silence from the christian hypocrites calling themselves counter jihads. first they deny treatments to women
LANSING (WWJ) – Can doctors and emergency medical technicians legally refuse to give life savingassistance to a gay person, if the caregiver doesn’t believe in the gay lifestyle? That question is being debated in the Michigan Legislature.
“Talk about controversy,” said WWJ Legal AnalystCharlie Langton. “Wow.”
Legislation known as the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act essentially states that people do not have to perform an act that would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
“For example, a Christian doctor who does not believe in a gay lifestyle, would not have to treat a gay patient,” Langton said. “Or perhaps, a Jewish butcher would not have to handle non-Kosher meat.”
Opponents say the bill, which is modeled after a federal law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, creates a license to discriminate. Critics say extreme cases may unfairly deny people basic rights.
House Speaker Jase Bolger, who sponsored the bill, said the intention is to shield people who are being forced by the government to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
“The individual must show they have a sincerely held religious belief that has been substantially burdened,” Bolger said in a statement. “This bill is not a license to discriminate; the courts have already demonstrated for decades that wild claims will not be supported.”
The bill passed the Michigan House by a 59-50 vote earlier this month and is now headed to the Senate for consideration.
“These bills are about the individual freedoms and rights that our country was founded on,” Rep. Greg MacMaster, who voted for the bill, said in a statement. “Michigan residents simply need the reassurance that they can practice their faith without the fear of being harassed or sued, or their businesses threatened by government action.”
WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick said if Senators want to act on the bill, they’ll have to do it quick — including Thursday, there are only five legislative days left before the end of the year.
“We don’t know if this is going to happen, but it is clearly on the agenda,” he said.
If Senators fail to act, the bill dies and must be reintroduced in the next two-year session.
At least 19 states have approved laws mirroring the federal law, which prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion for anything other than a compelling government interest pursued in the least restrictive way, according to the Associated Press
The community gathered Friday to say goodbye to Zahra Mohamoud Abdille, 43, and her two sons, Faris Abdille, 13, and Zain Abdille, 8.
A funeral service was held at the Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque on Bethridge Road on Friday afternoon.
The mother and her sons were found dead Saturday in their Thorncliffe Park apartment, though police have not said how they died.
The family’s husband and father, Yusuf Osman Abdille, 50, was found dead earlier that day after falling onto the Don Valley Parkway.
Earlier this week, it was revealed Zahra had tried to flee the violent relationship, moving her sons to a women’s shelter for three weeks in July 2013.
A candlelight vigil for the family was held on Tuesday night.
Zahra Abdille, 43, came to Canada in the late 1990s and married Yusuf in Toronto in 1997. Friends say she learned English and graduated from the Adult Learning Centre on the Danforth before becoming a nurse practitioner at Toronto Public Health.
The school the kids went to has been featured here before:
Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal and movie producer Scott Rudin mocked President Obama’s race in embarrassing emails — the latest to be released in a hack of Sony Pictures.
Before Pascal attended a fundraising breakfast hosted by DreamWorks’ Jeffrey Katzenberg with Obama in November 2013, she emailed Rudin for ideas about what she should ask the commander-in-chief, Buzzfeed reported.
“What should I ask the president at this stupid Jeffrey breakfast?” she emailed.
Rudin responded: “Would he like to finance some movies.”
Pascal: “I doubt it. Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?”
The 2012 Quentin Tarantino movie “Django Unchained” was about slavery in the antebellum South.
Rudin: “12 YEARS.”
The 2013 Academy Award winner “12 Years a Slave” depicted the abuse suffered by a free black man forced into slavery.
Pascal guessed Obama had a preference for movies by or starring African-Americans. “Or the butler. Or think like a man? [sic]”
Rudin: “Ride-along. I bet he likes Kevin Hart.”
Later, Obama didn’t express a preference for the films Rudin and Pascal discussed, telling Hollywood execs, “Believe it or not, entertainment is part of our American diplomacy,” Buzzfeed reported.
Pascal gave $5,000 to Obama’s re-election campaign and made out a check for $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee, according to OpenSecrets.
A Sony spokesperson declined comment and Rudin did not respond to BuzzFeed News for comment.
The latest imbroglio comes after it emerged that Rudin referred to Angelina Jolie as “a minimally talented spoiled brat” in emails about who would direct her remake of the film flop “Cleopatra.”
The hackers have been exposing some of the real-life scratching and snarling behind Hollywood’s red-carpet air kisses.
On Thursday, Rudin issued an apology.
“Private emails between friends and colleagues written in haste and without much thought or sensitivity, even when the content of them is meant to be in jest, can result in offense where none was intended,” he told Deadline.
The 32-year-old man who was shot five times after allegedly stabbing a Cañon City Police Department officer made “Islamic-type statements” prior to the incident, according to the CCPD.
At a press conference at the police department Monday, CCPD Chief Paul Schultz said a welfare check was conducted Friday by the Fremont County Sheriff’s office on Hudson Taylor Clark because he was “acting unusual.”
“When he was contacted by the Fremont County deputy (Friday), he was saying ‘Dear God please forgive the disbelievers. Praise be to Allah,'” he said.
According to the chief of police, the suspect’s family informed law enforcement about the multiple “jihadist websites” the suspect visited.
Schultz said he didn’t know what those particular web addresses were.
At about 2 p.m. Saturday, the suspect’s family told law enforcement that they were worried because Clark left his residence in Penrose and said he wasn’t going to return. They also said Clark was mentally disturbed, had been working out a great deal during the last two months and recently had broken up with his girlfriend.
At about 3:30 p.m., he allegedly robbed Victory Defense, a police supply store.
“At that point in time, Mr. Clark walked inside the store and he shoplifted a 9mm handgun and put it inside his waistband, walked out the back door,” Schultz said.
Schultz said there’s surveillance video footage of Clark exiting the store with the gun.
BIRMINGHAM, England — As a Sikh and second-generation Briton running a public school made up mostly of Muslim students, Balwant Bains was at the center of the issues facing multicultural Britain, including the perennial question of balancing religious precepts and cultural identity against assimilation.
But in January, Mr. Bains stepped down as the principal of the Saltley School and Specialist Science College, saying he could no longer do the job in the face of relentless criticism from the Muslim-dominated school board. It had pressed him, unsuccessfully, to replace some courses with Islamic and Arabic studies, segregate girls and boys and drop a citizenship class on tolerance and democracy in Britain.
“I suppose I was a threat, giving these children more British values, for them to be integrated into society,” Mr. Bains said in his first interview since the controversy over his departure.
But although the sexodus, a new retreat into solitude by Western males, has a different flavour to it and dramatically different aetiology from previously observed social crises, many characteristics are identical. And what’s troubling about men throwing in the towel in both East and West is the rapidity with which the malaise is spreading across entire generations, fuelled not just by sexual dissatisfaction but also the economic and educational pressures felt by so many young boys.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. It’s little wonder that in the disorientating modern world, men should seek out extreme measures to help them relate to, and get what they want from, the opposite sex. That probably explains the rise of Julien Blanc, who claims his seminars can transform the way women will respond to you. Blanc is at the extreme end of a movement known as “pick-up artists” or PUAs.
But other voices in the PUA or “red pill” movements, including Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the pen name Roosh V, says there are structural reasons why society is evolving away from inter-gender contentment. Part of the problem is unrealistic female expectations, says Valizadeh. “Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men. Women today of average or even below average quality desire an elite man with above-average looks, muscles, intelligence, and confidence.
“If an average girl works hard enough, she will be able to have a one-night stand with a ‘hot’ guy every now and then because he happened to be horny and wanted an easy lay. The girl then thinks that she actually can get such a man to commit to her for the long term, and so doesn’t give the average guys a chance, holding out for the type of stud that she had a brief sexual encounter with in the past.”
Valizadeh has some controversial views on the state of modern womanhood, too. He says: “It’s also damaging that the attractiveness of women is rapidly declining, mainly due to the obesity epidemic. No matter what members of the ‘fat acceptance’ movement say, men have an innate need for fit women. What happens is the few attractive girls left get unimaginable amounts of attention.”
According to Valizadeh, today’s sexual marketplace represents a Pareto distribution in which “20 percent of the top guys have access to 80 percent of the best women,” which has the effect of leaving women holding out for the perfect man, a man who of course never comes.
Valizadeh agrees with masculinity author Jack Donovan that men have been feminised by a culture that rejects and ridicules male characteristics and habits. “Good luck naming one male role model that men have today that actually helps them become men,” he remarks. These thoughts are echoed on occasionally rude but compelling male-oriented blogs, such as the phenomenally popular Chateau Heartiste.
They are also supported by the current state of the sex wars, which are constituted bizarrely. One of the remarkable things about recent high-profile skirmishes with feminists is how few mainstream heterosexual men have been involved. In the GamerGate video games controversy, opposition to “social justice warriors” and their attempts at censorship on Twitter has come from older gay men in public life and younger geeks, gamers and drop-outs; in the case of Matt Taylor, it was geeks and other women.
Straight young men simply don’t want to know any more. They’re not getting involved. Some women, too, horrified by what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims to do in their name, opt out of the argument. The absurd result is that geeks, queers and dykes are dominating the discussion about how men and women should interact. Jack Donovan, for example, is gay, as is your present correspondent. It’s as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity’s corner.
What strikes a lot of women as strange is how rational and systematic so much of this decision-making is by men. Many young men literally perform a cost-benefit analysis and decide that women aren’t worth the hassle. It’s girls who lose out in this scenario: men don’t need the sustained emotional intimacy that comes with a fulfilling sexual relationship and can retreat into masturbatory pursuits, prostitution and one-night stands much more comfortably.
But that’s exactly what it is, from a male point of view: a rational opting out from education, work and marriage by men who have had enough, as a remarkable book by Dr Helen Smith called Men on Strike warned in July last year. (The consensus on this stuff is growing rapidly.)
Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.
Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.
Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.
Some might call these statistical trends “female privilege.” Yet everywhere and at all times, say men’s rights advocates, the “lived experiences” and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that womenhaven’t just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women’s choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.
And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fuelling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate. And the sexodus will affect women disproportionately harshly because research data show that when women “act like men” by having lots of casual sex,they become unhappy, are more likely to suffer from depression and destroy their chances of securing a meaningful long-term relationship.
It’s not just video games and casual sex that young men are retreating into. They are also immersing themselves in fetishes that to their grandparents’ generation would resemble grounds for incarceration, and which drive them further away from the formerly fairer sex. Consider, for example, the example of furry culture and anthropomorphic animal sex fetishism, both of which are experiencing explosive growth, fuelled by the internet.
Jack Rivlin’s student newspaper The Tab, which we encountered in part one, has noticed the trend spreading on UK campuses. (It’s already rife throughout the US.) Other alternative sexual behaviours, including homosexuality and transgenderism, are more prevalent on campus now too.
“It’s eminently plausible that there are a greater number of people who identify as homosexual, bisexual or other sexualities who are happy to be labelled as such these days,” agrees Cambridge Union president Tim Squirrell, from whom we heard in part one, speaking about the students he sees passing through his Union. “I think we’re becoming more open and accepting of people who live different kinds of lifestyles and have different kinds of identities.”
Gay emancipation, of course, may not have been a uniformly good thing for women. Depending on whose figures you believe—and you’re wise not to take the claims of gay advocacy groups or gay magazines too seriously, for obvious reasons—somewhere between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of the adult male population is gay. (It’s probably a lot closer to 1 per cent.)
Just a few decades ago, many of those men—at the risk of stereotyping, the most sensitive, artistic, attractive and highest-earning men; that is, perfect husband material—would have got married, had a few kids and led a double life to pursue their forbidden urges. They wouldn’t have bothered their wives for sex and they would have made great fathers.
But now they’re settling down with men, in many cases not having children at all. In other words, a healthy chunk of the most desirable men—men who no doubt would have cooed along approvingly to feminist exhortations—are now off the market, leaving even fewer eligible men in the dating pool.
(As a side note, here’s an argument you won’t read elsewhere: gay men test significantly higher, on average, for IQ, and we know that IQ is at least partially genetically determined. Gays don’t reproduce as much now they don’t have to keep up the pretence of straight relationships. In fact, surveys say they barely reproduce at all.
Is it too much of a stretch to ask whether society’s newfound tolerance of homosexuals has made society… well, a bit more stupid? Granted, it sounds far-fetched. But while there’s no doubt that liberating gay men from the shame of their secret double lives has been a moral imperative, driven by compassion, no rapid social change comes without trade-offs.)
All this comes before we even discuss the rapid growth of sadomasochistic sex among the young and the “new civil rights frontier” of transgenderism, a psychiatric disorder currently in the process of being repackaged by the Left as an alternative sexual lifestyle.
The response to part one of this series was colossal. To date, over 300,000 readers have shared it on Facebook. 16,500 readers left comments. Over 500 men wrote to me privately to express their gratitude and support, from every continent and in all age groups. The younger men spoke especially movingly. (Predictably, hundreds of angry feminists on Twitter scorned it as “entitled whinging from white male manbabies,” rather proving the point of the story’s premise for me.) Here are the most representative quotes from my conversations, reprinted with permission.
Mark, 24: “Everyone I know feels the same. Your article spoke directly to us. We’re not all losers and nerds, we’re just normal guys who are either scared of being accused of terrible stuff by harpies or simply can’t be bothered any more. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I just can’t deal with hassle of women any more.”
Mickey: “I say no to the whole thing, even though I am very heterosexual and would like the intimacy of a relationship based on mutual respect. Well, I thought I did, but it’s been so long and the standard of behavior for women remains so low, along with my tolerance for dating bullshit, that it does not look like a realistic desire anymore.”
Francis, 28: “I’m an athlete. My parents have a lot of money. I have plenty of friends and a good social life. I don’t hang out with women any more. Occasionally I’ll have one night stands, but mostly I fill my time with other things. I got accused of molesting a girl at college and since then I’ve just thought, whatever. I play sports instead.”
Tilo, 20: “I don’t know for sure but your article sounds like me and a lot of my friends. I do furry stuff online in secret. I’d be horrified if my parents found out but it’s all that gets me off. Girls are a nightmare. I have a brother who’s ten years older and he feels the same. We’ve given up.”
Hector, 26: “I did stick to that social belief for a brief time thinking that the need for a serious relationship would come with the age, but it never happened and slowly I gave up. Today, a few hours before reading your article, I was having lunch with my mother and she kept talking about girlfriends and how I needed to get married, meanwhile I kept thinking ‘why would I waste my life with this shit?’, and it wasn’t until I read your article a few hours later, that I realised. And I don’t think it’s just my generation that is affected by this.”
We can be quite sure now that the sexodus is not some fringe, isolated internet movement as “Men Going Their Own Way” has sometimes been characterised. A combination of disastrous social engineering, special privileges for women, the relentless mockery of white men on the basis of their sex and skin colour and the economic and educational abandonment for boys has created one, if not two, lost generations already.
Men created most of what is good about the world. The excesses of masculinity are also, to be sure, responsible for much of what is bad. But if we are to avoid sliding into decline, mediocrity and a world in which men are actively discriminated against, we must arrest the decline in social attitudes towards them before so many victims are claimed that all hope of reconciliation between the sexes is lost. If that happens, it will be women who will suffer.
Some names have been changed.
Media types know her from Twitter, where she seems incapable of going a day without publishing a string of four-letter obscenities, and with which she holds forth at length and in ugly, childish language about the things she says are working against women and minorities in the technology industry: mainly, the “racism” and “sexism” of the “white men” she has dedicated her life to hating. (Investor Marc Andreessen is a particular bête noire.)
Some of the battles Kane has fought on behalf of the sisterhood include objecting to the use of the device terminology “master” and “slave” (they’re “oppressive”, apparently), flouncing off websites for being called out on parasitic financial practices, telling women that if they have a male co-founder he will probably rape them one day and attacking prominent academics such as Vivek Wadhwa, who works tirelessly on behalf of women and minorities in Silicon Valley.
By any reasonable person’s definition, and even by the standards of Silicon Valley, Kane is an abusive engine of discord, creating precisely the opposite conditions to those needed for happy co-operation between the sexes. So how did she land a feature-length profile inMatter, Silicon Valley’s long-read organ of choice—even though her paranoia and control freakery eventually screwed up what would probably have been a fawning profile and left journalists and readers alike aghast at her childishness and self-destructiveness?
(In case you’re not familiar with the story, follow those two links, which have to be read to be believed. Evidently Matter started calling around, asking people about Kane’s personal and professional life in preparation for their profile of her and her work—doing journalism, in other words—and she threw a hissy fit and started defaming and smearing the journalists in question, who were respectable professionals, beyond reproach in their dealings with her.)
And why did the eminently reasonable Jason Pontin at MIT Technology Review make space for her in the pages of his esteemed magazine, and ask her a set of ludicrously softball questions she might almost have provided herself? What is it that these bright people are seeing in Kane’s work that so eludes the rest of us?
“I wanted her point-of-view to be communicated as clearly as possible, and with all the feeling she brings to the subject,” Pontin told me privately, reflecting the view of other journalists, who preferred not to be named, that Kane may be combative on Twitter but that she is doing “important work.”
I’ll take your word for it on “important,” dudes. Mainly because I don’t understand what most of her tweets mean. This, for example, is evidently designed for more erudite folks than me.
Anyway, that explanation about important work seems to miss the point: Kane’s behaviour would not be tolerated by any other person in the technology industry, and it is not justified by any serious achievements. Only because she professes to be a feminist activist is her abusive behaviour put up with, and even tacitly endorsed, by the establishment.
This reflects the low expectations we’ve developed of feminists elsewhere in public life. That sounds unfair, because of course everyone believes in the fundamental equality of the sexes. But, these days, feminism has become associated with shrieking third-wave harpies, misandrists and lesbians, with the result that fewer than 1 in 5 women now identifies as a feminist. Modern feminism has lost the argument with ordinary women by openly declaring its hatred of men and getting hung up on weird academic irrelevances rather than, say, the plight of millions of genuinely oppressed women in the Middle East.
We effectively allow these far-left social engineers, who spend their lives trying to make men feel inferior about their gender and skin colour (yes, the irony is lost on them), to say what they want and behave as they please out of misplaced middle-class guilt—a sneaking suspicion that they probably have a point. But they don’t: they’re bullies and attention seekers, hawking snake oil.
One of the most infuriating things about women like Kane, according to female journalists I have spoken with over the past few years, is how her aggressive radicalism prevents ordinary people with more reasonable opinions from speaking up. She drowns out valid perspectives of other women with remorseless, relentless ideological fury, and leaves other women apprehensive about expressing their views.
Anyone who has spent time working in the technology industry, or writing about it, will be familiar with receiving a text or email from a female colleague that says: “Do you think I can say this? Or will Shanley go after me?” That is a horribly destructive legacy, far better befitting the word “oppression” than any of the meaningless trivialities Kane squeals and shrieks about on Twitter all day.
That’s why so many people object to her voice being prioritised over others, and that’s what observers mean when they call her an intolerant bully. Kane whines about the silencing of women by men, but it is she who has the greatest gagging effect on other ladies in the tech industry.
Kane’s tweets paint a picture of a woman in abject misery and pain, who needs therapy more than she needs further public exposure. Drama is never far away. So it almost seems cruel for reporters and editors to continue to indulge her neuroses and personal mythologising. But Jason Pontin’s sympathetic questioning, designed to avoid another Matter-style meltdown at least did readers the service of showing how poorly developed Kane’s economic thinking is.
But why would technology companies act against their best interests and not hire and promote competent women or people from other marginalized groups?
It comes down to what their interests actually are. If their interests were better serving the world, using technology as a force for social justice, and equitably distributing technology wealth to enrich society … sure, they’d be acting against their interests. But the reality is that tech companies centralize power and wealth in a small group of privileged white men. When that’s the goal, then exploiting the labor of marginalized people and denying them access to power and wealth is 100 percent in line with the endgame. A more diverse tech industry would be better for its workers and everyone else, but it would be worse for the privileged white men at the top of it, because it would mean they would have to give up their monopoly on money and power. And they will fight that with everything they’ve got, which is why we see barriers to equality at every level of the industry.
Kane has been responsible for instigating or sustaining a number of witch-hunts, including one against Pax Dickinson, the fired former chief technology officer of Business Insider, who was thrown under the bus for some (admittedly idiotic and tasteless) Twitter comments. He sees his downfall as a free speech issue and Kane as a public menace.
“I wanted to work towards a tech industry that exhibited true tolerance of everyone and allowed free expression, but Shanley and people like her have made it impossible,” Dickinson says. “The people in the tech industry who actually contribute to innovation need to realize that if they don’t fight back against the Shanleys of the industry, they’ll be allowing people like her to kill the goose who lays the golden eggs.
“[Former Mozilla CEO, forced out of his job for his objection to gay marriage] Brendan Eich is the canonical example. If they can force him out they can force anyone out, no matter their technological contributions.”
There are problems not only with Shanley Kane’s brand of feminism, which is sociopathic and divisive in the extreme, but with her approach to argument, too. It’s not just that she doesn’t like men discussing women’s issues. She doesn’t even like other women discussing them, complaining when she is not treated as the de facto authority on women in the technology industry, despite her loathsome treatment of everyone around her.
It’s true that her writing at Model View Culture, the media startup she cofounded, and which she says is profitable, is more measured than her Twitter persona. And she was evidently on best behaviour for her interview in Technology Review, cognisant of how well her usual language would go down with that magazine’s readership. But her standard mode of operation is vicious attack on anyone who does not agree with her pronouncements, and her lust for attention seems insatiable. When Kane says she wishes people would stop writing about her, it is obviously a brazen lie.
Perhaps if men knew a bit more about the sort of woman in tech their well-meaning initiatives support, they would be a bit more cautious about supporting the feminist cause. Kane, after all, isn’t grateful for their help. “Men in tech don’t support women in tech,” she claims. “They assault, rape, harass, stalk us, make jokes about it, say silent about what happens to us.”
That will come as a surprise to the thousands of hand-wringing liberals in the tech industry who bang on endlessly about the importance of redressing the gender balance in technology jobs. But in any case, the women in tech movement probably does women more harm than good, as prominent women in successful technology jobs, a category Kane has never belonged to, keep quietly admitting.
But there’s no reasoning with someone who believes that sexism against men is structurally impossible. Here’s Kane’s solution to the gender problem in California’s tech companies: “I would change the allocation of venture capital. What if we said that we are not going to invest in cisgender, heterosexual white men for the next 10 years, and we’re going to fund a diversity of technologists instead?” This is, apparently, a serious proposal.
Kane has no understanding of how business and investment work, so she ascribes everything that has gone wrong in her career and those of her fellow travellers to sexism. The prism of feminist rage robs her of self-awareness and the ability to think critically about how to make sure everyone has equal access to the tools of wealth creation—a premise with which few would argue.
The problem is, she’s being taken seriously by the media as an authentic voice of feminism, when most women in the tech industry are as horrified by her as the men. As with any troll, in sucking oxygen and enthusiasm out of worthwhile discussions about, say, female education or minority hiring policies, Kane makes life worse for everyone.
Silicon Valley’s most abusive, foul-mouthed and obnoxious critic is a good example of the sort of rabid harpy that puts normal women off careers in technology. Yet she and her hate-filled Twitter account are indulged relentlessly by the media establishment, given the sort of platform other campaigners can only dream of. It is mystifying.
I experienced some of her and her acolytes’ language and tactics personally when I indicated that I would be writing this profile in what was, I thought, rather a neutral tweet. “Jesus fucking Christ,” she broadcast to her followers. “Let the harassment campaigns begin!” And when a reader pointed out that journalism wasn’t equivalent to harassment, she sent him a message that was 30% profanity.
In Kane’s world, journalism is harassment, questioning is dissent, and dissent is unforgivable treachery of the noble struggle against heteropatriarchal oppression. Here’s a typical example of what passes for debate in Shanley Kane’s world: mindless fury, expletives and a total absence of argument, directed at a fellow feminist for the crime of questioning, crowned with an almost unbelievably infantile “your face” insult.
This is playground-level discourse at its most preposterous. But then, Shanley Kane doesn’t like journalists or academics very much. We have an annoying habit of calling out hypocrisy, thinking for ourselves—rejecting the “listen and believe” approach favoured by feminist agitators—and, well, calling out bullies when we see them.
It’s reasonable to expect a journalist to look into, for example, suggestions that Shanley’s home life doesn’t quite match the furious public pronouncements she makes, especially given that she goes out of her way to ruin the lives of men like Pax Dickinson. She’s said to be shacked up with a—yes, you guessed it—white male VC. And as for her statements about inherited wealth, well. I’ll leave that one as an exercise to the reader.
There are plenty of theories floating around about why Shanley hates white men, and in particular Marc Andreessen, so much. Whatever Matter discovered when it started asking questions about her, it was apparently enough to send her into paroxysms of panic and rage and move her to terminate their interview arrangements. To my mind, only one explanation covers all the bases. It’s controversial, sure, but hear me out: Andreessen must be her real dad.
I mean, what else could possibly explain such sustained bitterness and vitriol? The swearing, the name-calling, the foot-stomping? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. She probably pays her half of the mortgage on whatever palatial Pac Heights digs she shares with her investor husband from daddy’s millions, resenting every cent of her dependence on the success of others.
Andreessen, miserabile dictu, did not return a request for comment.