A feminist goes out of her way to get into yours:

A few days ago, I was having a bad morning: my train tickets were expensive, my train was delayed, and my coffee was cold. But I cheered myself up by playing a game on my commute. The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men…

Just when you thought there were enough jerks in public already, here comes another one.

The whole article* presents a bizarre look into the mind of the modern feminist.  All the jealousy, rage, and denial of personal responsibility that you would expect to see from self-aware cancer is on full display. The rationalization hamster runs at full speed. There is no thought of social-moral concepts like courtesy or rudeness, merely the welcome war of men versus women.  And men are bad, mmmmkay?

feminist

I’ll go around, thanks.

They also make fish faces:

Some men don’t walk straight into you, of course. Some men find their brains overridden by the unfamiliar experience of a woman refusing to give way. Last week, on a busy train platform, a man was so confused by my trajectory towards him that he stopped dead in front of me, holding eye contact, and flapped his mouth like a fish. You will find that a lot of men just… stop. It is up to you to decide how to react to this.

I imagine the fellow was rather surprised to step off a train, looking for the nearest loo, when he spots some angry tart marching straight at him with fire in her eyes. But if a lot of men stop, which is a nice way of saying yield, that sort of undercuts the argument that men “never, ever give way”, does it not?  A better explanation is that some people are unnecessarily rude, and lots of them are feminists.

But mostly, men just exist to take credit for Dr. Charlotte’s hard work and to make her not sound like a crazed harridan in her written communication:

(Yielding) is so ingrained that (women) don’t even think about it. We might stand up in meetings and make our point even when we know a man will take the credit; we might dutifully delete the exclamation marks from our emails so as not to undermine ourselves – but we will still step to the side.

If feminists did not have first world problems, they would have no problems at all. For all their clucking about privilege and socialization, it is interesting to note that they are only willing to play these passive-aggressive ego games in Western nations. She would never try this in Algiers or Beijing**.  I leave it to the reader to determine why that might be.

But there is a little irony at the bottom of it.  Not that she’s an academic – that much is obvious. But because she’s an historian:

Dr Charlotte Riley is a lecturer in twentieth-century British history at the University of Southampton.

During the twentieth century, Britain sank from being the world’s foremost power to a marginal colony of Brussels where you can go to jail over a Facebook post. The empire that ruled the seas is now an emasculated political basket case that seemingly cannot import invaders fast enough to satisfy its thirst for virtue signaling.  A young feminist historian of the period is not only the person who can most incorrectly tell you why that happened, she is symbolic of much of the reason it happened.

* At the New StatesMAN of all places.  How bigoted.
** Or Atlanta