Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 7 – James Damore v Goolag

In 1957, Chairman Mao said the following during a speech in Peking:

Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.

The speech was intended to encourage Chinese intellectuals to voice their criticism of the Chinese system, such that it could be improved. What ended up happening was that the outpouring of dissent against the Communist regime was used as evidence in the sentencing of those intellectuals to hard labor and prison for crimes against the regime.

The period was known as the Hundred Flowers Campaign. The recent case of Google engineer James Damore and his viral memo has parallels to what happened during that campaign. Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown released a statement in response to the memo, part of which contained the following:

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.”

Like Mao, Brown was effusive in the praise for multiple viewpoints, openness, and inclusion, which she described as ‘critical to our success as a company.’

Yet, Damore’s views clearly were not acceptable, both internally and to the public as word of the memo started to spread. Continue reading Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 7 – James Damore v Goolag

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 6 – Ronda Rousey

Moments before the main event of UFC 207 was to start, commentator Joe Rogan made a declaration:

“I’m nervous.”

Less than a minute later, Ronda Rousey was defeated by Amanda Nunes, knocked so senseless that she initially wasn’t aware that the fight had been stopped. She could be seen staggering in the direction of Nunes (who by now was at the other end of the octagon celebrating), attempting to reestablish her fighting stance, before stopping cold and looking to the ref for answers.

It was a stunning defeat in sporting terms, given the heights to which Rousey had been elevated over the last three years or so. She had been compared to fighting greats such as Ali and Tyson, and was even cut out to be a figure that transcended sports. All of these platitudes were based on her invincibility in the octagon, a foundation which was forever cracked by the left foot of Holly Holm at UFC 193.

That defeat and Rousey’s subsequent disappearance from the public for 12 months set the stage for a grand comeback – the once great phenom returning to battle to prove that what had happened before was a fluke. Unfortunately for Rousey, her status as some sort of indomitable demigod was buried again, this time in 48 seconds of fury.

Something else took a mortal blow along with Rousey last week – the false canard of equalism, in particular the feminist variety. The acceleration of the Rousey hype train had carried as one of its passengers the prevailing cultural myth that men and women are the same.

Rousey’s pre-Holm dominance in the hyper-masculine arena of MMA (albeit against other women) was a God-send to the feminist camp. All of a sudden they had a real life data point to back the growing trend of movies depicting dainty 120-pound actresses successfully beating up several men twice their size at once, or to back the idea that packing the military with women is a great idea.

Writing ahead of the Rousey-Holm bout, Stephanie Convery wrote a piece in Australian media on Rousey in which she closed by saying that Rousey’s mere existence was an argument for feminism:

…in some ways her physicality is an argument in itself. She is living, breathing, fighting evidence against the still-prevailing idea of women’s inherent physical inferiority.

Rousey’s apparent invincibility, paired with a cultural delusion promoting the equivalence of male and female physicality, led many to believe that Rousey could fight, and beat male fighters. Rousey did not shy away from these claims, first claiming in 2013 that she could beat the male MMA heavyweight champion, despite her weighing over 100 pounds less and standing 7 inches shorter. Joe Rogan famously declared with a straight face that she could beat half of the men at her weight class, bantamweight, a claim which Rousey later topped by saying she could beat all of them. She then went on to intimate that she could defeat Floyd Mayweather, amid the war of words the two had in the summer of 2015.

These declarations were not only not immediately laughed off, but taken seriously by other fight critics and fans alike. Reality reared its head at UFC 207. In 48 seconds, the indomitable, bad assed, man-defeating woman was brutally beaten…by another woman. It is interesting to note that Nunes, who apparently has the fiercest punch in the women’s game, was unable to knock Rousey to the ground with all that ferocity, despite deploying it at least 15-20 times directly to Rousey’s head.

Rousey’s poor form, both in presenting her head to Nunes as though it was a punching bag, and ducking the post-fight interviews (as she had done post-Holm) stood in stark contrast to another firebrand MMA fighter.

As RVF member NapoleonDynamighty outlined, the difference in the reaction of Conor McGregor and Rousey to defeat was night and day. Back in March, McGregor suffered defeat at the hands of Nick Diaz, after talking heaps of trash beforehand. Within minutes, he held his hand up, acknowledged that he was defeated by the better fighter, and vowed to learn from his mistakes.

A few minutes later, at the media press conference, he had even begun to lay out some of the specific tactical errors he had made both during the fight and in preparation, which he was determined to fix.

Just three months later, he avenged his loss to Diaz, and went on to greater heights, becoming the first fighter to hold multiple championships at different weight classes simultaneously. Despite his over the top bravado and borderline buffoonery, McGegor ultimately displayed several masculine virtues in his defeat, and the quest to regain his place at the top.

In contrast, when defeated by Holm, Rousey quite literally hid from the public, only surfacing to tearfully describe to Ellen Degeneres how she contemplated suicide after the loss. There was no introspection, no humility, just self-pity.

Rousey went back into hibernation, refusing to engage in the standard programme of promotion of the fight with Nunes, ostensibly out of a fear of discussing the Holm bout.

This is particularly significant given that McGregor wanted to do the same thing, eschew promotion of his rematch with Diaz, which was originally slated to be in July for UFC 200, ostensibly because it would disrupt his training regimen.

McGregor was denied this luxury, which led to him not being on the card for UFC 200. The fight eventually did happen, of course, but the point is that Rousey was afforded such special treatment by the UFC. Rousey continued to avoid the press and the public until she couldn’t any longer, and had to step in the octagon.

What Rousey ultimately showed in her fight with Nunes was that she learned absolutely nothing from the Holm bout. She was then beaten by a fighter with a vastly superior boxing style to hers. In the 13 months she had to prepare for this next fight, she apparently did not even develop any semblance of a defensive technique to mitigate her boxing deficiency, let alone anything she could use to hurt an opponent with. She looked devoid of strategy and entirely underprepared. When defeated, she again left the octagon with haste, again avoiding the post-fight interviews.

Rousey’s behavior is similar to that of Hillary Clinton, another woman who leaned on her gender and was touted by the press as the greatest thing since sliced bread simply for being a woman who talked a big game around the big boys. Like Rousey, when Clinton lost, she reverted to her natural female self and hid from her supporters after conceding defeat on election night, waiting until the next morning to finally address the country.

These reactions were the complete opposite of McGregor. The contrast between the two is the perfect antidote for the equalist poison served up by the current culture. In this regard, one of Rousey’s most notable moments was when she declared herself to be the opposite of a ‘do nothing bitch.’

The comment came in response to criticism of her unfeminine physique. In talking about ‘do nothing’ women, she was invoking the feminist idea that a woman isn’t making the most of herself unless she is pursuing some sort of careerist ambition, as a man does.

As stated before, it is no secret as to why Rousey became a feminist hero, as she was a woman who took the feminist ‘behave like a man’ mantra to an extreme, in becoming a prize fighter. As revolting as I find female punch sports personally, Rousey’s cultural position affords us the ability to test the feminist push to eschew feminine strength in favor of female imitation of masculine strengths in a raw setting.

And Rousey has failed on all fronts. Despite her bold proclamations that she could beat a heavyweight champion male twice her size, let alone several smaller men, when actually faced with the prospect of fighting a ‘half-man’ in Fallon Fox, she began to shake in fear. Then, she lost to two women, and both times did not take her loss like a man, so to speak, as discussed above.

The only thing she probably did accomplish was to further embolden young women to act out physically in public. Seemingly on a weekly basis we are subject to a surveillance or cell phone recording of some woman accosting a man in some manner in an afterhours situation, as though she were a man herself.

When reality invariably sets in, and the man responds, the result is usually catastrophic for the girl involved. Concussions, broken bones, comas, and worse have been the end outcomes of these situations.

I have nothing against Rousey personally, and I wish her the best in her endeavors. However, the catapulting of her from a good fighter to an all-male conquering warrior princess was built on an abject lie which pervades society. This lie mandated that women like Rousey be elevated so that girls will know that ‘they can do anything.’

Rousey herself has benefitted handsomely from this elevation; it has made her a multimillionaire. Reality, as I’ve indicated here, isn’t so good to those who would follow her lead, verbatim, in their daily lives. In this context, it is good that she suffered these resounding defeats.

Rousey’s physique isn’t a validation of feminist cant. She is living, breathing, fighting evidence that women are, on average, physically inferior to men. That doesn’t make women defective. It merely makes them different humans, suited to different ends.

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 5 – P***y Riot

Yesterday we got a couple leaks, one concerning Donald Trump, and the other concerning Hillary Clinton. Both links confirmed we already knew about each candidate, but I’ll go through them in turn.

First, Wikileaks dumped a pile of emails from John Podesta on us. Podesta is a Clinton operative, currently as the Chair of Hillary’s campaign, and in the past as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. The biggest concentration of dirt is contained in the emails which compile excerpts from paid speeches Hillary Clinton gave to donors, big business interests and others (see here and here), for which she got paid tens of millions in speaking fees. Some of the more choice quotes are as follows:

Clinton explicitly says it is important to be two faced as a politician to better deal with the competing interest of the public and insiders:

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

Clinton, speaking to Goldman Sachs, opines about how the blame for the financial crisis could have been handled better, from a political point of view:

“That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ’09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.  Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?  You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn’t that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

Clinton admits that the passage of Dodd-Frank was largely a political maneuver, so the politicians could have been seen to be ‘doing something’ outwardly. Inwardly though, different story:

Clinton Said Dodd-Frank Was Something That Needed To Pass “For Political Reasons.”
“And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important. And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
Clinton expressing her very globalist ‘dream’ of a Unihemisphere setup in North America, essentially dissolving the individual identities of America, Mexico and Canada:
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”  [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
In terms of foreign affairs, in particular the goings on in the Middle East, sounds Trumpian in discussing refugees:

“So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

[Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Despite knowing this full well, she wants to bring more of these sort of refugees into the country, and decries those who oppose this as bigoted racists.
Clinton admits that Saudi Arabia is the one of the largest purveyors of Radical Islam. These comments are particularly jarring given the fact that believing this, she has no problems referring to them as allies, and taking in their millions to the Clinton Foundation:
“And they are getting a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratisto go back to our original discussionbecause the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years.” [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]
There are other choice email threads, like this one in which it is indicated that HRC would have qualms using an executive order to impose gun control and liability on gun manufacturers. And this one, in which the multitude of problems with the Iran deal are outlined, not least of which being the transfer of ‘billions’ to Iran to ‘enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region,’ thereby making it, as per Trump, one of the worst deals ever signed indeed.
As I said earlier, most of this merely confirms a lot of what we already knew about Clinton. She’s a stereotype of a power hungry politician who will sell herself to the highest bidder as long as she is installed in a position of power. The end results of her actions are of little consequence.
The other leak which dropped yesterday, by the Washington Post, was of a video of Donald Trump talking on a hot mic with Billy Bush before an Access Hollywood appearance, all the way back in 2005. This is making waves because in it, Trump is describing an encounter he had with a married woman, in a crude manner. Here is a transcript of what was said:

“I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,”

 

“Whoa,” another voice said.

 

“I did try and f— her. She was married,” Trump says.

 

Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

 

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

 

At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.

 

“Your girl’s hot as s—, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

 

“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

 

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

 

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

 

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

 

“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

This led to outrage in the media. Various Republicans followed Paul Ryans lead in decrying Trump’s comments as the worst thing to ever have happened to mankind:

Paul Ryan statement

The media giddily suggested that the GOP camp was internally turning on Trump to the point where his withdrawal from the race was imminent. #NeverTrump acolytes celebrated on Twitter and other social media, sensing their finest hour might be upon them.

All because Trump confirmed to the world, in a rather blunt manner that he is indeed a heterosexual man who desires beautiful women.

Trump’s comments were indeed crude. They were not comments one would make in front of female relatives, or perhaps any female at all. They are, however, comments which are similar to those that have been made in that sort of context (amongst the fellas) by 99.9% of all heterosexual men over the age of 15 or so, in all of human history.

The outrage over this is thus disingenuous at the very least, on multiple levels.

For a start, the outrage flame is being fanned by those on the left, women of the feminist bent, and the weak willed men of the GOP establishment persuasion. This coalition outright promotes (in the case of leftists and feminists) or meekly allows(in the case of the GOPe) acceptance of any and all forms sexual deviancy, right up to and potentially including pedophilia. They’ve never heard of an ‘open marriage’ or ‘modern family’ arrangement they didn’t like.

Yet when Donald Trump speaks crudely of pursuing a woman, in a private conversation, all of a sudden these people reach into their trash cans, rummaging through the waste to find their Bibles and crosses, brush off the slime and start waving them around madly. Spare me.

Furthermore, these are the same people who praise female pornography series like 50 Shades of Grey, and made it one of the highest selling books of all time and a commercial success. This is mostly because of, and not in spite of its depictions of Christian Grey as a dominant billionaire who imposes his will on women sexually. These books are rife with intricate descriptions of rough sex and male dominance in the bedroom.

Given what we know about Trump already, and in light of this new release, what is Trump, if not an aged, real life version of Christian Grey? Despite their protestations, some women will take very well to this confirmation that Trump behaves as Grey does. There is evidence they already do, if this smattering of tweets is anything to go by:

trump fantasies

This saga has only shown what we already knew to be true about playboys, beautiful women, and fame. So again, spare me.

The legions of people in the media and politics attempting to position themselves as holier-than-thou paragons of virtue over this is, to use Paul Ryan’s terminology, sickening. In shaming what is essentially normal heterosexual male behavior in which they themselves have likely engaged in at some point in their lives, they are further cementing themselves as nothing more than weak virtue-signallers.

And in that context, the wider scope of the Trump Tape outrage is juxtaposed with the findings in the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks.

We have become a society which has devolved into being obsessed with being on The Right Side of History, with this ‘right side’ defined solely by Cultural Marxists and their ideals. Even supposed ‘conservatives’ strain themselves to adhere to this ‘right side.’

This desire to be seen as a Good Person, in the context of this election, means that one must ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most corrupt individual ever to seek the Presidency, to ignore the fact that her tenure as Secretary of State was replete with failure, criminal mishandling of state secrets, and unending war in the Middle East. One must ignore the fact that her agenda explicitly seeks to erase the identity of the United States through her antagony toward the Second Amendment, literal erasure of its borders and introduction of immigrants she knows to be potentially dangerous. One must ignore that she is firmly in the camp that wants WW3 with Russia, which indeed is depressingly close, and would be all but confirmed with her election.

We must ignore this all, confirming ourselves as Good People, because Donald Trump made some off color remarks about a beautiful woman he tried to bed 11 years ago. We must ignore it all because Donald Trump may or may not have called a woman ‘Miss Piggy’ nearly 20 years ago. We must ignore it all because Donald Trump took a $900 million loss in 1995 and may have not have had to pay taxes in the years after, because the law says you don’t have to pay taxes on a loss until you make it back all the way.

This, from a ‘modern’ culture which fancies itself to be the most progressive, tolerant, and intelligent people who have ever lived.

One of the reasons I think this is the most important election of our time is the fact that it is essentially a Referendum on Virtue-Signalling, amongst other things. If the United States willingly chooses war, soulless globalism and the eradication of its traditional culture simply because Donald Trump is a bit boorish, we’ll have all the confirmation we need of the abject stupidity of crowds, and their susceptibility to succumbing to the contemptible ‘gotcha!’ and smear politics which has dominated campaigns for decades. This highlights the ultimate failure of pure one citizen, one vote democracies.

Of course, Franklin warned us about keeping the Republic centuries ago, but it’s the Current Year now. Nothing those BadPeople of yesteryear thought or said is of any consequence. Our generation’s current stance in history is that of the proverbial 20 year old kid who knows everything, until he reaches 25 and realizes he doesn’t.

I suppose that means we’ll reach this stage of true enlightenment at some point, just further in the future. It’s just a shame that we’ll have to incur unnecessary damage, hardship and wasted time to get there. (You can strike all of this, maybe, if Trump manages to pull himself out of this).

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Volume 4 – The Larger Importance of the Machado Saga

Donald Trump further addressed the Alicia Machado saga yesterday with a series of early morning tweets on the matter:

The conventional political wisdom is that Trump stepped in a well laid trap that Hillary Clinton set for him. What he should have done was largely ignored the situation, maybe dealing with it in one abrupt sentence and then pivoting to something else. I think that this is a special case for a few reasons.

First, recall that it was Hillary Clinton who introduced Alicia Machado into the public conscience at the debate:

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has been more an anti Trump plea than a pro Hillary one. The vast majority of her case has been ‘vote for Clinton because Trump is a sexist bigot.’ The use of Machado in this manner is entirely to buttress that argument. Machado is to be the smoking gun that proves Trump is a sexist, and thus Trump is disqualified.

Yes, in reality this IS side issue. But since Clinton has made such side issues central to her argument, it was necessary for Trump to address it, in my view. Had he let it slide, Clinton would have been able to parade Machado out constantly over the next month or so in an effort to influence the public with her sob story.

Furthermore, Trump is 100% in the right on this issue. For a start, the claim that he called her ‘Miss Piggy’ and ‘Miss Housewife’ are totally unsubstantiated claims. It is only Machado who is pushing that story. The background to the whole thing as follows:

  • Trump owned the Miss Universe pageant, which Machado won in 1996, the year before Trump bought it.
  • Machado then proceeded to gain weight, about 50-60 pounds.
  • The sponsors, and Miss Universe wanted to fire her, because the weight gain was in violation of her contractual obligations 
  • Trump stepped in and saved Machado’s job, by giving her a chance to lose the weight.
  • Trump made a media spectacle about it, in which he joked about his own weight problems, while addressing the serious issue that faces us all in this regard. It is below:

That was it. Now, 20 years later, Clinton has put Machado forth as the star witness in the prosecution of Trump’s sexism.

The problem for Clinton is that the credibility of Machado has now become an issue, and rightly so if she is going to be cast in this role as star witness.

In 1998 Machado allegedly drove a getaway car from a murder scene in Venezuela. She then used her connections to drug dealers to allegedly threaten the life of the judge in the case. Less criminally, she appeared on a Spanish reality show and had sex on camera with another castmate – who was not Bobby Abreu, the baseball player she was engaged to at the time. She also had the child of a Mexican Drug Lord, who is an American citizen by virtue of being born here.

Machado also claimed that because of Trump, she developed an eating disorder that is still with her today. However, in this Washington Post article, she clearly describes her problems with eating before having won the competition, which means it was before she had even met Trump, who did not purchase the pageant until a year later:

“I was anorexic and bulimic, but almost all of us are,” Machado says without so much as a blink. “When I was preparing for Miss Universe, it was an obsession for me to not gain weight. By the time I won, I was actually recovering. But the year leading to it, I didn’t eat at all. And whatever I ate, I threw up. I weighed 116 pounds when I won. I was skeletal.”

In response to all of this being brought up, Machado had this to say in defense:

“He can say whatever he wants to say. I don’t care,” she emphatically stated. “You know, I have my past, of course. Everybody has a past, and I’m not a saint girl, but that is not the point now.”

 

“That moment in Venezuela was wrong, was another speculation about my life because I’m a really famous person in my country because I’m an actress there and in Mexico, too,” she continued. “And he can use whatever he wants to use. The point is, that happened 20 years ago.”

In short, Machado, an individual with a questionable past and shaky moral values, told a story which is uncorroborated, and then told a provable lie which goes to the heart of the very story she is trying to tell. Ye she is being treated like an ‘angel’ as Trump put it his tweet.

While it is true that everyone has a past, most people’s pasts don’t include being involved in murders and judge intimidation. Furthermore, we are actually supposed to absolve her from being involved with a murder and judge intimidation simply because it was 20 years ago. Yet, we are supposed to crucify Donald Trump for allegedly calling a woman fat…20 years ago.

It boggles the mind of anyone with the slightest bit of rationality, which explains why the mainstream media decided to go all in and bat for Clinton/Machado.

The NYT wrote the following about the allegation that Machado appeared in a sex tape:

Ms. Machado appeared in a risqué scene on a reality television show, but fact-checkers have discovered no sex tape.

I’ll allow Paul Joseph Watson to explain why this nonsense stretches credulity.

Even more hilariously, the mainstream media has dug up this video of Trump from 2000:

The video was part of a 2000 Playboy softcore film. This is seemingly the intro sequence or something, I’m not entirely sure. What it shows is Trump welcoming Playboy models to New York City by pouring champagne on a limousine on a public NYC street in broad daylight, everyone fully clothed. And this is being cited as evidence of Trump as an ‘adult film star.’ A Clinton spokesperson said this:

There’s been a lot of talk about sex tapes today, and in a strange turn of events, only one adult film has emerged today, and its star is Donald Trump.

In short:

Knowingly having sex on film which is to be publicly aired = not a sex tape

Pouring champagne on a limousine in a public street, fully clothed = adult film star

The Big Picture

I’ve painstakingly gone through these details to show what a bizarro, upside down clown world we currently live in. As long as you are a person with views outside the politically correct, establishment approved norms, you are subject to having this sort of treatment foisted upon you.

And this is the larger aspect of the Machado saga. The fact that these sort of nonsensical forays into identity politics are a staple of political campaigns is something that needs to be nipped in the bud. While other politicians of lesser fortitude would have allowed themselves to be bullied by these tactics, I commend Trump for standing up to ambushes like these, because at the end of the day they do nothing but insult the intelligence of the average person.

By virtue of Clinton dramatically introducing Machado to the world on a Presidential Debate sage in front of 100 million people, backed by a complicit media which had Machado puff pieces and TV interview spots at the ready, this was always intended to be a big campaign issue. The aim was to turn women away from Trump en masse. If Trump is able to successfully combat this pathetic mode of political attack, he might render it useless in the future, to the benefit of the political discourse of this country generally.

Beyond politics, tactics like this are meant to silence. In the context of who deserves to be president, whether Trump called a woman fat years ago has no relevance. Yet is being presented in order to push the narrative of ‘sexism,’ which in turn is a weapon wielded by leftists in order to silence dissent. In the current climate, all one has to do is utter the word ‘sexist’ or ‘bigot,’ and you win the argument by criminalizing the opposition. Trump exposing the media and Clinton engaging in this intellectually lazy behavior will benefit the country culturally.

That Clinton would even pull this sort of early ‘October Surprise,’ with such a terribly flawed case and terribly flawed ‘victim’ could smack of desperation. But beyond this, for it to work would require female voters to discount the list of women Clinton allegedly intimidated to stay silent about Bill Clinton’s mistreatment of them. It would require female voters to discount the incompetence shown in allowing 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, the corruption and cronyism alleged in the Cinton Foundation and Wall Street speeches, which allowed the Clintons to go from ‘dead broke’ to having a net worth in the hundreds of millions. Female voters would have to discount the incompetence and/or outright criminality involved in deleting emails from a private server which held classified government information, her complicity in thrusting the United States in to foreign war after foreign war costing thousands of lives and creating chaos in the Middle East and an unprecedented migrant crisis, all while accepting money from countries with atrocious records with respect to the treatment of women. Female voters would have to side with a media establishment which blatantly covers for and aids Clinton in her bid for the presidency, because it’s ‘her turn.’

All because Trump may or may not have called a woman Miss Piggy 20 years ago.

 

 

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Volume 3 – The Colin Kaepernick Protest

Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the national anthem has been a hot topic of conversation of late, with everyone from news outlets, to political shows to sports shows having guests on to weigh in with their opinion. His rationale for the protest has been the following, in his words:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

This, combined with his decision to wear the following socks, depicting police officers as pigs, suggests that his main concern has been the treatment of black Americans by police officers.

0901-colin-kaepernick-socks-getty-zoom-3

I respect Kaepernick’s right to engage in protest of the flag, and the national anthem. Indeed, the very flag and national anthem is what confers upon him that right. Much of the discussion I’ve seen on the subject has centered around whether Kaepernick’s protest was done in the right way, whether it was wise of him to use NFL games as his platform, and things of that nature.

All of this assumes that his protest is legitimate in the first place. I contend it isn’t. Consider the following passage, taken from this recent article in the Washington Post addressing the subject of the racial distribution of police shootings:

In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).

 

But as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.

 

According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.

 

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

Passages such as this are used to buttress the point that people like Kaepernick are making with respect to police brutality. The problem with this analysis, which compares the numbers of fatalities to population, is that it assumes that each segment of the population commits crimes at the same rate. This isn’t true. From the Post article:

Because detailed FBI data on crime can lag by several years, the most-cited statistics on this point refer to 2009 data. According to that data, out of all violent crimes in which someone was charged, black Americans were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the country’s 75 biggest counties — despite the fact that black Americans made up just 15 percent of the population in those places.

The following table shows the distributions of violent crimes by race, both of the offender and perpetrator, from 2012-2013, with homicides excluded:

ncfs-table

From that chart, and the Washington Post story, we can glean that black people commit more violent crimes than their 13% population share suggests they should. As a result, we should rationally expect that there will be more run ins with police, and thus more police shootings involving blacks.

Indeed, when comparing the police shootings by race to the violent crimes committed by race, which is the relevant comparison, the distributions match up relatively well.

From the Washington Post quote earlier, from Jan 2015 to July of 2016, 49% of police shootings involved whites, who according to the Bureau of Justice stats from 2012, commit 42% of violent crimes.

24% of police shootings involved blacks, who commit 22% of violent crimes.

27% of police shootings involve the rest of the races, or unknown, a group which according to the Bureau of Justice commits 35% of violent crime.

If anyone should feel aggrieved, its whites, who are shot by police at a higher rate than they commit violent crimes, excluding homicide. Yet that isn’t the narrative.

The Washington Post tries to temper analysis such as that by claiming the crime level in a particular community doesn’t affect the rate at which police kill, and by stressing the fact that unarmed blacks are killed at a greater rate to whites:

Despite these arguments, police reform advocates and researchers as well at The Post’s own analysis has consistently concluded that there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers.

 

A 2015 study by a University of California at Davis researcher concluded there was “no relationship” between crime rates by race and racial bias in police killings.

 

….

In a report covering 2015 data, Campaign Zero compared violent crime rates of 50 major cities to the rate at which police officers killed people, concluding that there was no correlation.

 

As part of its data effort, The Post tracks the “threat level” of each person who is shot and killed by a police officer: Were they shooting at the officer? Were they threatening the officer? Were they fleeing?

 

Overall, the majority of the people who have been shot and killed by police officers in 2015 and 2016 were, based on publicly available evidence, armed with a weapon and attempting to attack the officer or someone else.

 

But an independent analysis of The Post’s data conducted by a team of criminal-justice researchers concluded that, when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are no more likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.

 

[Study finds police fatally shoot unarmed black men at disproportionate rates] 

The study also sought to answer whether officers were more likely to shoot and kill someone who is unarmed if the shooting happened to occur in a high-crime area. They concluded that is not the case.

 

“The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black,” said Justin Nix, a criminal-justice researcher at the University of Louisville and one of the report’s authors, said in April. “Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”

 

“This just bolsters our confidence that there is some sort of implicit bias going on,” Nix said. “Officers are perceiving a greater threat when encountered by unarmed black citizens.”

Regarding the point about there being no correlation between high crime areas and police shootings, that might be true, but it doesn’t show that there is any bias involved in either direction.

As for the unarmed argument, it is riddled with holes. Blacks may be more likely to be ‘unarmed’ when shot by police, but that is hardly the full story. Heather Mac Donald details this in a piece she wrote back in February:

In August of 2015 the Post zeroed in on unarmed black men, who the paper said were seven times more likely than unarmed white men to die by police gunfire. The article noted that 24 of the 60 “unarmed” deaths up to that date — some 40 percent — were of black men, helping to explain “why outrage continues to simmer a year after Ferguson.

 

 

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. It is worth looking at the specific cases included in the Post’s unarmed victim classification in some detail, since that category is the most politically explosive. The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

Mac Donald further lists several examples of various incidents in which the perpetrator was literally unarmed, but still posing a threat to the officer in various ways. Perpetrators attacking with their fists, using the officer’s own equipment, or a car were considered unarmed. Innocent victims who may have been caught in crossfire of a police shootout are also included among the unarmed figure. The fact that blacks are more likely to resist arrest or engage in a confrontational manner is why the figures of unarmed black shootings are disproportionately higher.

And what of ‘Driving While Black?’

This was a common refrain uttered after Sandra Bland’s death last year. This goes to the notion that while perhaps police treat all suspects in a similar manner after the interaction has been initiated, there is bias in the choice of police to interact with the population.

In other words, police racial profiling is a big issue. Vox said as much in an article on the subject, stating that black people were more likely to be stopped than whites.

We also know that black drivers are more likely to be stopped by US police. In 2013, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that about 12.8 percent of black drivers reported being pulled over in 2011, while about 9.8 percent of white drivers and 10.4 percent of Hispanic drivers did.

That statement means nothing by itself. It could be, for example, that there are more repeat offenders in the 9.8% of whites who got pulled over, which wouldn’t necessarily mean there was a bias in police stops.

The very study that Vox links to has the following chart, which is more relevant to the point at hand:

contact-with-police

The relevant column is the second column, which shows that whites made up roughly 65% of street stops, and 69% of traffic stops. Blacks made up 12% of street stops and 14% of traffic stops. Hispanics made up 15% of street stops and 12% of traffic stops.

The population distribution of each group is, according to 2010 census data the following: 63.7% white, 12.2% black, 16.3% Hispanic. In short, there is little to no bias shown by police in stopping people. Vox must have missed this chart in the report they cited.

All in all,  there is nothing that shows that there is some sort of bias shown by police officers against blacks which necessitates outrage, let alone public protests from the likes of Colin Kaepernick.

The bottom line is that if you want to avoid being killed by police, you would do well to first avoid committing a crime. Failing that, or perhaps if you find yourself involved in a police stop despite not having committed a crime, avoid confrontational attitudes with the officer, do not resist arrest if it comes to that, and do not try to fight the officer or grab any foreign object in an attempt to injure the officer.

Follow that, and your chances of not becoming another statistic are quite high.

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings: Volume 2 – Michelle Fields vs Corey Lewandowski

The press is to have an adversarial, yet civil approach to those in, or running, for elected office. Never in this line of work is it acceptable to respond to reasonable and legitimate questioning with use of physical force. The photographs, audio, videos, and witness accounts documenting the treatment of Michelle Fields by Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, are inexcusable and unprofessional. Donald Trump should immediately remove Lewandowski from his campaign. However unlike the Trump campaign, we believe in making a statement on the record to clearly highlight the difference between right and wrong.

The above quote was from a press release signed by 16 conservative females in response to the developments surrounding an incident which took place between Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, and Michelle Fields, a reporter. The full letter is below:

medialetter

By now this incident has been discussed to death, mostly because it is a Trump mishap. If you’ll notice, the vast majority, if not all of the signatories are anti Trump pundits, and as such, this sort of story is heaven sent. It seemingly allows them to further push the idea that Trump is a woman hating Neanderthal who is dangerous and bad. It also seemingly gives credence to the idea that there is a specter of violence surrounding the Trump campaign, which does not bode well for the country as a whole should he be elected president.

This allowed the other candidates to gain cheap points by pandering to women. Given the other candidates all have an interest in any anti-Trump talking point, they were all more than happy to pile on with the outrage. The story hasn’t completely died, because of the way Trump has responded.

Instead of immediately firing Lewandowski, who has been charged with battery over the incident, Trump went on the offensive and has defended his campaign manager at almost every turn. That continued last night on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox.

That appearance led to even more outrage from the anti-Trump crowd still pushing this story, and Fields in particular. In the following exchange with Hannity on Twitter, she accuses him of not having her back and letting Trump off scot-free:

Capture.PNG1

The Reality

Just in case you still haven’t seen the incident, and aren’t sure what I’m talking about, the following is security footage released by the Jupiter, Florida police department.

If you’re not sure what you’re looking at, at the start of the video Fields is in the cream colored top walking next to Trump, attempting to ask him a question. From about 0:03 to 0:08 in the video is where the alleged battery takes place.

Shortly after the conference had ended, Fields penned this piece for Breitbart, describing her version of events (emphasis mine):

On Tuesday night, I went to cover Donald Trump’s press conference at the Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida. I was looking to cover the event like I have covered many live political events for Breitbart News, including an uneventful Trump press conference in Palm Beach the week before. 

 

Addressing the gathered reporters and the nation at large, Trump was in an especially jovial mood Tuesday night. The networks just declared he had won the Mississippi Republican primary and, during his speech, that he won Michigan Republican primary as well.

 

 

I wasn’t called upon to ask a question during the televised press conference, but afterwards Trump wandered around, stopping at every reporter to take their questions. When he approached me, I asked him about his view on an aspect of affirmative action. 

 

Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.

 

 

The Washington Post’s Ben Terris immediately remarked that it was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who aggressively tried to pull me to the ground. I quickly turned around and saw Lewandowski and Trump exiting the building together. No apology. No explanation for why he did this.  


 

Even if Trump was done taking questions, Lewandowski would be out of line. Campaign managers aren’t supposed to try to forcefully throw reporters to the ground, no matter the circumstance. But what made this especially jarring is that there was no hint Trump was done taking questions. No one was pushing him to get away. He seemed to have been happily answering queries from my fellow reporters just a moment before.  

 

Many people have been asking me on Twitter and in emails what exactly happened Tuesday night. I hope this article answers those questions and I can get back to reporting the news, not being a part of it. 

Lewandowski responded via this tweet:

Capture.PNG2

This is what kicked everything off, as Lewandowski essentially called Fields a liar and claimed to have never touched Fields. At time, Trump responded to a question about the incident by saying that Fields may have made the whole thing up. Note that at the time of Fields’ account on Breitbart, and Lewandowski’s tweet, there was no video.

Once the video came out, the knives came out for Lewandowski and Trump for claiming the incident never happened, and in particular over their language intimating that Fields was a crazy lady making things up.

The position that the Trump team have been lying and smearing Fields is on weak grounds, however. This is because of the discrepancy between the video evidence, and what I have highlighted in Fields’ statement. Any rational human being can see in the video that Lewandowski did not try and forcefully throw Fields to the ground. She did not almost lose her balance, she did not seem shaken, there was not any element of violence from Lewandowski.

It was that accusation, specifically Fields’ insistence in Breitbart that she had been brutally assaulted Mortal Kombat style, which was so thoroughly denounced by Lewandowski and Trump. 

Yes, Lewandowski did literally touch Fields. However, he was responding to allegations that he had violently thrown a reporter to the ground. Imagine that, for example, you were walking in a crowd and bumped into a random person, but kept going without apologizing. Then, two days later, the police came to your house and said that you punched that person in the face, leaving that person hospitalized, and were now under arrest.

Most people would be totally incredulous, and claim that the accuser was deluded. Given that bumping into someone in a crowd is such an inconsequential thing that it wouldn’t register in one’s memory, it is easy to see how one would say they didn’t even touch the accuser, let alone landed a blow worthy of hospitalization.

To be sure, Lewandowski was completely guilty of being impolite, rude, and perhaps even unprofessional. However, anyone who has ever been in a crowded public space has been subject to that sort of behavior and worse from others. I’m sure this morning alone, hundreds if not thousands have undergone similar ‘assaults’ in the NYC subways on the way to work.

As such Lewandowski (and Trump) both suggesting that Fields was a bit deluded isn’t an egregious thing, because the truth is that she did grossly embellish what happened. The fact that we even have the video above is because Trump’s security reviewed it and gave to the police voluntarily, in order to absolve Lewandowski. The Trump team correctly came to the conclusion that the whole thing was much ado about nothing, and figured that the video would show that.

Instead, the response was the week long media storm that I previously alluded to. It has been driven by the #NeverTrump movement in conjunction with the usual suspects in the liberal and conservative establishment media. What is more interesting than that however, is the calls for Trump to fire Lewandowski, and his refusal to acquiesce. It is a microcosm of a larger issue that plagues our society.

We are now living in a society in which allegations and accusations are more or less equal to convictions. This is most prevalent in sexual assault cases, where the accused male is dragged through the mud for simply being accused. If the individual is high profile enough, he generally has to resign, endorsements are withdrawn, and so forth. Whether the accused is actually guilty or not is of little consequence.

In other words, the truth is of little consequence when it comes to the feelings of the Social Justice Warrior outrage mob. This episode is particularly interesting given the fact that the 16 signatories of the letter asking for Lewandowski’s dismissal are purportedly conservative, and have railed against some of the tactics of Social Justice Warriors in the past.

Yet, they are now happy to employ those same tactics when the subject is Donald Trump. That belies an inconsistency within the mainstream, establishment faction of the GOP which is at the very heart of its current demise, and simultaneous rise of Donald Trump.

This is exactly why the GOP establishment is out of touch with everyday Americans. They see a video like the one above, and see a man being extremely rude. Most people brush it off a few seconds later. So, when they see that police charges, and calls for being fired, all over the same incident, they scratch their heads. Not because they are wondering what they could have missed, but because they are wondering how one can be so disingenuous one can be in attacking a rival.

My advice to the #NeverTrump crowd is to let this one go. The more the public sees of this incident, the more they will come to the conclusion that the media is dishonest, and that Trump is right. Trying to convince people not to believe what their lying eyes tell them is only going to make them stop and think. They will wonder why everyone from all corners of politics, and the big interests are going to such lengths to denounce Trump, and they will come to the conclusion that the man who everyone is slinging mud at  is actually favorable to the mudslingers, when it is clear they are dishonest.

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Volume 1 – Novak Djokovic

Novak Djokovic got himself in some hot water with the cultural intelligentsia this week for making some comments related to the subject of equal pay in tennis. He was asked to respond to the remarks made by Indian Wells tournament director and CEO Raymond Moore last Sunday about women’s tennis:

Moore said before the finals that the WTA ‘rides on the coattails’ of the men, and ‘If I was a lady player, I’d go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. They really have.’

In response to a question about Moore, Djokovic engaged in the following exchange:

afaead

afaeadfad

 

Feelings

 

This led to a spate of outrage from the usual suspects over the fact Djokovic did not perfectly conform to the company line when it came to equal pay, and thus was branded a sexist by many outlets. Some of the juiciest cuts of cantankerous complaining were served by Kevin Mitchell of The Guardian, who lamented the fact that while Djokovic has an ‘all-embracing cosmopolitan awareness of issues beyond his own sport,’ he also ‘has a beast button.’

Mitchell struggles with his thoughts throughout the remainder of the piece, seemingly saddened that such a great tennis player could succumb to such ‘disturbing’ points of view. He then pivots to worrying about tennis, sport, and society as a whole, wondering how much sexism there still is in society.

This concern over the wider implication of Djokovic and Moore’s words was a constant in most of the write-ups around the internet. There was an underlying fear that a top player such as Djokovic could even be capable of having such backward thinking in 2016, and the surfacing of that fact potentially threatens the work that women in sport have done to achieve equality.

The bottom line: Women should be paid exactly the same as men without question. To think otherwise in 2016 is absolutely absurd.

 

The Reality

 

Out of all of the hot takes I read on the matter, only Tom Fordyce at the BBC even attempted to address the substance of Djokovic’s point, daring to look at the actual data instead of instantly dismissing Djokovic as some sort of cretin from the 1940s like everyone else did. Despite the evidence going against his prejudice, Fordyce to his credit posted it, although he tried hard to explain why the data doesn’t mean what it says on the surface.

tennis1

Fordyce doesn’t believe that the fact that the men drew nearly 600 million more viewers than the women did last year should mean that the men should automatically get paid more. He writes:

That, at best, is only a selective argument. Most tennis fans describe themselves as exactly that – lovers of the game, rather than one tour above the other, with the usual partiality for a particular player more likely to be based around their character and on-court style rather than gender.

It is also only selectively true. As Serena pointed out after her final in California: “Last year the women’s final at the US Open sold out well before the men.”

Most articles on the subject were quick to point out that US Open Women’s final from 2015, which sold out in hours, much faster than the men’s did.

This is explained easily, as the US Open final was likely going to be a historic match. Serena Williams had won the previous three grand slams of 2015, and was heavily favored to do so at the US Open, making her the first player to do so in 27 years. Given that she is also an American, her completing that feat on American soil, while also embroiled in a quest to be the most decorated grand slam player of all time, that final was set to be a once in a lifetime event. It’s no wonder that tickets sold out instantly.

To be sure, when Williams lost in the semifinal, ticket prices for the final on StubHub plummeted between 40% and 75% within minutes. The interest was in Williams creating history, not in women’s tennis in general.

That raises an interesting line of reasoning to traverse. Ultimately, the interest in tennis is what generates revenue, largely via television deals. Given the aforementioned increased viewership for men’s tennis versus women’s tennis, it should follow that the TV deals reflect that. Fordyce mentions this, writing:

Men’s tennis already earns far more from broadcasting rights than the women’s game. The latest WTA media deal is worth £365m over 10 years; Stuart Watts, CEO of ATP Media, is forecasting £904m revenues over same period.

The men’s tour draws more eyeballs, which in turn equates to more advertising, ticket and television revenue, which in turn means higher prize money for the men. There is nothing wrong with this.

tennis2

An important detail to point out is that there are mens-only and womens-only tournaments outside of the majors. It is here where the disparity in pay really shows itself. In the major events, pay is more or less equal as a rule, not based on the interest garnered.

Some have claimed this is understandable, given the two tours are mashed together in one setting. The biggest individual personalities, male or female, draw the biggest crowds. There are periods in tennis in which there are more star names on the men’s side than the women’s side and vice versa. There is an argument to be made, then, that in those years in which the women draw more viewers, and thus more revenue, they should command a higher prize pool to reflect that.

In fact, Djokovic was literally asked this in the original exchange, and clearly said that if female players attract more attention, they should be paid more than the men. Yet his unambiguous consistency in this regard, the complete opposite of sexism, was deemed disturbing and evidence of the ‘beast’ within.

When including all of the tournaments, men earn more in prize money because they entertain more eyeballs. Fordyce tries to explain this away, as many do, by saying that it is because of a bias in marketing, and a cultural preference for male sport:

It reflects too a historical cultural predisposition to male sport, the way sports broadcasting is frequently marketed at a predominantly male demographic, how the rest of the mainstream media devotes so much more coverage to men’s sport than women’s and so influences demand.

If only marketers were even-handed in their efforts, the argument goes, people would flock to women’s sports more. The simple truth is that the men offer the better product. That is, men are on the whole better at tennis than women.

In 1998, both Serena and Venus Williams were convinced that they could beat any male player outside of the top 200 in the men’s rankings. Note, already off the bat, they themselves estimate that their vastly superior, all-time great talent in the female game only translated to the equivalent of 200th at best in the men’s game.

They were given an opportunity in the shape of Karsten Braasch, who was ranked 203rd at the time. Preparing for the match with a round of golf and a few beers, he quickly dispatched of both sisters, beating them over two sets while only losing 3 games. The thorough beating led to the sisters calibrating their claims, to perhaps only being able to challenge men outside of the top 350.

This phenomenon has been seen in other sports as well. The US Women’s soccer team, another team who many have highlighted as being injusticed compared to the men despite generating less revenue, regularly lose friendly matches to teams made up of above average 15 and 16 year old boys. These boys are in no way elite on the global stage within their own age group, let alone amongst older players. Yet they have no issue besting the best female players in the world.

The reality is that people flock to the better of two products when both are on offer. The men’s game is better than the women’s, which fully explains the higher draws to the former. I’ve seen remarks in comment sections that this matter could be settled once and for all by not segregating men and women, just having one tournament which all professional tennis players can enter.

This would be disastrous for female players. The current set up for majors for example, is a men’s tournament of the top 32 players, and a women’s tournament of top 32 players. A combined event of the top 64 players would simply be the top 64 men, given the most dominant female player perhaps of all time can’t last with a marginal men’s player.

For the record, I enjoy watching the Williams sisters, Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka and other top women, but the only reason they are afforded the opportunity to earn millions in prize money and endorsements is because of the very recognition of gender differences that some all of a sudden pretend is sexist when it comes to equal pay.

In other words, by segregating men’s and women’s professional tennis, the women are benefited by not being judged to the same exact standard as men are. And this is correct, because men and women are fundamentally different physically. This fundamental difference affects how each gender plays the game, and in turn how much they can draw in terms of revenue. Such realities will never be changed on the basis of baying about equality. Reality always comes out on top.

Speaking of Sharapova, Fordyce points out another inequity – the difference between Sharapova and Williams’ endorsements:

If there is an argument about who is paid what in tennis, it might more profitably be focused on the more jarring incongruities – how Maria Sharapova, who has won a grand total of one set in her past 14 matches against Serena, could nonetheless have yearly earnings that dwarf those of the 21-time Grand Slam singles winner.

In light of Sharapova’s impending drugs ban, those endorsements will surely diminish. However, the disparity in endorsements between Williams and Sharapova is painstakingly obvious to those who deal in reality, versus being caught up in feelings. Observe the following image:

176283

Sharapova endorses products such as Porsche, Avon, Tag Heuer, and Tiffany & Co. In other words, high end glamour products. Her body type, which is far more feminine than Serena’s, is more conducive to such advertisements, given they heavily rely on image and visual cues. There’s no other reason for it, and it is totally appropriate.

Serena’s unquestionably superior CV doesn’t matter a jot in this instance. You’re buying into an image with respect to these products, not a track record.

In the end, Fordyce points out that sport is one of the few industries which is a true meritocracy. He is right, and that is why at the end of the day, Djokovic is right as well. Whoever draws the biggest crowd should be paid according to that revenue which is garnered. His comments were not sexist, and his subsequent apology tour as a result is unnecessary.

That backtracking is telling, however. Djokovic likely still feels the way he felt in his original comments, but owing to the climate in which he works, standing by them might mean calls for a boycott, pressures on sponsors, and strained endorsement partnerships. His livelihood could be threatened by such overt deviations from the politically correct narrative.

This highlights the fact that the current outrage culture is more controlling and oppressive than anything that came from Djokovic’s mouth last Sunday. The fact that the direction of this oppression is towards the shunning of reality is what should cause worry, not the reality itself.