Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile
Member since Jul-29-04
<"All ideas, beliefs, and ideologies are open to criticism, debate, mocking, ridicule, and other forms of scrutiny. Nothing, no one, no ideology gets a free pass."> -- Dr. Gad Saada

<"The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison."> -- Margaret Thatcher, first female Prime Minister of U.K. (to her advisor, Paul Johnson)

"[...] Dean [D. Esmay, interviewer]: [...] I’ve met a lot of women who consider themselves feminists in some form or other and they look at you like you’re from Mars if you say this business about it [feminist movement] being Marxist in origin or…

Erin [E. Pizzey, founder of world's first domestic violence shelter, Chiswick Women's Aid*, located in Chiswick, U.K,]: <Yes, but most of them don’t even know anything about the beginning of this movement. And the thing I have to point out, very simply, the beginnings of the women’s movement happened way back when a lot of women were fighting for the rights of people, of Americans, to end the apartheid that was going on at that time. When they had finished marching for the civil rights movement—There’s a whole storied history that you can read it. They came back and decided that the leftist women wanted their own movement. So instead of it being Capitalism, which everyone was against in the left-wing movements, they simply changed the goal posts and said it was Patriarchy. Everything was because of men, because of the power that men have over women. And then the second part of their argument was that all women are victims of men’s violence because it’s The Patriarchy. And that is such a lot of rubbish. Because, we know, and everybody in the business knows, that both men and women in interpersonal relationships can be violent. And that’s in every single study all across the Western world. All this time—40 years—we’ve been living a big lie led by these Feminist women who essentially have created a huge billion dollar industry all across the world and they have shut the doors on men. No men can work in refuges; no men can sit on Boards; boys under the age of 12 often can’t go into the refuges. A mother has to make a difficult choice of what she should do.>


Dean: [...] But it seems to me as if people either want to see women as exclusively victims or as somehow angelic figures.

Erin: <That’s mostly men. Women know. We know each other. And privately, they’ll say what they really believe. But an awful lot of men will not hear a word about violent women. They like women on pedestals. It makes them feel safe.>

Dean: So then, it’s not just the feminists, although the feminists appear to be part of it. The feminists get angry and the men become derisive or protective. They don’t want to believe there can be violent women. Seems like.

Erin: <No, but once you start saying that any group like radical feminists, “Look, we have a problem that we need to resolve among women.” You’re talking about almost saying, possibly, “There is a million-dollar industry out there, you have to share it with men because men and women can equally be violent,” and you’re actually talking about money and they aren’t going to give up on that. They’ve built an empire over 40 years, very, very powerful. And we have women in very powerful situations, Canada, Australia, and here, because at one point officials list that the Attorney General in this country was a woman—Harriet Harman is a woman who does huge amounts of damage. And she’s been the Women’s Minister. And I have awful problems with her and several others because they are now very powerful. They’re powerful in the judiciary, they’re powerful in Social Services … particularly in Canada, that’s one of the worst countries in the world.>

Dean: Harriet Harman, she’s a Member of Parliament there in Britain, yes? From what I’ve read about her, she seems very hateful. She is a feminist, yes?

Erin: <Well, I tried to reason with her once. We were both at the conference and I just said to her, “Look, Harriet, you’ve simply got to accept the figures about violent women.” She just swung around on me and her face changed. She said, “The amount of men who are beaten up is miniscule.” And I just looked at her, and I thought, “There’s nothing I can do with you because your mind is closed.”>

Dean: Well, the government’s own figures don’t even show that to be true, do they?

Erin: <Yes, the British Home crime figures show virtually equal between men and women, domestic violence.>

Dean: Wow.

Erin: <It doesn’t matter how often you say this, or you point it out. You tell a lie long enough, Goebbels said, you can brainwash the entire community. And that’s what’s happened here. ...>" -- Excerpts from

*Chiswick Women's Aid (1971-79) --> Chiswick Family Rescue (1979-93) --> Refuge (1993-present).

Pizzey has since distanced herself from Refuge, writing in 2011: <... Over the past ten years, domestic violence has become a huge feminist industry.

Organisations such as the National Federation of Women’s Aid and Refuge have a vested interest in pushing this agenda.

This is girls-only empire building, and it is highly lucrative at that. Men are not allowed to be employed at these organisations. Boys over the age of 12 are not allowed into safe houses where their mothers are staying, which I think is scandalous. I am now, incidentally, persona non grata at Refuge, having fallen out with them over policies like those.

And they are on a feminist mission to demonise men — even those who never have and never will hit a woman. ...>

It is frustratingly difficult to get feminists--with a few exceptions such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia--to have a public debate with their opposition (usually antifeminists) about issues surrounding feminism on a level playing field. But such debates do exist. The following closing statement was given by Yiannopolous during one such occasion.

*<I want to address the men in the audience. Sorry, ladies, I love you but this is for the boys.

Question posed to us today was whether we reached an age of gender equality. I don't think we have. We've overshot the age of gender equality by a long stretch, and men of your generation are going to be the primary victims of this era.

In secondary school you will have experienced a system that is tilted against boys.** Your exams will have been primarily modulate, not linear--a system that favors girls. Teachers will have tried to control and apologize for your boisterous behavior, branding you young offenders for pranks or "cyber bullies" for typical male teenage trash talk. Taunting, after all, is how men bond. Your female peers will be encouraged at every stage of their educational journey. They will be told to join a STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] field, they will be given--showered, in fact--with grants and awards, prizes and encouragement.*** And when they do get to apply for those jobs, you will be discriminated against--just because they're a girl. You'll be the recipients of nothing. There were no programs for men. The suggestion of having a Men's Officer at your university was laughed at by the student union.

At university, you will be told that you are rapists in waiting, that you need to attend consent classes. Your natural love and affection for women will be neutered. You will be faced with an impossible choice: suppress your natural, healthy romantic interest in women or risk a charge of rape or sexual harassment.**** If you speak out against this hostile and unfair environment, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics as well as the full force of the establishment media as well.

When your studies have completed you will enter a jobs market that is stacked against you. With companies pressured from all directions to hire women, you will be at a 2-to-1 disadvantage if you are in STEM subjects and possibly worse in others.***** If you do happen to land a job, a single inappropriate remark or a single accusation of an inappropriate remark, or any unsubstantiated allegation, can destroy your reputation forever.******

Despite all this, I am not worried for you. 'Cause you're men. Your incalculable, intolerable, impossible obstacles have been placed before you precisely to overcome, and overcoming is what men do best. It's in the nature of men to battle on under impossible odds: we do that in war, we do that in all sorts of things, and we will do it here. Throughout your education you will have been fed a grim history of what men have done through the centuries. You will be told straight white men are worse than the Nazis. You will have been told nothing good about your sex, your race, or your orientation, but I'm going to tell you something good, and it is: if the patriarchy exists, women should be grateful for it. It is what took us to space, it is what build roads--it builds roads--it is what built the internet, it is what protects and provides for women. If it exists, thank god it does.

With their strengthened determination, men have tamed the wilderness. Men built cities and walls around us, they built the buildings that we're in. And that curiosity has led us to explore the oceans, their ingenuity has allowed us to reach for the moon. And whenever, you know, feminism rises up and tries to ridicule you, to demean you for what you are--and, you know, it's interesting, like, how I was gonna talk at this university, right, and I was called by my interlocutor, "troll". She said it would demean the institution to have me here. When she talked about a Sunday Times article by a respected journalist, she sought to demonize him even though he's not here to defend himself. She said Martin Daubney was a bad person. Martin Daubney is a personal friend of mine. He is a great person. He spent the last five years of his life advocating for the rights of men and boys.

But this is what they do. Don't pay any attention to it. Don't listen to it. We're not in an age of equality. Straight white women in the West [today] are the most privileged class(*) in the history of our species.

But you'll be fine.>

-- Milo Yiannopolous's address to the men at the University of Bristol (U.K.), on November 2015, in the closing statement of the debate, "Have we reached an age of gender equality?" Full debate:

*As of Dec. 2015, no transcript exists for this speech as far as I know, so I typed it out myself and double-checked it. The citations provided are my own, although it is possible they are the exact ones used by Milo Yiannopoulous (he brought a stack of papers with sources, notes and citations to the debate).

**"Eliminating feminist teacher bias erases boys' falling grades, study finds"

<... Examining student test scores and grades of children in kindergarten through fifth grade, Cornwell found that boys in all racial categories are not being “commensurately graded by their teachers” in any subject “as their test scores would predict.”

The answer lies in the way teachers, who are statistically mostly women, evaluate students without reference to objective test scores. Boys are regularly graded well below their actual academic performance."

Boys are falling significantly behind in grades, “despite performing as least as well as girls on math tests, and significantly better on science tests."

After fifth grade, he found, student assessment becomes a matter of “a teacher’s subjective assessment of the student’s performance,” and is further removed from the guidance of objective test results. Teachers, he says, tend to assess students on non-cognitive, “socio-emotional skills.” This has had a significant impact on boys’ later achievement because, while objective test scores are important, it is teacher-assigned grades that determine a child’s future with class placement, high school graduation and college admissibility.

Eliminating the factor of “non-cognitive skills…almost eliminates the estimated gender gap in reading grades,” Cornwell found. He said he found it “surprising” that although boys out-perform girls on math and science test scores, girls out-perform boys on teacher-assigned grades. ...

... The study, he said, shows that “teachers’ assessments are not aligned with test-score data, with greater gender disparities in appearing in grading than testing outcomes”. And the “gender disparity” always favours girls. ...>

This problem has been recognized at least as early as year 2000. "The War Against Boys" (May 2000) <This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex>

Also see "Why Boys Fail (and What You Can Do)"

And the book "Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men" (2009; new edition to arrive in June, 2016)

As well as "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men" (revised edition, 2015; first published in 2001 as "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men")

And last but not least, a 2014 study with a slightly different perspective (you decide what or who to believe): "Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis"

Abstract: <A female advantage in school marks is a common finding in education research, and it extends to most course subjects (e.g., language, math, science), unlike what is found on achievement tests. However, questions remain concerning the quantification of these gender differences and the identification of relevant moderator variables. The present meta-analysis answered these questions by examining studies that included an evaluation of gender differences in teacher-assigned school marks in elementary, junior/middle, or high school or at the university level (both undergraduate and graduate). The final analysis was based on 502 effect sizes drawn from 369 samples. A multilevel approach to meta-analysis was used to handle the presence of nonindependent effect sizes in the overall sample. This method was complemented with an examination of results in separate subject matters with a mixed effects meta-analytic model. A small but significant female advantage (mean d = 0.225, 95% CI [0.201, 0.249]) was demonstrated for the overall sample of effect sizes. Noteworthy findings were that the female advantage was largest for language courses (mean d = 0.374, 95% CI [0.316, 0.432]) and smallest for math courses (mean d = 0.069, 95% CI [0.014, 0.124]). Source of marks, nationality, racial composition of samples, and gender composition of samples were significant moderators of effect sizes. <Finally, results showed that the magnitude of the female advantage was not affected by year of publication, thereby contradicting claims of a recent “boy crisis” in school achievement. The present meta-analysis demonstrated the presence of a stable female advantage in school marks while also identifying critical moderators.> Implications for future educational and psychological research are discussed.>

***A good example: "'No Boys Allowed' day teaches girls about science, math"

<SEATTLE, Wash. -- Classrooms at Seattle University had a new rule on Saturday: No Boys Allowed.

That's because it's the annual Expanding Your Horizons program, bringing together 500 middle school girls from Washington State to learn about science, math and engineering.

The girls rotated through workshops focusing on veterinary medicine, infectious diseases and robotics, to name a few.

"We're not trying to exclude boys," said Jen Sorensen, the program's organizer and chemistry professor at Seattle University. "We're trying to provide an opportunity for girls who might not even realize these career opportunities are available to them." ...> Who is preventing girls from realizing that STEM career opportunities are available to them? Citation needed.

Google "girls and science" and you will find countless articles and programs on how to get girls interested in STEM.

Also see "Why Do Boys and Girls Prefer Different Toys?"

and "Hormones Explain Why Girls Like Dolls & Boys Like Trucks"

****"California colleges to make proving innocence a punishable offense"

<Advocates for due process knew this day was coming. We knew that one day colleges would notice that there was only one way for students accused of sexual assault would be able to defend themselves and that the colleges would make that defense itself a violation of policy.

Of course the new policy is coming out of California, which led the way in inserting campus bureaucrats into the bedroom with its "affirmative consent" policies. These policies mandate how students must engage in sexual activity – not as a passionate act but as a contractual question-and-answer session. The only way to prove one followed such a policy is to videotape the encounter, but now, California colleges are making such recordings a violation of school policy. ...

New policies in effect at California universities also shift the adjudication process away from hearings and evidence and deliberation to the single-investigator model, which is opened to severe bias. Now, an investigator and the university (who is under pressure from the Education Department to find more students responsible) will conduct the investigation and determine culpability. If the accused student is found responsible he or she (more likely he) can appeal the decision and only then will he get a hearing. ...>

In more detail: "Q&A: UCLA Title IX officer talks new model to investigate sexual assault reports"

Update (good news): "Due process advocates starting 2016 off strong" <Advocates for due process on college campuses have come out in full force in the first months of 2016. Law professors, legislators, editorial boards and even a presidential candidate have stepped up to defend the constitutional rights of those accused of sexual assault on college campuses. ...>

And in a related article: "Georgia legislator: Adopt due process protections or forget about your budget" <A Georgia legislator responsible for appropriating state funds to colleges and universities is threatening to halt budget discussions with his state's schools unless they adopt basic due process protections for accused students.

State Rep. Earl Ehrhart, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on Higher Education, told college presidents in no uncertain terms to adopt such protections. ...

"If you don't protect the students of this state with due process, don't come looking for money," Ehrhart added. ...>

*****"National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track"

<National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. ... Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. ...>

******Not even Nobel Laureates are safe: "'Sexist' Scientist Tim Hunt: The Real Story" (July 23, 2015) <Remember Tim Hunt, the Nobel Prize-winning British biochemist mocked and vilified on Twitter and in the media after he reportedly told a gathering of women scientists that "girls" in the lab are a nuisance because they are lovesick crybabies, and suggested sex-segregated labs as the solution? Remember how we were told that this shocking incident reveals still-entrenched sexism in the world of science? Well, now that the dust has cleared and the story has faded from the American press, there’s a postscript that amounts to: Never mind. It turns out that, just as Hunt has claimed, the 72-year-old scientist’s comments during a luncheon at a science journalism conference in Korea in June were an awkward self-deprecating joke—greeted with laughter (not the reported "stony silence") by a mostly female audience. ...>

(*)Yiannopolous is referring to the feminist perspective of women as a class (versus men as class) as opposed to the standard classification of women as a demographic.


For fun...

<Red Pill or Blue Pill> Neither. Not a Purple Piller either. I don't subscribe to labels. But the Red Pill theories on female hypergamy and gynocentrism sound plausible.

<Are you a MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)?> Not really, but I don't plan on having a long-term relationship. I agree with some MGTOW values such as self-actualization and self-determination. Its views on women? Not sure yet.

<Why do you personally oppose feminism?> I almost decided to follow Milo's advice and ignore it, to not pay attention to it, but a former close friend of mine convinced me otherwise. That wasn't his intention, though. There are currently three people in the world who have managed to really @@## me off, and he recently became one of them. Unfortunate, but he's not the worst of the three.

<Favorite ideology> None. I don't subscribe to any ideology. So, independent.

<Favorite philosopher> Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

<Favorite feminist> Camille Paglia, who once said, "If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." Not a popular feminist among feminists. Always fun to see her criticize feminism.

<What's your take on the intrinsic nature of feminism?> That feminism is certain aspects of female nature politicized. Perhaps the worst kinds.

<What is feminism, in your own words?> Feminism is a give-and-take ideology: the men give and the women take.

<"Feminism is about equality. If you're against feminism, you're against women's rights, you misogynist!"> Oh, really? Two can play this game. Communism is about the people. If you're against communism, you're against workers' rights, you capitalist pig! Communism is also about the liberation of women ("Women hold up half the sky" -- Mao Zedong), so if you're against communism, you're also against women's rights, you misogynist!

Want to fight for the people? Want to fight for women's rights? If so, become a communist today! (See, I can play this game, too.)

>> Click here to see Knight13's game collections. Full Member

   Knight13 has kibitzed 11905 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jun-14-16 User not found chessforum (replies)
   Jun-14-16 chessforum (replies)
Knight13: <User not found> Care to back up your colorful claim about me? If not here, in your chessforum.
   Jun-13-16 Gunsberg vs Max Weiss, 1889 (replies)
Knight13: <The pun sounds like a line from the Three Stooges.> Or Goodfellas.
   May-14-16 Fischer vs Spassky, 1972
Knight13: Good game.
   May-08-16 jessicafischerqueen chessforum (replies)
Knight13: <jessicafischerqueen> Do you have a Youtube channel?
   May-08-16 Knight13 chessforum
Knight13: Fact Free: Academia Edition - <"(BABY) STEPS TOWARD FEMINIST PHYSICS"> An excerpt from page 130 (pdf pg. 16): <"My feminist training has taught me that science is a socially constructed artifact of human culture. My scientific training has taught me that science is an ...
   May-07-16 Fusilli chessforum (replies)
Knight13: <Fusilli> I never graduate from anything. My age? I'm old. Probably older than you. Not good. I'm sorry for the excessively late reply. Also not good.
   Apr-29-16 Topalov vs Kramnik, 2016 (replies)
Knight13: <chancho: Bonus coverage... yes!> Of course.
   Apr-20-16 Carlsen vs N Grandelius, 2016 (replies)
Knight13: Go Carlsen!
   Apr-20-16 Topalov vs Carlsen, 2016 (replies)
Knight13: <I've never seen a knight on b6 (QN3) that looked happy. I think it's the worst square for a knight. Even h1 seems better.> Any Alekhine Defense players here who want to comment on this?
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies