Kryptogal (Kate) wrote a stunningly self-unaware piece related to the article by that basically says: Women Ruin Everything. And it’s written by a woman, so take it up with her, feminists. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Kate (as much as I like anyone on sub stack) but that doesn’t mean I will not point out her obvious errors. In fact, if I didn’t care at all about her writing I wouldn’t comment on it. Unless it’s unhinged…then a Kurganing may be warranted.
So, as a prologue: I’ll post all the links, but then, since reading is hard, I’ll also summarise it all for you in digestible size and format.
And below is a quote from Kate’s note posted on it .
As an aside: You can ignore completely the Dick Hanania she refers to, as he’s some whiny bitch that says Trump has broken the rule of law, blah, blah, some faggoty shit. Not because I am a Trump supporter in any way, Trump is just the latest puppet of the (((tribe))), he’s just fighting for sect A instead of sect B of the Synagogue of Satan, and I don’t care about the complete kabuki theatre that is American (and as a consequence, global) politics either way. I am saying Dick is irrelevant because he can’t think straight if his life depended on it.
Kate’s partial note is quoted below:
argues against the Helen Andrews’ piece based on the valid point that men are subject to their own irrationalities and stupid group behavior, just of a different sort. I think her piece is likely correct about excessive passive-aggression and consensus-based intimidation in the domains of academia and psychology/social work, and also perhaps in media.
You can sort of see Dick is irrelevant from this part already. Anyone stupid enough to argue that the literal builders of civilisations across the globe in every single case, regardless of cultures (i.e. MEN), have their own “irrationalities” as if they were comparable to the irrationalities of the ones who whenever and wherever they became “in charge”, managed to collapse that culture/civilisation EVERY SINGLE TIME in the entirety of human history, and usually within two generations tops (i.e. WOMEN), is obviously some faggoty retard, white-knighting for hairy-legged, unfuckable feminists, in the desperate hope of ending his perennial inceldom.
But I have a huge problem with her statement that her greatest fear is in the legal world. I’m sorry, but no, that is the last place you will see this.
Uh…wait…see what Kate?
let’s backtrack a bit and see what Helen ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT THIS, Shall we?
Here it is:
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
And what does Kate have a problem with exactly? Well, she tells you…
Women who choose to become lawyers are at the tail end of being disagreeable, adversarial, and enjoying arguing. It is literally their entire job to fight and argue with people all day, tell people they’re wrong, AND they have the be comfortable doing so on behalf of people they think are bad or just jackasses, regularly. Their whole mode of operation is adversarial, not consensus.
Kate seems to think Helen is saying that the law being filled with women will collapse civilisation because (supposedly according to Helen) women want to have consensus and Kate is saying female lawyers just don’t work that way.
But Kate is also a lawyer, so we know she can’t read.
What does Helen ACTUALLY SAY? Here is Helen again:
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
These two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that, if Christine Blasey Ford can’t provide any concrete evidence that she and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life. The feminine position was that her self-evident emotional response was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate committee must respect.
If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread. Judges will bend the rules for favored groups and enforce them rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent. It was possible to believe back in 1970 that introducing women into the legal profession in large numbers would have only a minor effect. That belief is no longer sustainable. The changes will be massive.
Do you see anything in there that is saying the West will collapse because of consensus among female lawyers? I sure don’t.
In fact I see very clearly a solid fact, which Helen identifies by example if not by calling it out in excruciating detail specifically (but really, close enough). Helen is saying precisely what she already stated above. Women will NOT follow the rule of law. They will NOT do the logical, objective thing. Instead they will be guided by their emotions, their biases and their personal vendettas against, men, God, life in general or the weather that day, as women are won’t to do and DO do.
The REASON that men are the main enforcers of discipline in the home with children, is precisely because if dad says: “Don’t do that or you’ll get a spanked ass.” If the kid does it, guess what…they get a spanked ass. Women are basically constitutionally incapable of following through. They mostly either lose their shit and go overboard when it’s not required or find some excuse not to enforce the promised consequence. As a result, kids know to generally ignore the warnings of mom to a much greater extent than those of dad.
In pretty much most normal, well functioning families, “Do I need to call your dad?” Is about the most effective way a mother can get her kids to do as they are told there and then.
And the same applies to the law, and life in general.
I mean… have you EVER considered the absurd statement #BelieveAllWomen?
Has there ever been a more absurd comment in the history of humanity?
Aside the fact ALL human lie, so the comment is completely idiotic on its face, guess what the thing women lie the most about is? The kind of life-altering things that matter:
– Yes, it’s your baby.
– He’s just a friend.
– I would never divorce you.
– He raped me.
– He is a child molester and that is why I divorced him.
Men will tend to lie to women more about the nature of the relationship they want to supposedly get into (in order to get into the woman, even if only for a few minutes), or perhaps about various minor issues in order to keep the peace, or have a minute to themselves.
The interesting thing is that if you ask a group of women (that are sitting together) if they trust men more or women to be more honest, they will all say they trust women more. But as a group of women individually, away from other people, and most of them will say they trust men more. If you’re surprised by this… it’s because women LIE. They lie even to themselves. Constantly. The prime example known to most is that they will tell men all the time they want a guy with X, Y, and Z attributes then end up with a guy who has the exact opposite of those attributes.
But does Kate ever engage with what Helen ACTUALLY said?
Nope.
Guess why?
Yeah… because she’s a woman, and gets all emotional and… can we guess what else she gets? Go on… you know you can do it… did you say… yes you did, didn’t you? That’s right! She gets all SOLIPSISTIC about it.
Behold:
At least twice a week I have a client call me and say what amounts to “I’m going to send this face-saving and conciliatory email to (our opponent) but then I want you to call them and scare the crap out of them and bring down the hammer.” That’s standard. Badgering people to pin down facts and suss out the truth is also standard, as is constantly telling people you disagree with them, issuing threats, and dismissing and not getting rattled by threats pointed at you (which is also all day every day).
“I am not like that! I am the exception! and women are all like me!”
Well, yes Kate, they kinda are… but you’re missing the point.
So women lawyers are about the least likely to do kumbaya emotion stroking or mean girl social pressure you will find! They opted to spend their lives working in a system premised on being adversarial! They’re a professional bitch for hire, that’s almost like the job description lol. NO ONE wants to hire a passive, pushover, “nice” lawyer. And I’ll just say I’ve seen clients fire their lawyers plenty of times bc they didn’t think their lawyer was being aggressive enough, but honestly I haven’t seen that happen to a female attorney.
All that Kate is saying here is that women lawyers are particularly nasty pieces of work that will argue well past what a man might. And I don’t disagree. Female lawyers tend to think their being a lawyer is enough to mean their arguments, regardless how superficial, illogical, or emotion-driven are the RIGHT ONES! And have you ever seen a woman argue? Do they give up just because they are flat out wrong, reality goes counter to what they say, as do facts, eyewitnesses and God Himself? Nope. They just double, triple and quadruple down.
And Kate here missed the point completely.
Helen is indeed a woman, but she, unlike most of her sister-women, has actually made a cogent and well thought out point.
People incapable of being rigorously objective and logical, as well as willing to make the difficult choices required in order to ensure just consequences, will absolutely destroy the legal profession and justice system.
I mean, not that government justice systems are ever actually just.
But if women run things, they are certainly going to get a lot less just. And we really ALL know this to be the case. The fact you might not like it, is beside the point.
The fact women may be MORE intractably argumentative than men is also beside the point. because guess what… that too is NOT a feature in a legal system meant to represent justice. You know what is? Good judgment. Objectivity. Logic. Proportionality. All things women basically suck at, as a group, when compared to men.
“BUT I KNOW A GUY/WOMAN WHO….”
Yeah. No one cares. Learn what statistics mean.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
