females than to males", he added. "When a murder is committed by a female, it's more likely to be self-defense or can reflect some sort of mental illness". (Why Do Some Women Kill? by Scott Michels, Sarah Netter, Laura Marquez and Sabina Ghebremedhin. ABC News, 4/14/2009).

So what this article is saying is that women aren't premeditating or violent killers, they don't usually kill strangers, and (when women kill) the reason is likely to be self defense or mental illness. While with men the murders are more often premeditated and more often violent (although not necessarily both)... and this could very logically explain why, while women commit 10% of the murders, they only comprise 1.5% of those on death row.

OK, so now I have to admit that this argument does make sense. After reading the reasoned and logical article (from which I excerpted the material presented above), I have no choice but to say that I *do* buy it...

But, on the other hand... so what? Even if this argument makes total sense (and it does), I say that the particulars of a case should have no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is applied. We should only look at the percentages, IMO. If women commit 10 percent of the murders, then they should represent 10 percent of death row inmates. And be 10 percent of those we fry (or lethally inject).

This is only fair in my idiotic brain-dead misogynistic opinion. BTW, if you, the reader, do not agree? You're probably a feminist. Or some pansy pussy-whipped man who can't stand up to his woman! And you can stuff your (correct) view of my (moronic) opinion!

In any case, I'm a male and therefore would benefit from this supposed male privilege, should it exist. Which it absolutely does not. Or that's the BS I'm spinning, at least. Society needs to stop oppressing men and acknowledge the fact that men are superior to women (which society has largely already done, but a bunch of feminists are trying to change that, damn them!).

Byline: This ignorant commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of misygony. LLIN-159.

Lying Lester Asks: Are Men Superior to Women?

I recently came across an article from the Federalist that is intriguing and thought provoking. It is one particular women's response to an article in the Atlantic titled "Why Are Feminists So Insecure? 6 Reflections On The Confidence Gap". The Federalist article talks about risk taking and feminist perceived insecurities. What follows is from the article...

I read the piece and was completely flummoxed by it, for a variety of reasons. Here are six reflections on the most serious problem of our era week: The Confidence Gap. 1) It isn't about confidence. The article is really about risk-taking and how men differ in their risk calculations from women. To give just two examples from the article, and to give you an idea of its tone: "We watch our male colleagues take risks, while we hold back until we're sure we are perfectly ready and perfectly qualified". "If a woman walks into her boss's office with unsolicited opinions, speaks up first at meetings, or gives business advice above her pay grade, she risks being disliked or even—let's be blunt—being labeled a bitch". Leaving aside the melodramatic stereotyping and bizarre generalizations about how people love unsolicited advice from men but abhor it from women, you'll note that risk is the main ingredient in the supposed confidence gap. 2) Opportunity Cost. How does it work? And in order to have a conversation about risk, it's good to talk about opportunity cost, and even just the particular opportunity costs associated with risk-taking. We should look at how women, on average, value what they must trade in for the potential benefits of risk-taking. That's not well discussed in the article. Yes, men really do show, on average, a far greater proclivity for risk-taking. See, for example, all of human history. And they tend to have different calculuses about what they seek or are willing to make do with in terms of lifestyle and stress. It is true that risk-taking behavior works out very well for men. But it also works out horribly for them. How can that be? Well, they do have higher average outcomes than women. But when they fail, hoo-boy do they fail. We're talking job loss, demotion, loss of status, physically problematic stress, serious inconsistency in pay, homelessness, prison, and so on and so forth. None of the down-sides of risk taking are given proper weight, which makes the sloppily sourced article naive and unhelpful, at best. Maybe women should fight their nature and go match men in the CEO and imprisonment categories. I don't know. But we should at least be honest that women choose less risky moves in part because they frequently don't have to take risks like men do and frequently don't want to take risks like men do. The article also fails to note that women, on average, choose less risk for reasons having to do with things other than cash money. If you make one choice, you lose other choices. If you prefer making money and having a ton of power, you make different decisions than if you prefer having a nice work-life balance, a flexible schedule, non-remunerative benefits, and what not. The tradeoffs for risk-taking and aggression in a corporate environment might involve things that you are not comfortable giving up. This can be a bad thing, but it is by no means necessarily a bad thing. Either way, this issue should have been discussed far better. 3) Is second-guessing our nature really so empowering? The article on developing confidence ends by telling women that their brains are malleable: Almost daily, new evidence emerges of just how much our brains can change over the course of our lives, in response to shifting thought patterns and behavior. If we keep at it, if we channel our talent for hard work, we can make our brains more confidence-prone. What the neuroscientists call plasticity, we call hope. Nothing shouts "be confident in your natural abilities!" like "your brain is mushy and able to be reshaped by propaganda!" But maybe that's just me. Still, all this second-guessing of female traits doesn't feel empowering. At all. Feminists seem to be on a constant campaign of obsessive gender reflection, the net result of which is to tell women they're bad at what they're doing. Don't call bossy people bossy. Don't be considerate of others. Please keep kids out of the picture for the vast majority if not entirety of your fertility. If you do choose to stop fighting your fertility for a brief period, you shouldn't let kids affect your career. You need to crush or at least smother your maternal instincts at all costs. In order to succeed in life, you must be like men — emulate everything they're doing. I love being female, and I'm actually quite confident about being a woman, but the only time I even come close to feeling bad about myself is when major media outlets and elite feminists use their power to tell me there's some major flaw with me being female. Also, it's kind of funny that the article is all about obsessive overthink keeping women from taking the risks they need to in order to succeed. I do hope that whoever wrote this at least noted that an article ostensibly against such overthinking ran 7,242 insufferable words. By the way, I challenge you to read the first section without gagging, either at the over-the-top generalizations about how universally awesome women are or about how victimized the elite authors are by their gaping self-doubt. The humblebrags in that section alone are epic. "Katty got a degree from a top university, speaks several languages" and yet thought "her public profile in America was thanks to her English accent". Claire was CNN's Moscow correspondent while in her 20s but supposedly deferred to the "alpha-male journalists around her, assuming that because they were so much louder, so much more certain, they just knew more". The thing is that even if we're just talking about lower braggadocio levels, what if that's an ingredient that makes women better at social bonding? Leadership is important to society. Absolutely. But so is a basic functioning community. Heck, call me a woman if you must, but I could make a good argument that community bonds are even more important than CEO leadership. There's no reason that men and women must fill one or the other category (and every single person reading this knows men and women who fit various high-risk/low-risk/high-confidence/low-confidence categories) but neither do we need to insist on denigrating people who do the hard work of community bonding, whatever that given community is — in office environments, immediate families, extended families, local congregations, Brooklyn co-ops, boxing clubs, etc. So if women have, as the article claims, a "part of the brain [that] helps us recognize errors and weigh options", why do we want to get rid of it or curb it? Why are we ashamed of something that's awesome? Why are feminists so down on women's brains? I mean, again, leadership and risk-taking are great for humans. Don't get me wrong. But so are wisdom and restraint. (Sources: Atlantic article; Federalist article).

So, my takeaway from the article(s) is that men take more risks and thus have historically been the makers, the doers and the movers and shakers. For this reason I conclude that men are indeed superior to women with little exception. One such exception would be the great philosopher Ayn Rand. Surely she was a great woman who was superior to many men. But great women like Ayn Rand are an exception, in Lying Lester's opinion.

And, if there is sure indication that any given women is inferior, it absolutely is that she identifies as a "feminist". Feminists do not wish to compete on a level playing field, instead petitioning the government to grant them special advantages. That is why feminists disgust Lying Lester, as feminists disgusted Ayn Rand.

Everyone should be judged strictly on their achievements; achievements that should be earned by merit alone and NOT due to special favors or assistance from the State. This is why Lying Lester also opposes these so-called "equal pay" laws. If a woman deserves equal pay she should EARN it and not ask for a government mandate to force private employers to pay her more than she deserves.

(For the record, this blog is still closed as well as FOR SALE. I am simply waiting for the bidding process to conclude. When it does I will anounce the new owner before handing all passwords over to said buyer. LLIN thanks you for your patronage and hopes you will continue reading when the as-yet-to-be-determined new owner assumes control).

Byline: This honest commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-026.