Why I’m not jumping on the “Anti-Islam” bandwagon

For those who are interested, there is a map detailing all of the mass shootings from 1982-2016 (including the June 12 incident).  It can be found here.

On June 12, 2016 the United States of America saw the worst mass shooting in recent history.  I’m specifying recent history due to the fact that the US has seen far worse during the Native American genocide, but that was in the past, yo!  And let’s not even get started on what we did to the African Americans in 1917 (100+ killed), 1921 (55-300 killed), or 1932 (dozens).  We can’t be blamed for what our ancestors did!

We just get to blame everybody else for what  their ancestors did!

Ok, back on track.  The shooting occured in Orlando, Florida around 2am, leaving 49 people plus the shooter dead and over 50 wounded.  News agencies were quick to point out the shooter’s Muslim background and the fact that he had called 911 during the shooting to pledge his allegiance to ISIS.  Everyone seemed ready to jump on the terrorist bandwagon and begin attacking Islam once again.

News came out later in the day that a man in California was captured carrying several weapons and materials to make a pipe bomb.  For some reason, the news has yet to refer to this guy as a terrorist or even a potential terrorist. The man, James Howell, had the same intent as the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, yet only Omar is being referred to repeatedly as a terrorist.  In fact, there isn’t a single article I can find that mentions James’ religious affiliation.

Is it because Omar made that 911 call?  Is it because he has made comments about pledging to other Islamic terrorist groups (all of whom hate each other)?  Or could it possibly be that people are needing yet another excuse to find a group of people to turn their hatred towards?

Remember, James Howell was white.  We can’t go and call our lovely white men terrorists!  Only brown people can be terrorists! Just look at the Planned Parenthood shooter, or the Aurora, Colorado shooter and tell me how quickly the media jumped to calling them terrorists.

Oh that’s right, they only did it on a few select outlets (mostly left leaning and feminist outlets) and those outlets were bashed for calling these men terrorists.

When it came to the Planned Parenthood shooter and to James, the news media was quick to point out that the police were trying to find a motive for the shooting.  Just make sure you ignore the fact that both men actually told police why they were doing what they were doing. In the case of Omar?


If you were someone like myself who tried to point out that there were other causes for what he did, or that he is in the minority for people committing mass shootings and therefore trying to place all the blame on one topic was absurd, you got a rather large wave of backlash for your comments.  At one point I was forced to mute people because they were so dead set on having Islam be the scapegoat for this latest massacre that anything and everything I said fell on deaf ears (or would it be blind eyes since it was written?).

Even if it is the case that we can place the blame on religion in this shooting, how then are we to explain all the other mass shootings?  Remember that the US is home to nearly a third of the worlds mass shootings when we look at the time period of 1966 to 2012. In fact, there are more mass shootings in the U.S. than any other country in the world.  They surveyed 292 incidents using the FBI’s definition of a mass shooting (four or more people killed), and found that 90 of them had occurred in the US.   The next country on the list, the Philippines, came in at 18. Let that sink in for a moment.

Let’s also let this sink in:

According to the Gun Violence Archive, which compiles data from shooting incidents, a “mass shooting” is any incident where four or more people are wounded or killed. That number can include any gunmen as well. By that definition, we’ve seen 136 mass shootings in the first 164 days of this year.

According to the Washington Post article “The Math of Mass Shootings”, data was examined in the worst cases (most deaths/injuries) from 1966 to 2016, and they received a total of 126 mass shootings that did not include gang violence, shootings that began as other crimes, or killings that involved only the shooter’s family.  They kept to a very specific set of guidelines which can be found in their article (linked below).

Let’s take a look at some of the data from these 126 events.  The specifications for these are a lone shooter (or two shooters in a few of the cases) who kills four or more people during the event.

  • There were a total of 869 victims
    • 144 of these were children or teenagers
  • Shooters brought on average four weapons to their shooting (244 guns total)
    • 140 were obtained legally
    • 39 were obtained illegally
  • There were 129 shooters
    • All but three were male
    • 72 of them died at or near the scene
      • Most often by suicide
  • Most of the incidents took place at either a school or a business

Add to this the fact that the US owns more guns per citizen than any other country with 88.8 guns per 100 people (Yemen is in second place), and the fact that of all of the shooting incidents the FBI reviewed between 2000 and 2013, only 5 of 160 incidents ended with an armed citizen taking down the shooter, it really brings to question the narratives of the good guy with a gun, or how if only we had more guns we would be safer.

But I’m getting off topic, back to the Islam blaming!

So we’ve got the data on the majority of the mass shootings that have taken place in the US from 1966 to the present, with numbers showing gang violence both included and excluded.  We’ve seen that of all of the mass shootings, only 3 of the shooters were female. So what about religion? That is what is being blamed for the Orlando incident, so let’s see if Islam is to blame for these mass shootings!

Just from perusing the news around the various shooters, such as the Planned Parenthood shooter, Robert Dear, one can see that unless the suspect is thought to be a Muslim, his religion or religious ties are either not called into question, or are just a footnote in the story.  We don’t see people going out and calling for the destruction of all Christians or how evil Christianity is (seriously, it’s a fucked up religion if you sit down and actually read the books). In fact, we see a lot of back peddling and attempts to push the shooter’s mental health as the cause of the shootings.

So then why such focus on Islam?

We constantly hear about “radical Islam” and how all Muslims need to be held accountable for the fringe minority who go out and commit heinous crimes.  We see people on social media practically screaming for the destruction of Islam or to label the religion as a religion of hatred and to have it banned.  Why aren’t we seeing people doing the same for “radical Christianity” or say…”radical Judaism”? Let us not forget that at least two pastors of the Christian faith have come out since the Orlando shooting not only praising the deaths of the victims, but saying that this should occur more often!  These CHRISTIAN pastors are calling for people to go out and kill LGBT+ individuals, or to have the government round up the LGBT+ community and have them all executed.

Hey, is anyone else feeling the urge to go, “You know who else wanted to do this sort of thing?  Hitler.”?

So um…where is the outcry for the destruction of Christianity?  Where is the outcry to have all Christians held accountable for the fringe minority?  Why isn’t the news media labeling every Christian shooter as a terrorist just like they do with any shooter who may or may not be Muslim?  Because we need someone to hate, and Islam is the perfect boogeyman to turn our hatred towards.

Just think about this quote from Kelly James Clark of the Brooks College and Kaufman Interfaith Institute:

For every non-Muslim shooting suspect, the media never mentioned their religion. Moreover, in nearly every case, it was claimed that the mass shooters were suffering from some sort of mental instability.

Of all the mass shootings to occur, less than 1% have been by Muslims, yet the second the media finds out they were or are a Muslim, that is all that is talked about.  The cause moves from anything else to ISLAM.  Islam is to blame.  Period. End of story.  In 2015, only one mass shooting out of the 207 that had occurred was by a Muslim.  From 1982 to the present, only four mass shootings have been committed by Muslims, and those Muslims are rarely devout followers.  Omar was known to drink heavily (something that is forbidden in Islam), was gay, and committed many acts that are expressly forbidden by his supposed faith.  The shooter in the Chattanooga shootings, Mohammad Abdul Azeez, was a known drug and alcohol abuser who had been ostracized by his family and friends, yet what was the one thing the news media looked at when it came to his crime?  That he was a Muslim. Suddenly he became a “devout Muslim” and that his attack was because of his religion. The media jumped on the terrorism bandwagon and went to town on the story.

Yet we don’t see that happening with Christian shooters.  We don’t see their religion being the sole reason for their shooting spree.  We instead go to the good old reasons of “mental health” and “gun culture”.

The hypocrisy is strong in this.

Could religion play a part in the reasoning behind a shooting?  Yes.

Could the person’s upbringing play a part in the reasons behind a shooting?  You bet your sweet ass it does.

Does the availability of guns play a part in these shootings?  FUCK TO THE HELL YES.

Does the person’s mental health play a part in the reasons behind a shooting?  “I’ll take self answering questions for $1,000, Alex”

So why then, are we only focusing on Omar’s supposed religious background for his motive?  We’ve got more than enough data spread out before us to show us that people with serious mental health problems are able to not only purchase, but own guns legally in the US ( See my video on this here), and yet we refuse to do anything about it.  We refuse to fix our failing mental health system in the US (which was practically dismantled in the 1980s instead of trying to fix it), we refuse to close loopholes that allow people who shouldn’t have guns to purchase them, and we refuse to even allow scientists to study gun violence!

You’ll hear excuses such as, “If we make laws against guns, only criminals will have guns!”  These are the same fucktards that think banning abortion will stop all abortions, let that sink in.

We refuse to fix the problems in front of us, instead focusing on some giant boogeyman for us to hate.  I’m pretty sure we all read the book 1984 in school, and I’m hoping that we remember that they had a daily event, known as the Two Minutes of Hate where people were expected to spend that time hating on certain figures of ideas.  The two minutes of hate was used to prime citizens with hatred for rival nations and ideas.



And yet, I’m the one who is attacked because I won’t jump on the “Hate Islam” bandwagon?  I can despise a religion all I want, but apparently unless I’m willing to turn this into a literal them vs us (Islam vs us), I’m an Islam apologist.

Because I want to look at the reasons behind the shootings instead of the buzzwords and the hate, I’m the bad guy.  Because I want us to focus on the data that shows the reasons behind the shootings, I’m burying my head in the sand.  Because I refuse to blame a religion that I dislike (like I dislike all organized religions) and refuse to fight to destroy it, I’m not worthy of being considered human.

If I were to point out that almost all of the shooters were white men, I would get crucified.

If I were to point out that almost all of the shooters had legal access to the guns they used, I would be slammed as anti-gun and wanting to take away people’s rights.

If I were to point out that the vast majority of the shooters were either non-religious or Christian, I would be told I’m hateful and bigoted.

Yet if I blame Islam and say we need to destroy it, I’m on the side of justice!

So why do I refuse to jump on the “Anti-Islam” bandwagon?  Simple.

LOGIC AND REASON are why I refuse to jump on the “Anti-Islam” bandwagon.

A Gianna Jessen Masterpost



Though a full investigation has never been conducted (to the best of my knowledge), I still believe that it can be demonstrated that Gianna Jessen has fabricated most or all of her story. The articles cited here are included at the end of this post in the bibliography.

1. The Timescale

The basic summary of her story is that she was born in a botched saline abortion attempt that her mother (henceforth referred to as “Tina”) sought at some point late in her pregnancy. I am using the phrase “at some point” because the exact time frame varies between versions. In 1991, when Jessen started her career, an article in The New York Times states that she was born at “almost 7 months,” which could be about 29 to 30 weeks. However, later articles, as well as the content of her own speech before Congress in 1996, inflate the gestational age even more, to 7.5 months (about 32 weeks) (Day; Jessen; Womack). One reports it to be 7 months (about 30 weeks) (Prismall). Meanwhile, another article from 2008, quoting a 1995 biography about her written by Jessica Shaver, puts the gestational age at 29.5 weeks, which is about 6 months (Henig). This raises one of many questions about Jessen’s story: Why is it that she cannot get her story straight about such a basic detail of her own birth, especially if she has the medical records to prove it as she claims?

While these differences may seem small at first, they are actually of major legal and medical importance. Saline abortions were still in use at the time of Jessen’s birth, but have since become extremely rare in the United States. They were traditionally used to end pregnancies in the second semester, between the ages of 16 and 24 weeks (“Instillation abortion”). Even with the generous estimate of 29.5 weeks, the date of Tina’s botched abortion is well out of this narrow window.

“But wait,” Jessen’s defenders cry. “Maybe the reason why the abortion was botched was because it was performed too late.” If true, the scenario this argument sets up is extremely unlikely as well for legal reasons. Jessen’s birth year (1977) occurred several years after Roe v. Wade (1973), which set the age of viability (and therefore restricted abortion) the start of the third trimester, or at 27 weeks. (“Pregnancy”; “Roe v. Wade”). Every single one of the purported gestational ages of Jessen’s birth still fall after this 27-week limit, and therefore are in the third trimester. Prior to Roe, California prohibited all abortions except in the cases of health risk, rape, incest, or a damaged fetus (Lokal_Profil). While Roe would have struck down this law for the first and second trimesters, it still would have been entirely enforceable in the third trimester. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that post-Roe Tina would have been able to procure an abortion in the third trimester without a serious medical reason, considering how late in the pregnancy the abortion took place.

At this point Jessen’s defenders could counter with the claim that Jessen’s mother was undergoing an abortion for her own health, or that she sought an abortion from a back-alley abortionist. While only Jessen and Tina know the truth, it is still possible to infer some conclusions from the known details of the story. Tina was apparently a 17-year-old single woman with an unwanted pregnancy, though why she suddenly wanted to end it so late in the pregnancy is unclear. However, Jessen reports that Tina is “sorry” about having had the abortion done (Lewin). She has also characterized her mother’s state of mind as selfish, complaining that she had to “bear the scars” of the decision that her mother thought was “only hers to make” (Womack; Elliott). Both of these details imply that Jessen considers Tina’s abortion not the result of necessity, but irresponsibility, a motif featured in many a pro-life fable.

As for the possibility of a back-alley abortionist, Jessen also claims to have had the birth certificate signed by the abortion doctor, along with a note that her birth was the result of the botched saline abortion (Elliott; Lewin). If this were true, the doctor would have probably been found out and shut down for administering the saline abortion at an inappropriate time in the pregnancy, and leading to the cerebral palsy of an infant.

It should be also be noted that Jessen’s medical records, including her birth certificate, are currently sealed and confidential. Her mother, “Tina,” has also not stepped forward to independently verify any of Jessen’s claims (though, to be honest, I wouldn’t blame her).

In addition to the confusion about the timeframe of Jessen’s birth, there is also conflicting information about when and how Jessen discovered the “truth” about her past. The 1991 Times article claims that she was told about her mother when she was 14, after drawing a connection between herself and the “fetuses in formaldehyde around the house.” Coincidentally, this is the same year she gave her presentation at a National Right to Life convention that sparked her speaking career (Lewin). But a 2005 article claims she realized it at the age of 12 because she wondered why she was different from other children at school (Day). It is possible that there is a version of events that reconciles these two different variations of the story, but I find the lack of a thorough, established timeline somewhat suspicious.

At this point, it should be becoming more and more clear that Jessen’s story has some serious gaping holes that have yet to be adequately explained with corroborating evidence. However, the issues do not end here.

2. Medical inaccuracies

The questionable aspects of Jessen’s story are made further evident from the lack of consistency between details of her testimony and scientific knowledge. A common pro-life claim regarding saline abortions, besides that they are common in the United States today, is that they chemically scald fetuses in cruel and disfiguring ways. Similarly, Jessen claims that the saline abortion “burned [her] alive” in the womb, going on to say that this event also gave her lasting fear of fire (Day; Prismall). The latter part of her claim should be obviously laughable to anyone with a bit of common sense, as no one retains memories from the time they were an infant, let alone from when they were a fetus. However, it is the former part of her claim (that the saline abortion burned her) that will be examined more closely.

If you’ve completed a high school chemistry course, you should know that a saline solution is formed when a salt is placed into a solvent (usually water), and the ions of that salt separate. For example, when sodium chloride (NaCl) is placed into a water solvent (H2O), it will dissolve into ions according to this formula:

    NaCl —> Na+ + Cl-
These ions then float around freely in the solution.

The resulting saline solution can occur at various concentrations. People routinely swim in 34.2% saline solutions with no ill effects (“Dead Sea”). They can even drink saltwater, and unless it is boiling hot, it will not burn their insides. However, they will feel nauseous due to the electrolytic imbalance induced by the sudden intake of Na+ and Cl- ions. Electrolytic balance is crucial for the function of many organs in organisms’ bodies, such as the heart. Remember this as you read and consider the following.

The saline solution mentioned above is also used in the kind of saline abortion that Tina supposedly underwent (though we should know at this point that this scenario is incredibly unlikely). First of all, the amniotic fluid the fetus floats in is already about 2% saline solution, and the fetus makes its own “contribution” by urinating into it (“The role of amniotic fluid”). However, it does not burn the fetus. The hypertonic saline solution is a 20% saline solution, injected into either the amniotic sac or the space between the amniotic sac and the uterus (not the fetus itself, as is often claimed). This is enough of an electrolytic disturbance to cause the fetus’ heart to fail, but it never burns the fetus or the delicate reproductive system of the pregnant person (“Abortion in the Twentieth Century”). The cervix is then dilated and the fetus extracted as in a normal birth. Again, I will repeat: At no point does the saline solution burn the fetus or the pregnant person. It doesn’t even have to.

In summary, Gianna Jessen’s story is medically inaccurate, legally improbable, and scientifically impossible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which Jessen has failed to provide.

3. What Really Happened?

To me, the medical inaccuracies are the strongest indicators that Jessen’s story is a willful deception. They rely on lies identical to those already repeated in pro-life publications, which Jessen was probably exposed to extensively as a child. (Her mother, Diana DePaul, was already involved in pro-life activism when she adopted Jessen.) Even if Jessen was brainwashed by DePaul, Jessen is 37 years old as of the time of this writing. I do not think she is as naive as a 12-year-old (or 14-year-old, depending on which story you prefer). In fact, I believe she is considerably intelligent and has the ability to critically examine what her mother has told her. But if she really does believe what she is saying, it’s the equivalent of a 37-year-old believing they were still delivered via stork. Jessen’s entire career as an “abortion survivor” and “disability rights advocate” is based on this story, so she has a clear interest in keeping it that way. Even if Jessen knew that her story was false, I would not expect her to recant it any time soon.

However, I think there is a needle of truth in the haystack of lies. It is possible, for example, that she did have a premature birth. As for her claims that she has cerebral palsy, I am not qualified to comment on that issue, but it is a known complication of premature births (“Premature births”). Babies born at 28 to 31 weeks have a very high chance of survival of about 96%, though babies with very low birth weights like Jessen are still at high risk of medical complications (“What’s the outlook”). It is not unreasonable to believe that Jessen was born premature somewhere between 29 to 32 weeks, and that she developed cerebral palsy as a result of complications. However, whatever truth there may be to Jessen’s story is swamped by the sheer number of fabrications tacked on to it. I am not convinced that either Jessen or her mother/manager, Diana DePaul, are being completely honest about Jessen’s past. Readers beware: do not let the pathetic fallacy Jessen employs deter you from examining her claims. While Jessen would have you believe that being pro-life is a prerequisite for feeling complete and proper sympathy for her plight, emotions are never a substitute for hard evidence and critical thinking.

Works Cited

“Abortion in the Twentieth Century.” Encyclopedia of Birth Control. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2001. 9-10. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://books.google.com/books?id=XuX-MGTZnJoC&dq>.

Day, Elizabeth. “Gianna Jessen was aborted at 7½ months. She survived. Astonishingly, she has forgiven her mother for trying to kill her.” The Telegraph 4 Dec. 2005 [London] . Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504652/Gianna-Jessen-was-aborted-at-7-months.-She-survived.-Astonishingly-she-has-forgiven-her-mother-for-trying-to-kill-her.html>.

“Dead Sea.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 3 May 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea>.

Elliott, Jane. “‘I survived an abortion attempt.’” BBC News 6 Dec. 2005 [London] . Web. 2 May 2014. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4500022.stm>.

Henig, Jess. “Factcheck.org: Abortion Ads Miss the Truth.” Newsweek 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.newsweek.com/factcheckorg-abortion-ads-miss-truth-89091>.

“Instillation abortion.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instillation_abortion>.

Jessen, Gianna. “Gianna Jessen.” The Abortion Survivors Network. Ed. Melissa Ohden. The Abortion Survivors Network, 22 Apr. 1996. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/gianna-jessen/>.

Lewin, Tamar. “In Debate on Abortion, 2 Girls Make It Real.” The New York Times 27 Oct. 1991. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/27/us/in-debate-on-abortion-2-girls-make-it-real.html>.

Lokal_Profil. “Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 12 Mar. 2007. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_abortion_laws_pre-1973.svg>.

“Pregnancy: The Three Trimesters.” USCF Medical Center. The Regents of the University of California, 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.ucsfhealth.org/conditions/pregnancy/trimesters.html>.

“Preterm birth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth>.

Prismall, Barry. “Abortion survivor joins debate.” The Age 31 Aug. 2008 [Melbourne] . Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.theage.com.au/national/abortion-survivor-joins-debate-20080830-4654.html>.

“Roe v. Wade.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade>.

“The role of amniotic fluid.” Penn Medicine. A.D.A.M., Inc., 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://www.pennmedicine.org/encyclopedia/em_DisplayAnimation.aspx?gcid=000130&ptid=17>.

“What’s the outlook for premature babies born before 28, 31, 33, or 36 weeks?” Baby Center. BabyCenter, L.L.C., 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. <http://www.babycenter.com/0_whats-the-outlook-for-premature-babies-born-before-28-31-33_10300031.bc>.

Womack, Sarah. “Churchmen back woman who survived being aborted.” The Telegraph 7 Dec. 2005. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504875/Churchmen-back-woman-who-survived-being-aborted.html>.

Dear Men’s Rights Activists

My name is Michea, (Look up the name…I am not missing an L like so many of you like to say) and I’m a 32 year old male. More than just that, I’m a transsexual male. Despite what you guys like to say, I am not transitioning to a male body because I desire a penis, nor am I “giving up and joining the winning team”.

I am also a feminist, and have been ever since I was in 11th grade. Why did I become a feminist then? Well, let me tell you a little story.

I have always enjoyed “male” sports, and that includes weight lifting. I am in fact a double state record holder in my age and weight class for RAW Power Lifting, but that’s just fluff for this story. In high school we were able to take a class in weight training, and I readily leapt on it. There was a bit of a nasty surprise for me though, in that while we had three weight classes, they had very interesting names. The lowest weight class was called the Wimps, the middle was the Stallions, and the third was the Studs. There was not a single female in the middle and top classes, we were all in the Wimps. Even when three of us (myself and two other female lifters) met and exceeded the criteria to move up to the next two classes, we were told we needed to remain in the Wimps, because that is where we belonged. The females in my opinion were treated as nothing but eye candy for the men, or as punching bags if we were heavy lifters when the coach wasn’t looking.

I got into several fights my junior year, and even had to go home with a concussion when a male classmate decided to hit me in the back of the head with a barbell.

The unfairness of the class, and being treated as less than a person got to me, and I began to research and learn about how it wasn’t just because I had a sexist teacher, but because society still viewed women as less than a person. It wasn’t just women that they viewed that way, but anyone who did not fit into the “regular” gender expectations also got shunned and treated like less than a person. I’d already learned about how biased courts were when it came to women reporting rape (and how the statistics for men reporting rape were near non-existent!) back when I was 12 and I’d decided to write a speech about the subject.

Over the years, I have never stopped calling myself a feminist, and I worked alongside the Men’s Movement (they call themselves Meninists) as well as the feminist movement to help women and men get equality in the world. I also worked with the LGBTQ movement, and during school I was an advocate for AIDs awareness and getting the truth out there.

It wasn’t until recently that I learned that the term feminist was being used as a bad word, and people were attacking those who called themselves that. I also learned of the Men’s Rights Movement…which was the polar opposite of the Men’s Movement. I was shocked at how mean, degrading, and nasty many of the MRM were, and when I came out as a transsexual man, I found myself on the attack end of several MRAs who felt I was trying to invade their territory. MRAs who only knew me through my male name, and didn’t know I was a trans, called me a White Knight, a pussy, a little bitch, you name it. I also found myself at the receiving end of the more radical side of the feminists, especially those who were exclusionary feminists. I was told that I was joining the enemy, and that I should no longer call myself a feminist. I lost friends on both sides, people who I learned were hard core MRAs, and people who are known as TERFs.  While I understand not all people who call themselves MRAs are total douche pickles, I so far have only met ONE who isn’t.

Will both extremes and how they act stop me from calling myself a feminist and working towards equality?

Not on your life!

My daughters deserve to live in a world where they are not objectified and judged by how the look, and they deserve to know that chivalry works both ways. Gender/sex plays no part in chivalry, you want people to be nice to you, you be nice to them.  We all need to work on fixing the problems for both genders, not sit there and point fingers at each other and scream it’s everyone else’s fault.

As for the MRAs who call me a White Knight, or any of those other terms…or say I’m only a feminist to get women. I have five words: I’M GAY AND I’M MARRIED. And my husband is also a feminist. Neither of us look ANYTHING like the descriptions provided on the MRA sites for what a male feminist looks like, and we see you for what you are.

Remember that.

Possible blurb for The Hidden Keys (title work in progress)

Being one of the top researchers in your field is never easy; but when your field is often lumped into the same category as hunting for Bigfoot or aliens building the pyramids, it gets that much harder. Not one to back down from the jeers of her fellow professors, Dr. Sigyn Lokasenna is dead set on proving her theories are more than the stuff of legend. When your field of choice is Occult Sciences, it’s not just a difficult task; it’s just that much easier for your rivals to not just discredit you…but to steal your work and claim it as their own.

When a giant jet black inverted pyramid mysteriously rises from the ground outside Mexico City, with jungle exploding all around it; Sigyn does what any “sane” archaeologist with something to prove would do. With a motley team of those least likely to be seen in the same room together, including an MIT engineering student who refuses to believe in the supernatural, a museum curator who has a fixation on the god Quetzalcoatl, and a business man who acts as if he’s Hugh Hefner’s younger brother; Sigyn sets out to unravel the mystery of the pyramid before her rival and fellow archaeologist, Dr. Moros Gipson, can get his hands on her work and take all the credit.