NOTA BENE: This article also serves the purpose of warning everyone to be careful concerning ANY lawyer you may need to hire. They are notoriously completely illiterate, can’t read if their life depended on it, are plagued by the arrogant belief they are smarter than you (never been the case since I have not met one with an IQ that is within striking distance of mine), and will completely fuck up your case because they get some harebrained idea of what your case is about based on maybe the last case they won, or lost, or the alignment of the planets, or what Bob the janitor told them yesterday. And in fairness Bob probably has a better chance of representing you. So, please take note of just how desperately this supposed lawyer “argues”. And enjoy the Kurganing.
The last (immediately previous) post was somewhat generic about how lawyers really can’t read. And I pointed out that Kate (the Kryptogal lawyer) is no exception, and made a total hash of misrepresenting an article, then running with that misrepresentation by arguing an issue no one had said anything about either way.
So if you want to full story, read the previous post, but even more entertainingly, read the comments under that post, because they show better than I ever could the absolute incapacity of lawyers to read, especially female lawyers (yes, all lawyers read badly, but women lawyers truly suck at it), and a s bonus you get to see how “efficaciously” they “argue” they (non-existent) points.
But don’t worry, in one of her comments she obviously gets the upper hand, because she says I am rude. RUDE, dear readers! RUDE! Someone pass me some pearls to clutch.
(And as an aside, so much for the hard-nosed, business-like, ability of female lawyers she was “arguing” [more like shrieking] for. I mean, lady, you really haven’t even begun to see the inkling of a beginning of rude from me. And the one comment you picked to say that on really was not rude at all. Just pointing out a factual observation, which remains the same one: YOU CAN’T READ.
But I’ll also add that you can’t do math, or argue worth a damn. I would hire a blind street-preacher before I hired you for a lawyer.
But let the Kurganing begin.
Quick summary:
Helen Andrews wrote this article (which is quite good) which basically argues that the ginormous feminisation of all sorts of industries will pretty much collapse western civilisation. If you are able to read for context, the summarised version makes the following basic points:
- The feminisation of all sorts of industries is ideology-driven and not a meritocracy. [My note: If you were to dig deeper into this you would find that (((the usual suspects))) have started, pushed and will continue to push for this pervasive feminisation in the West, but that’s outside the scope of her article.]
- Women make their decisions based on general narrative consensus based on emotions, feelings and whatever they have been brainwashed into feeling good or bad about, and ignore objective facts, reality, math, and anything else that might make them feel bad or wrong about anything. She makes examples of this kind of behaviour, and while she doesn’t mention the whole #BelieveAllWomen idiocy, it’s fairly clear that overall that is a perfect example of what she means.
- She states that when this gyne-centred chaos of emotions pervades the legal profession, we are all screwed and society will essentially collapse, because you can’t have a society work when the rule of law is constantly varied, changed, or based on feelings, emotions and random scrambled brains that sit in the female cranium.
Kate, argued, at some length, in a wall of text note that while she “agreed” with most of the article, she completely disagreed with… well… let me quote her verbatim (each time so you can’t say I am misrepresenting her:
Version 1 of her objection ( from her note here ):
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.
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. 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.
Ok, so Kate thinks women lawyers do not do passive-aggressive stuff or conform to consensus based narratives based on intimidation (we must say here SOCIAL intimidation, since no one was talking about putting guns to heads, so in essence, the social stigma of being perceived to be counter-narrative [because fats are facts even if no one likes them especially]). Cool. I mean she’s obviously flat out wrong, and Helen made a perfect example of the Kavanaugh hearings to point this out. And it is absolutely obvious that both female lawyers and even more so female judges, make their decisions based on the usual social proof rather than facts and reality and math far more so than men ever do. We know this. Anyone that doesn’t know this probably believes men can give birth and ANYTHING they think is IRRELEVANT, because they are wrong, irredeemably stupid and will never get better. The fact that they may also be a large majority is also completely irrelevant to normal, thinking, sane people too, and only confirms the 5 laws of the esteemed and brilliant Professor Carlo Cipolla, to whom a monument should be built in every town on Earth.
But ok, at least we have Kate’s view, right?
Well… not so fast…
Version 2 ( from this comment here ):
I really don’t see how that contradicts anything I said. Yes lawyers fight in a civil and professional way. They don’t get their feathers ruffled by threats or negotiation or mere disagreement. I never said arguing was nasty, it’s the total opposite of that, you must be able to argue in a totally emotionless way that doesn’t impact you. Andrews point is that women can’t even stand to express disagreement AT ALL. Every lawyer tells other people all day that they disagree and I’ve never met one who’s scared to do so. This has nothing to do with being rude or nasty, that will obviously just be counterproductive. It has to do with Andrews’ claim in the original article that women can’t even stand to state a disagreement and will just roll over and go along with the group rather than admit they disagree on anything.
Oooo…kay…. So her actual, real, point this time is that Helen says (according to Kate) that women… what is it? Ah right: “Andrews point is that women can’t even stand to express disagreement AT ALL.” and: “Andrews’ claim in the original article that women can’t even stand to state a disagreement and will just roll over and go along with the group rather than admit they disagree on anything.”
Riiiight… except…if you read that whole article ( here again for convenience ), you will see NO SUCH ARGUMENT made by Helen. What she does say is that women will tend to gang up on people and act as a general group of harpies. Nowhere does she say they will not express disagreement. In fact, quite the opposite. Let’s quote Helen here to prove the point:
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times , described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.
It’s quite clear (even to illiterate Sentinel Islanders by now) that Kate is PROJECTING. And projecting something Helen never wrote. In fact Kate made that shit up right out of thin air in her own head.
Helen never wrote that women will not disagree “AT ALL” as Kate put it. Nor did she write that women can’t stand to state a disagreement. She did no such thing. She specifically stated that women will do all of the above but in a more sneaky, underhanded, indirect, and socially cohesive way (among the general consensus of the emotional female herd) than men do. So of course when Kate is told she’s fucking terrible at reading comprehension, and not just by me but by another lawyer (male though, so he can at least read! I’d hire that guy. A Lawyer that can read is like a doctor that actually practices medicine instead of sell pharmaceuticals: rare!) thusly:
The Big Ugly says to Kate:
If you don’t see how what I wrote contradicts what you said (”It is literally their entire job to fight and argue with people all day”), then I don’t know what to tell you. I wrote a rather lengthy post explaining how, in many situations we commonly encounter, lawyers do not argue with anyone and we certainly don’t argue “all day”. In fact, arguing in some of the situations I described would be counterproductive.
So she shifts the goal posts again…
Version 3. ( From this comment here ):
JFC you all didn’t read Andrews piece. Her primary claim is that women cannot stand to state or admit disagreements and prioritize going along to get along in all circumstances and therefore will just keep their mouths shut and go with the herd. That’s her primary thesis, that women are built to find it emotionally intolerable to argue about anything, express their real opinions, or disagree if it might harm a relationship. All of that is true! It is also true that women who choose to become lawyers are at the tail end of not being like that..what are we even talking about here…less than half of a percent of US adults are lawyers, and less than half of them are lawyers so…0.2% of the population lol.
Again, she’s just making shit up. Helen writes no such thing. But Kate agrees with it anyway (the things she says Helen wrote [but actually didn’t])! Isn’t that grand?!
So what we have here, just to keep it straight for y’all, is Kate making now the third accusation (falsely) against Helen, (i.e. making shit up in her head) but then also magnanimously agreeing with it! (i.e. agreeing with her own imaginary fantasy article), only to go on to say that female lawyers however are super-special type of women who are made of DIFFERENT AND STERNER STUFF! GRRRRLLL power boys, and don’t you forget it! Because female lawyers are disagreeable and argue!
Which nowhere did Helen say they don’t do. She expressly stated they DO argue. Meanly, underhandedly and essentially UNFAIRLY and UNJUSTLY, just to push their own emotion and consensus driven fake and nonsensical narratives. Which is why it’s a terrible fucking idea to have them be lawyers or worse judges instead of them making nice sandwiches and feeding and raising a bunch of babies, which they excel at.
See the difference Kate? I mean I know you can’t, because you can’t fucking read at all, that is now clear, but it’s rhetorical, for the readers here to have a good chuckle at.
In that same comment, (you really should read the comments in that post, they are hilariously self-revelatory of what a shitty reader Kate is) she goes on to say:
Version 4. (Yup, two different takes in one comment!)
Andrews thinks that if women were a majority of lawyers they’d what…she doesn’t even explain it. Somehow start ignoring their clients’ demands and just start doing whatever the other women in the office seem nice and not mean or something?? Makes no sense, the clients pay the bills. She gives no indication of precisely how it is that if .3% of adults in the US practice law are women instead of .2% that is somehow going to radically change the actual laws or enforcement of them or whatever. The actual laws and enforcement of laws gets decided via the political process, not lawyers representing their client.
So…wait…what is Kate’s point now? That Helen doesn’t even have a point? That female lawyers ignore their clients? I know, it’s hard to keep up with her goal post hyper spacing isn’t it?
But if you have had enough experience with women, you will note this is what happens when they are wrong, dead wrong, absolutely fucking wrong, and everyone knows it. They panic. They start to do the female monkey squid ink tactic. Shit your pants, then fling the excrement on all the walls and on everyone in the hope some of it sticks or you can escape in the noxious cloud while declaring victory! There is no more sense to be had here. It’s all just image control now.
And the Big Ugly guy replies:
Wow. You’ve really proven The Kurgan’s point about lawyers not being able to read. You say, “Andrews thinks that if women were a majority of lawyers they’d what…she doesn’t even explain it. Somehow start ignoring their clients’ demands and just start doing whatever the other women in the office seem nice and not mean or something?”
That’s not what Andrews said and she did explain her concern. Her point was not about if women were a majority of lawyers. Her point was about a feminized legal system (think judges) and her concern was that a feminized legal system would make decisions and rulings not based on the written law but based upon feelings and desired outcomes regardless of the rules and laws. She even gave examples of that occurring in Title IX cases and the Kavanaugh witch hunt.
So Kate pivots (as female lawyers and women in general are won’t to do) and like a Jew arguing about the numbers of Jews killed at Auschwitz, 1 spins a brand new tale as if none of the previous things and her positions, even happened.
Version 5: (from this wall of text comment (squid ink mostly) here):
Sorry, this doesn’t parse because Andrews expressly tied her fear regarding a mass of female voters pushing for laws to not be enforced to the legal profession itself becoming majority female. The two are totally unrelated as our country not enforcing laws is a political issue and has nothing to do with lawyers who represent a clients’ interests.
So now it’s a completely different take… She says Helen said that a mass of female voters pushing for various laws to NOT be enforced, would (according to Helen as understood by Kate) lead to the legal profession becoming majority female. But Kate argues, these two things have NO LINK WHATSOEVER.
Despite the fact that Helen explains PRECISELY what the link is. Once a profession is no longer permitted by social mores (mostly voted in by female voters and their feelings) to do it’s actual job, and instead has to kowtow the line of the mostly effeminate, feminised, female imperative of their fucking idiot feelings, then, guess what? Men don’t want to be part of that illogical shitshow and as a result the profession degrades into a majority female because men opt out of that nonsense. She makes explicit examples, like the psychological profession.
So let’s quote Helen again a little bit at length, because we need to show just how outright intentionally dishonest Kate is:
The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place. There are many people who think the Great Feminization is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Women were finally given a chance to compete with men, and it turned out they were just better. That is why there are so many women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, and managing our corporations.
Ross Douthat described this line of thinking in an interview this year with Jonathan Keeperman, a.k.a. “L0m3z,” a right-wing publisher who helped popularize the term “the longhouse” as a metaphor for feminization. “Men are complaining that women are oppressing them. Isn’t the longhouse just a long, male whine about a failure to adequately compete?” Douthat asked. “Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on the ground that we have in 21st-century America?”
That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.
The most obvious thumb on the scale is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to employ too few women at your company. If women are underrepresented, especially in your higher management, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten simply in order to keep their numbers up.
It is rational for them to do this, because the consequences for failing to do so can be dire. Texaco, Goldman Sachs, Novartis, and Coca-Cola are among the companies that have paid nine-figure settlements in response to lawsuits alleging bias against women in hiring and promotions. No manager wants to be the person who cost his company $200 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit.
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
A lot can be inferred from the way that feminization tends to increase over time. Once institutions reach a 50–50 split, they tend to blow past gender parity and become more and more female. Since 2016, law schools have gotten a little bit more female every year; in 2024, they were 56 percent female. Psychology, once a predominantly male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with 75 percent of psychology doctorates going to women. Institutions seem to have a tipping point, after which they become more and more feminized.
That does not look like women outperforming men. It looks like women driving men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions. What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male graduate student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion?
So… yeah, Kate is just making shit up as she panics into an emotionally frustrated, probably acidic little harpy.
The big ugly notices again, and at the end of her wall of squid ink where she comes up with her fifth reason she objects to Helen’s article, he writes:
The Big Ugly writes:
Helen’s point is simply that females are more likely to disregard the law to reach a desired outcome based on their feelings. You may disagree, but that’s her point.
So…caught out 5 times out of 5 what will this enraged, combative, oh-so-smart-and-effective female lawyer do?
Well, what I said in footnote 1, of course. And just go back to Version 1 as if it was more valid now…
Version 6 (Version 1 re-issued from this comment here: )
I think you either didn’t read her piece or didn’t read my note the OP has a problem with, where I specifically objected ONE SENTENCE of hers: “If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread.” That makes no sense. The Title XI tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings had nothing to do with the legal profession being majority or minority female, it had to do with political will on campuses and in Congress.
Quite rightly, The Big Ugly lawyer guy is now beginning to understand: Kate can’t read!
The Big Ugly writes:
Do you know what ethos means? The Title XI tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings had everything to do with deciding accusations based upon feelings and disregarding the rules and law in order to reach a desired outcome. That is what she is describing as the feminized legal system.
So what do you think Kate will do now?
Yup.
Version 7! ( From here ):
Yes I know what ethos means and it has nothing to do with the first clause of the sentence you keep ignoring which was the precise clause I disagreed with and you keep wanting to pretend it isn’t there. Just give up! I disagreed with one clause, you want to pretend it isn’t there and that I disagreed with the entire rest of the premise of the article, which I also expressly did not. In fact I said she’s mostly right. I disagreed with one specific sentence and one specific clause and there is simply no direct link or even possible causal chain of events wherein the thing she said she’s afraid of (females being a majority of the legal profession) leads to the outcomes she’s afraid of (political bodies and campus tribunals enacted by political fiat driven by women and white knight men liberals start disregarding due process and evidentiary standards).
So now it’s just one sentence! No, actually the first clause of that sentence only!
What’s the sentence?
“If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread.”
So…she’s disagreeing with the IF of if the legal profession becomes majority female? Fuck knows, because it’s just ONE sentence. With ONE point. Which is basically, in layman’s terms: Women ruin everything.
And when they ruin the legal system it’s gonna sting.
The Big Ugly actually makes a solid and succinct point again ( from here ):
The Big Ugly writes:
Lawyers become judges. When the majority of lawyers are women, then the majority of judges will be women soon enough. Once the majority of judges are women, then we’ll have the feminized legal system she is worried about. Her concern is not solely about political bodies and campus tribunals. Her concern is that the legal system will be just like them once women become the majority of judges and lawyers.
As I said everyone that has even remotely read this now understands Kate is making shit up.
And even the consistency and texture and smell of the shit she is making up. They can tell what she imagined for breakfast based on the autistic analysis we have now done of Kate’s fantastically made up shit.
So will Kate give up? Oh no…
nope. She makes yet ANOTHER totally irrelevant (and false) non-sequitur :
A tiny itty bitty percentage of lawyers become judges, they are subject to strictest vetting standards (most of would never qualify lol I’d be off the list just for my substack comments), and they have already been nominated at gender parity for quite a while.
And of course, MORE squid ink, her comments are small essays mostly, so be sure to enjoy the full thing at the link, lest I be accused of selective quoting.
The Big Ugly is not fooled and leave the scene after a last efficient shot :
The big ugly writes:
What percentage of judges are lawyers?
Most judges are elected by people who have never even heard of them before. They just vote straight down ticket. There are five federal district court judges in DC that were born outside of America. There is a judge on the US Supreme Court who cannot define a woman because she is “not a biologist”. I disagree that there are strict vetting standards for judges.
Now you are disagreeing because the women you know don’t fall under this personality type. I thought you said “I disagreed with one clause, you want to pretend it isn’t there and that I disagreed with the entire rest of the premise of the article, which I also expressly did not. In fact I said she’s mostly right”. Seems like you’re just changing your argument because you lost the last one but want to keep on arguing anyway.
I’m done with this. Have a nice night.
So she’s done now, right?
Oh you foolish mortal.
I had made this comment you see…
And that is one of her shorter replies… And she accused ME of lying… I told you this silly bitch projects didn’t I? Go on Kate, show me what I lied about. Be specific.
So of course… well…what’s a Kurgan to do, if not a kurganing?
So now, at the 8th iteration (or 9th?) iteration she FINALLY, FINALLY GUYS (ahahaha, sure…) states her specific objection!
“If females become the majority of the legal profession” That’s it. No THEN after the IF. No logic at all. What the fuck are you objecting to Kate? The (partial) sentence? The font of it? How the light of your monitor shows it in your eyes?
We want to know!
No Kate, anyone sane knows it’s the whole sentence, which continues to say:
“I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread.”
And you have ZERO argument against that. ZERO.
You hate that it’s true. It makes you feel stupid and incompetent that someone points out that female lawyers are basically too stupid, incompetent, and tribal (seeking consensus opinion of other women) to run the legal system. And that IF it ever becomes majority female it will be a giant shit-show for everyone, women included.
The reason you get so upset about it and write walls of text against it, is precisely because, as you have. demonstrated here in absolute fucking spades, YOU are precisely that type. Argumentative, illiterate, ineffective, and emotionally driven by your FEELINGS, instead of reality.
So… now that I so generously EXPLAINED it all to you, and how you function, like only a man can, dry your eyes, go take a pause from your keyboard. Take a cold shower —because it wouldn’t do to do the other thing while you tell yourself just how much you hate me! Plus, it’s just not fair to hubby!— and reflect on your errors and then go get a pat on the head and be a good girl and maybe change career. For the sake of your clients at least, if not larger society.
The official number used to be 4 million, then in the 1990s it was changed at the site to 2 million, and now it’s about 900,000 people “most of them Jews”. That’s the official number now. Of course, if anyone ever bothers to actually look at the facts, that number drops again, but each time, it’s revised, not only do the revisers make no reference to the previous “errors”. They also just carry on as if the new number was always the number, and YET…the total number still remains 6 millions. It’s magimath! AKA the female arguing style. Just drop your totally wrong “argument” start a completely new one for a bit, then start up again with the old discarded, already proven wrong argument as if it was always valid anyway. Rinse, repeat.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
