Get More Women in STEM!!

Get more women in STEM!!

Have you noticed all the push by feminists to “get more women in STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)? “Oh women are under-represented in these fields”, “these fields are male-dominated”. And yes, there are more men than women working in these fields, but so what?

Are women being “kept out”? Is there some sexist discriminatory patriarchal conspiracy at work here? Or is the fact that women are choosing not to go into these fields just the result of culture (patriarchy) and gender roles (patriarchy), as many feminists will claim? (That’s right, feminists honestly believe that women are incapable of making their own choices. Who’s the misogynist here?)

This is a typical pattern, whenever a field/group/activity begins to be popular to the mainstream population, feminists try to infiltrate it, take it over and change it to suit their misandrist agenda. They will claim sexism, discrimination, harassment/hostile environment, the “boys’ club”, patriarchy and misogyny, backing these allegations with either nothing concrete or very biased and cherry-picked stats and examples.

I say “no more”.

This month of November, you and I, kind reader, will be delving more into the issue. We will examine and deconstruct arguments and rationales made, as well as try to challenge those pushing for this agenda.

Let’s begin:

Why are there so few women in STEM fields? Well for starters, one might consider it’s a matter of choice, personal interests, men are more drawn to STEM fields just like women are more drawn to being stylists or nurses.

See also:

Notice that lady that says she’s now quit her job to be a stay-at-home mom (aka parasite)? Well yes, it’s a choice she’s making. Why aren’t feminists complaining that women can make choices? (I’m not and I don’t know any MRA that is) And yet feminists complain about the end result of women’s choices, the overall proportion of women in STEM fields, only that they blame it on men.

So what now?

Well here’s what I did: I started engaging and questioning (in public view, ofc).

Here is a typical article (at a non-feminist blog, but they often refer to an investor as “she”, not “he or she”, so it seems rather blue-pill at least)  where they address the issue (as part of a professional social media marketing, PR, VC, and HR blog). And I asked the author the simple questions:

Salima, are you working in STEM? No? That’s right, you’re working in HR. Then
1) Why are you complaining about “not enough” women working in STEM?
2) Why aren’t you working in STEM? (aren’t you part of the problem?)
3) “Social sciences” is not STEM, and it’s a choice. Why do you expect those women (like you) to want to go work in STEM (unlike you)?
4) Why do you/we “need” more women in STEM? For what purpose?
I’d seriously like to know, also:
5) Why aren’t you also trying to address the under-representation of men in “social science” jobs? Why only the women?

So a week went by with no reply and I asked her on this blog post:

Hi Salima, you haven’t responded to my inquiry on your first blog on this subject, so I’ll ask here:
Why didn’t you go into tech/STEM? (Why aren’t you taking initiative/leadership and being a role model for other women?)
I’d sincerely like to know (I am currently researching this topic).
Thank you.

If you read both articles, they are essentially blaming “the culture” and suggesting making accommodation just to get more women in STEM (without making a case as to why, or what the benefits would be).

You can also see here:

Where I simply asked:

Question: what does “being a woman” have to do with anything? Why not 5 short tech entrepreneurs, or 5 old tech entrepreneurs, or 5 white tech entrepreneurs. Should a woman receive special accolades just for doing the same thing a man does? Isn’t that looking down on women?

Now why do I do this? Because getting the message out and starting the conversation in wider society is important to effect change. The radical feminists won’t care about arguments or reason, but the rest of society might.

Throughout the rest of November, I will be covering more on this topic, as well as trying to engage people in dialogue. I encourage you to do the same.

As always, I wish you all the best my brothers (and sisters), I’ll see you next week (if not sooner).


Bias against men in “Domestic Violence” campaigns

Bias against men in “Domestic Violence” campaigns

Something that has become more and more apparent in the western society’s war against men and boys is the repeated and constant use of women victim-male aggressor dichotomy narrative to demonize and shame men, driving them into an ever-more precarious state.

Take Domestic Violence (DV) campaigns. They focus almost exclusively on the suffering of women, and paint men as unidirectional aggressors, while the reality is that most DV is bi-directional.

domestic violence against men

Also, they try to label any and every normal human behavior as abusive, so long as it is perpetrated by a male.

Is “using logic” or “raising your voice” (even when the woman is screaming at you),  “using angry expressions” during an argument, or viewing pornography a form of domestic abuse? Well according to these idiots, it is, I kid you not.

This is insane!

And now, the US government is targeting men by including female-only domestic violence screening as part of its health care plan. Not only is it skewed against men, but it also will not address the problem of DV because most DV is perpetrated as much by women as it is by men.

What do you think?

Next time you hear some feminist, mangina, or reporter/journalist only focus on violence against women, be sure to let them know that men matter too, and ignoring their experience of DV is contributing to the problem, not solving it.

Forced marriages

Forced marriage. Did you know that in many states (and provinces if you’re in Canadia) you are de-facto married under the law just for living with someone? No vows exchanged, not marital contract signed, no ceremony, it just happens. Yep, that’s the ever-Orwellian “common-law marriage”.


One day, you wake up and you’re married, with all the legal hell that comes with it.

That’s right, one day, you wake up, you’re married, and all the legal hell and loss of rights (for men) that comes with it. If she leaves, you lose half or more of all you own, lose custody of your kids, have to pay alimony, child support, get kicked out of your house, have to pay for her lawyers to “divorce” you, etc.

Find out more here:

Sick right?

This is bullshit! This is tyranny! To be forced into a contract that you never signed or agreed to.

But of course, what do people (both men and women) and particularly the media complain about? That’s right, forced marriages for women. Oh, now it’s an issue (which it is, I’m not denying that), but not when thousands of men are being forced into marriage? That’s fine with them? Do the words “double-standard” and “misandry” come to mind?


Free speech (and why it matters)

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire (correction, apparently this is from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, only attributed to Voltaire but not said by Voltaire, thanks to the Justicar for pointing that out)




That quote is the foundation of one of the cornerstones of democracy and a free society, said by one of the thinkers of The Enlightenment period. To me, it rings so true.



Why? Well first let’s start off with a bit of personal history: Back in the day (lol), I was a radical leftist involved in popular movements and far-left activism, nothing violent, of course, but pretty extreme and radical stuff. I was a young idealist who wanted to change the world fundamentally, to make it a better place. The more I got involved with the radical echo chambers of like-minded people (anarchists, socialists, communists, feminists, unionists, environmentalists, etc.), the more I became subject to confirmation bias and groupthink. I could rationalize away just about anything.

Some things I came to notice over time:

1) Despite all the grand talks of principles and rights and liberty, the group always had a way to, let’s say, stamp out different viewpoints. Nothing really overt, just small things, interrupting people, shutting them out of discussions (all hail the mighty “peaking order”), dirty looks, requests to “tone it down”, to “not take too much space and let others speak”, etc.

2) The decisions for the course of action to take always ended up as: protest/rally, march/sit-in, teach-in.



That was it! Genius really, and nothing ever changed. Nothing ever really got discussed. Nothing got solved.



And I was a part of that, a willing, self-rationalizing part of that. Many times I thought “well, I’m not really comfortable with doing that/I don’t really agree with that silencing tactic, but I’ll go along with it because ultimately it means more bodies in our camp and we can then use that to accomplish our goals of a fairer and better society”. How naive! Compromising core values is what ensured that we never achieved our goals because our goals were what those core values represented.



So yes, now that I am out of that circle, I try my best not to compromise my integrity and values, even if it is for a short-term gain. If the foundation is not solid, then whatever you build will fall.



Why am I bringing this up? Well I’ve seen it happen even within the MRM, particularly when it came to the doxxing (doc dropping) of a particular unsavory femitheist.



It’s not a matter of “white-knighting” or defending a pure, gentle, feminine flower (I don’t care much about Krista as a person, or as a woman, I’m not attracted to her at all, and I find her rather annoying tbh), but rather a greater matter of principles and tactics.



First, the principles: If we start persecuting people for their opinions, even if they are stupid, hateful, or wrong, we destroy the very foundation we have for our debates and arguments. Do you really think it helps anyone when someone is silenced? Does anything progress? Or is it rather that our own goals of a free society and equal rights for men get undermined because the very foundation of democracy gets undermined?



Don’t believe me? Ask those Toronto firefighters who lost their jobs for some tweets they made on their personal accounts.



Isn’t that just fucked up? And even if you believe their tweets were sexist (which I would disagree with), does firing them help anyone? Does it change their views? Does it help society or make it a better place? Well does it?

(I don’t think it does, particularly not with less firemen, or less of an ability to freely express oneself)



Second, the tactics: When feminists pull that kind to crap trick on one of us, don’t we complain? Why? Because it’s wrong and against fundamental human rights.

But next time some feminazi does that, she’ll just point to this incident and say “it’s ok because you mra scum do it too, and someone had to warn the population of how dangerous you are to wymyn and you are a hate group and you look scary and you smell and I’ve been scared once before therefore you promote rape culture”.



See how that goes?



Think about it and let me know what you think. I’ll post more on the subject at a later date.