Posted on | February 19, 2017 | No Comments
French has a fair cop over at NRO, (emphasis mine):
And just like that, in lockstep, the tough-guy Right pivots. The herd moos aggressively and goes to war. It’s just as big a joke as a Democratic party that once pitched its own fits about hackers and leakers and now casts leaking in the most heroic possible terms.
None of this is honorable. It’s low and partisan. I don’t care how many war allusions you use, how insulting you are on Twitter, or how many times you accuse your opponents of “pearl-clutching” and “bed-wetting.” Unless your argument is honest, principled, and consistently applicable to both sides, you’re just being tribal.
My next-door neighbor is a straightforward #NeverTrump admirer of Her Majesty. I was making the point to him the other day: “It’s not good when the one you don’t like is in the office with too much power; it’s not good when the one you don’t like is in the office with too much power: maybe someday we’ll realize that the fundamental problem is that the office has too much power.”
You can’t beat tribal behavior, Mr. French. Maybe a better question is how you set about minimizing the effects of tribal behavior. Talk to me, in practical terms, about how we’re to drive this system toward dispersing power. Should we:
- Make the House more representative?
- Nuke the 17th Amendment, so that States matter more?
- Replace gerrymandering with a modern mapping algorithm, to weaken parties?
- Apply pliers and a blow torch to the IRS, and craft a 21st-century taxation system?
- Term-limit pretty much everything, and blow up the petty aristocracy of the Beltway?
I’m not an “expert”. But I’m moving toward the opinion that, if you’re not recommending improvements for consideration, it’s almost as though you’re accepting the status quo.
Posted on | February 18, 2017 | 1 Comment
“We must recognize that heterosexuality is also part of the structure of the oppression of women. Sexual repression is one of the ways in which women are oppressed and one of the ways in which patriarchy is maintained.”
— Jane Flax, “Women Do Theory,” 1979, in Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men, edited by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg (Third Edition, 1993)
“It is a curious fact that feminists who live heterosexual lifestyles — who are happily married to, living with or having sex with men — often find it difficult or impossible to accept the identity ‘heterosexual.’ . . .
“For some heterosexual feminists . . . the contradictions between political ideology and lived experience are acute and painful, and involve constant compromise. . . . No wonder, then, that the identity ‘heterosexual’ is hard to sustain.”
— Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, “The Precariousness of Heterosexual Feminist Identities,” in Making Connections: Women’s Studies, Women’s Movements, Women’s Lives, edited by Mary Kennedy, Cathy Lubelska and Val Walsh (1993)
Oppression, repression, patriarchy — guys, if you ever encounter a woman who talks like this, just walk away. She’s deranged, and nothing you say to her is likely to cure her paranoid anti-male delusions.
Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the only way anyone can hope to escape this destruction is to avoid being anywhere in the vicinity of a feminist. Why do feminists hate men so much? Perhaps because the only men with whom feminists ever interact are men too stupid to avoid hanging around feminists. Or even worse, they get mixed up with a “male feminist”:
I thought dating someone who called himself a feminist — who considered himself a “social justice warrior,” who was accepted in these communities, who was introduced to me at a feminist event by a trusted friend, and was sensitive — would be the safest choice I could make for a boyfriend. Instead, he was emotionally and psychologically abusive and manipulative. . . .
He bemoaned how predatory men can be. He was “concerned for me” — not jealous. . . .
He cried when I described my past rape. He hurt for me. He told me about how he hurts for all the women he knows who have been assaulted. I slowly found out that the women he has recently pursued are all assault survivors. . . .
You can read the rest of that, but you get the drift: Left-wing guys are sexual scavengers, always looking for easy prey, and their ostentatious concern for “social justice” issues is a three-card monte hustle that could only deceive a complete fool. However, complete fools are a dime a dozen in the kind of “communities” where feminists gather like wildebeests grazing on the Katanga Plateau, stalked by packs of “male feminists.”
Here’s a clue: Social justice is a mirage, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek said. Anyone foolish enough to pursue the progressive fantasy of an egalitarian utopia is a chump, and getting involved with a political movement of chumps is always a bad idea, because bad causes attract bad people, and the worst get on top:
From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential and unavoidable consequences . . .
To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds, he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. . . .
Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.
— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) February 2, 2017
The anarchist mobs of thugs who engage in vandalism and violence to protest the election results and to silence dissent on university campuses are symptomatic of this problem, and what kind of woman would get involved in such a movement? A fool or a feminist, but I repeat myself.
A woman who denounces heterosexuality as “the structure of the oppression of women,” to quote the Women’s Studies textbook, is free to avoid this oppression. If the feminist is not a lesbian, however, she must wonder if her politics can be reconciled with heterosexuality. In this, I agree with radical feminists, including Professor Kitzinger, who declare that feminism and heterosexuality are ultimately incompatible.
What does a normal woman want? The American Dream — a nice house in the suburbs, two or three kids running around in the backyard on a Sunday afternoon while her husband grills some burgers. Getting to that American Dream scenario in the 21st century may require different domestic arrangements than it did during the Eisenhower era, but a woman won’t get there through “social justice,” unless her husband happens to be a Democrat politician or a bigwig in some tax-exempt “progressive” foundation. No, ma’am, the way to the American Dream is capitalism. Smashing windows at Starbucks or marching around in pink “pussy hats” waving signs denouncing patriarchy isn’t likely to get you that nice house in suburbia. Reality does not conform to feminist theory.
While the progressive mob keeps marching toward their egalitarian mirage, the people who make America work are busy . . . well, working.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” as Margaret Thatcher famously said, and how many anti-Trump protesters have jobs in the profit-making private sector? Not a lot, I’d bet.
Anti-Trump rage is an epidemic on college and university campuses, and why? Because so many of the students are living on borrowed money while they pursue useless liberal arts degrees, and are therefore part of a major economic problem in America:
The Department of Education recently released a memo admitting that repayment rates on student loans have been grossly exaggerated. Data from 99.8% of schools across the country has been manipulated to cover up growing problems with the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans. New calculations show that more than half of all borrowers from 1,000 different institutions have defaulted on or not paid back a single dollar of their loans over the last seven years. . . .
The policies of intervention haven’t stopped at federal aid, and loan forgiveness is now being offered to those willing to work in the public sector or at a non-profit for ten years. This perverse incentive only serves to drive those desperately in debt further towards government dependence. Productive jobs are created when the needs of others are met in the free market, not by joining the ranks of the state for self-preservation.
The idea that success comes exclusively through attending a university has created a stigma against some of the most valuable occupations. The lack of real skill sets has lead to a shortage of welders, electricians, carpenters, and other trade workers. Instead of learning through experience with apprenticeships, many students have embraced four years of sleeping in, drinking heavily, and getting an increasingly useless degree. While there are many fields that require specialized training, the surge in popularity of degrees like sociology, anthropology, and communications clearly illustrate a disconnect between the needs of the economy and the skills of the incoming workforce.
You can read the whole thing at Zero Hedge. How does anyone expect a Gender Studies major to repay her student loans? Isn’t the $1.3 trillion student-loan bubble directly connected to the totalitarian “progressive” mentality demonstrated by the anti-free speech riots at Berkeley?
“Well, that’s Berkeley,” you say. “Those left-wing lunatics have been in charge at Berkeley for decades.” The problem with that reaction is that the Left’s toxic ideology is on nearly every campus now.
What the hell is going on at Marshall University in Huntington, W.Va., that this public university has a department of Sexuality Studies which is hosting a lecture by lesbian feminist Professor Jane Ward? West Virginia is not a wealthy state that can afford to throw away taxpayer money on this kind of academic nonsense. The median household income in Huntington, W.Va., is only $29,873, and I rather doubt “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is high on their list of problems. “The Tragedy of My Pickup Truck Broke Down” is probably more relevant to their lives.
Imagine the West Virginia redneck — in his garage, trying to change out the busted water pump on his old Ford F-150 — when he finds out the state university spent his tax money to hire a lesbian professor from California to give a lecture on “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality.” He’s not going to smash any windows at Starbucks, but he’s damn sure not going vote for anybody he thinks is responsible for such foolishness.
Liberalism has become a luxury that only rich people could afford, were it not for the taxpayer subsidies for idiotic professors and administrators and students who sit around on college campuses constantly whining about oppression and inequality, blah, blah, blah. The good news is, all those vile left-wing scumbags are miserable now:
For some liberals in the United States, the presidential election results have been a total turn-off.
Normally in the first month of the year, the dating site Match.com sees an uptick in the number of active users on the site. January, after all, is a popular month for singles to get back out there.
But this January, Match.com noticed something surprising: a decrease in activity among the site’s more liberal users. In January, “people who call themselves liberals were far less likely to sign up with Match” and weren’t contacting potential matches or checking out new profiles as much, says Helen Fisher, the company’s science adviser.
Meanwhile, conservatives flocked to find new partners in droves. Users in counties that voted for Donald Trump seem to be more interested in dating than users in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton. . . .
The results suggested the election really did have an effect on users’ self-reported dating drive: 29 percent of liberals said they felt less like dating since Trump won. . . .
Fisher, a biological anthropologist by training, suggests a simple answer: “They’re depressed.”
Good. Liberals should be depressed, because they’re losers. And no liberal loser is more pathetic than the “male feminist”:
Male Feminism is a social disease, a gross perversion of a feminist movement which has evolved from the philosophical to the political. Do not fall into the trap of believing that Male Feminism seeks to empower women, when it actually does just the opposite. . . .
Instead of understanding that powerful women, just like powerful men, come from a vast range of philosophical and professional backgrounds, the Male Feminist believes that you have to filter your Facebook profile picture with a Planned Parenthood logo and dye your hair blue in order to avoid becoming a “gender traitor.” . . .
Perhaps most obviously, the Male Feminist loves nothing more than to explain how you’re “doing feminism wrong.”
Never mind whether you’re “doing feminism wrong,” why do feminism at all? In a world of freedom and opportunity for women, why not just go with the old-fashioned idea of “the pursuit of happiness”?
Yeah, “Love Trumps Hate,” but you’re probably not going to get that house in the suburbs, ma’am. Maybe ask your Gender Studies professor why you’re exempt from “the structure of the oppression of women.” Male feminists are losers, but they can’t be that desperate, can they?
- Feb. 16: Feminism: Ignorance as Expertise
- Feb. 15: Feminism’s Rhetorical Abracadabra
- Feb. 14: Feminists: They Even Hate Love
- Feb. 11: Lena Dunham Declares White Women Need ‘Enlightening’ by Feminists
Posted on | February 18, 2017 | No Comments
On Valentine’s Day, Lenore Skenazy at Reason told the story of Zachary, who was 17 years old when he met a girl who was 13, who had a friend, also a 13-year-old girl, who “shared Zachary’s love of dragons and videogames.” An online romance flourished via Skype between Zachary and the dragon-loving girl and — this being the 21st century — she sent him five images of herself posing in her underwear. Meanwhile, Zachary had turned 18, and this made him a felon:
Zachary was arrested and charged with 20 felonies, including indecent liberties with a minor, using a computer to propose sex, and “child porn reproduce/transmit/sell,” even though he did not send or sell the pictures to anyone. All this, from five underwear pictures. If convicted, Zachary’s father told me, he faced a theoretically possible maximum sentence of 350 years.
Zachary accepted a plea bargain, and is now a registered sex offender, even though he never met this girl in person, and what can we say?
WARN YOUR CHILDREN! DON’T EVER DO THIS!
Kids growing up with social media — Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. — generally fail to understand the inherent perils of using these technologies in pursuit of romantic activity. This blindness to the dangers of online romance is not limited to teenagers, of course. Anthony Weiner destroyed his career and his marriage through “sexting,” and may himself face federal charges for his conversations with teenage girls. Some people have even been raped or murdered as a result of connections they made through online dating, e.g., “aspiring serial killer” Amy Brown.
Consider, for example, the fate of Sunil Patel, an author and editor in the field of science fiction and fantasy. Patel is also, evidently, something of a womanizer, and was allegedly exploiting his publishing connections to score with the ladies. According to one feminist author, Patel was a “serial gaslighter who hides behind his name to prey on the women within his community.” Feminists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to various tactics of emotional manipulation, and to “prey” on women as a “serial gaslight,” we may suppose, means that Patel was doing what used to be called “talking his way into their panties.” Well, this is Standard Operating Procedure for a lot of young bachelors, and Patel’s seductions (or attempted seductions) might have continued indefinitely.
Unfortunately, Author Man forgot one crucial thing:
Women. Talk. To. Each. Other.
— Auntie Kristy (@KristineWyllys) October 14, 2016
Yes, women talk to each other, and online communications enable this kind of gossip in the same way online communications enabled Patel to posture as a “male feminist” and SJW opponent of #GamerGate.
When I encounter stories like these, my first thought is to thank God we didn’t have the Internet and smartphones circa 1979. How the heck could a guy get away with having three girlfriends — two in Georgia, one in Alabama — in the age of Facebook and Instagram? But I ask this question as a mere hypothetical, you understand. Anyone inquiring as to what or who I was doing in 1979 will require me to invoke my Miranda warning rights, and my friend Bert the Samoan Lawyer has advised me not to comment further on the matter at this time. However, what was (hypothetically) possible in 1979 would be foolish for a young man to attempt in 2017, because his girlfriend in Cobb County, Georgia, would be posting photos of them as a couple and tagging him, as would his girlfriend in Alabama, and when his girlfriend in Clayton County, Georgia, found out . . . Well, this could cause trouble, hypothetically.
All this text-messaging and online dating and so forth that goes on between young people nowadays is fraught with risk, because this activity creates an archive of digital evidence. A young guy has to think about what could happen if a girlfriend ever decided she wants to destroy him. What kind of foolish things has he said in emails or texts or DMs that she could screencap and publish as proof of what a selfish jerk he is?
Think like the CIA. Maintain plausible deniability at all times, so that if your girlfriend accuses you of running around on her, there is no evidence — no texts or emails or photos or videos — that can be used against you.
And, of course, you should never actually do any such thing. As a responsible citizen and a Christian, I am dismayed by the disgusting prevalence of fornication among Our Nation’s Youth. Nothing like that ever happened when I was a teenager, or at least you can’t prove it.
Posted on | February 17, 2017 | No Comments
In March 1975, Robert De Niro was 31 years old when he won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his breakthrough role as young Vito Corleone in The Godfather, Part II. Leslie Mann was barely 3 years old at the time, and there was something distinctly weird about Mann, now 44, being cast as De Niro’s love interest in The Comedian. How do you write a romantic comedy with a 73-year-old leading man? To be honest, the smart answer to that question is, don’t even bother trying.
Let me put it another way: In 1981, Henry Fonda was 76 when he scored an Oscar for On Golden Pond, in which he played an old man whose wife was Katharine Hepburn, then age 74. Robert De Niro may be in better health at age 73 than Henry Fonda was at age 76, but it is still asking too much of audiences to foist upon them a septuagenarian leading man who wins the heart of a woman young enough to be his daughter.
Far be it from me to encourage the feminist grievance-mongers who so often complain about how actresses suffer discriminatory treatment because middle-aged male movie stars continue to be cast in leading roles, whereas there are far fewer lead roles for actresses over 40. It is not the sexist bias of movie producers that accounts for this disparate treatment, but rather the tastes of movie audiences. If you want to make big money in Hollywood, the question you are constantly trying to answer is, What will the typical 15-year-old boy pay money to see at the suburban multiplex? (Answer: Definitely not Meryl Streep.)
Do the Hollywood studios want to make money or do they want to make art? Well, it can be argued, they want to do both, but the idea behind this latest De Niro movie seems to have been a make-work project for old actors, and not a very clever idea as such projects go. It is possible to make great movies about old people, e.g., Walter Matthau won Best Actor for his role in The Sunshine Boys, and Jessica Tandy won Best Actress for her role in Driving Miss Daisy. However, neither of those films tried to place the elderly protagonist into a boy-meets-girl romantic-comedy plot. Such a plot simply doesn’t work as a narrative arc with mass audience appeal, and no 15-year-old boy is going to buy that ticket at the multiplex.
Leslie Mann and Robert De Niro in ‘The Comedian.’
The idea behind The Comedian was a “development” project for nearly 10 years, and four different writers are credited for the script:
It all began with a funny idea. After working on a movie with Mr. De Niro called “What Just Happened,” the producer and screenwriter Art Linson suggested they collaborate on a movie about a comic who makes the woman he’s roasting laugh so hard she dies. . . . “That excited me,” Mr. De Niro said. “You get one scene, and you want to do the whole movie.”
That was a decade ago, and exactly why this idea for one scene should inspire an entire movie is a mystery. Yet the real question is why so much effort would be expended to push The Comedian forward, despite all the omens warning that the movie was destined for Flop City.
How an Oscar-Bait Scheme Went Wrong
Go ask around Hollywood. If a top producer like Art Linson can get an Oscar-winning actor like Robert De Niro sold on an idea for a movie, it’s never going take 10 years to make that project happen. At one point, Sean Penn had agreed to direct The Comedian, and it’s hard to imagine a studio executive presented with such an all-star package deal saying, “No, let’s don’t make that movie” — unless the basic idea was utterly stupid.
Critics don’t want to say bad things about a project like this, which got a limited release in December on the outside chance of getting an Oscar nomination or two. That’s a big clue to the industry insider thinking behind The Comedian. Linson and De Niro really wanted to make a movie called “Let’s Get Another Oscar for Robert De Niro,” but what they made instead was, “Let’s Watch Robert De Niro Lose His Dignity.”
We may stipulate, arguendo, that the idea of a once-popular comedian trying to make a comeback could make for a good movie, as this was the basic plot of The Sunshine Boys. However, that was a Neil Simon script, and both of the stars of that movie — Matthau and George Burns — were known primarily for their comic roles. Perhaps what inspired Art Linson to think he could do something like that with De Niro in The Comedian was De Niro’s role as a delusional stalker in The King of Comedy, but that was a very dark drama directed by Martin Scorcese. Certainly, De Niro is capable of being funny (e.g., father of the bride in Meet the Fockers), but the problem with The Comedian is not the star, it’s the story.
Early on, [De Niro’s character] Jackie gets in an altercation with a heckler at a standup set and punches him; given the chance to apologize by a judge, he refuses and goes to prison. Stuck doing community service, he meets Harmony (Leslie Mann), a fellow self-loathing miscreant that he immediately falls for, despite their 29-year age difference. Unfortunately, that necessitates dealing with her father Mac (Keitel), some sort of retired mobster with a serious attitude problem. . . .
It’s almost like The Comedian is trying to distract from the inherent ridiculousness of its central romantic pairing by throwing celebrity cameos and grumpy mobsters at the audience.
What’s going on here? Wishful thinking.
Art Linson is 74 and the director, Taylor Hackford, is 72, and so you’ve got these old guys who expect the audience to believe that a guy in his 70s can score with a woman 30 years younger. This idea is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it isn’t the kind of story that most people are going to enjoy paying $8 to see at the cineplex. Only if we suspect that the purpose of this project was to grab an Oscar (which is why they got Helen Mirren’s husband to direct it, and filled the supporting cast with a bunch of Academy members) can we begin to understand the existential rationale of The Comedian — a movie about show business, whose intended audience was the show-business people who vote for the Oscars.
OK, so you may be wondering by now why I’ve expended a thousand words analyzing a movie you weren’t going to pay $8 to watch anyway. And the answer is that what’s wrong with The Comedian is the same thing that’s wrong with the media coverage of President Trump. Read more
Posted on | February 17, 2017 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Trump Administration To Use 100K National Guardsmen To Round Up Illegals?
Twitchy: Meathead Predicts How “Democracy” Will Be Saved As Irony Spotters Have A Field Day
Louder With Crowder: Washington’s Supreme Court Rules Government Can Force Business Owners To Violate Their Consciences
Bill Whittle: Muslim Chic (h/t Loyal Reader Brian E.)
According To Hoyt: Let’s Talk About Money
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #36 – The State Of Australian Politics Episode
American Power: Lauren Southern – Barbarians
American Thinker: The Left’s Once-Mighty Echo Chamber Is Losing Power
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Asian Alliances Friday
Bring The HEAT: Friday Matinee – Corvette K-225
Da Tech Guy: Jerry Wilson – Without Love
Don Surber: Chuck Todd Whinges, Rush Limbaugh Roars
Dustbury: The Merry Marvel Master Card
The Geller Report: Obama Appointees Preventing Mattis From Rebuilding Military, Says Armed Forces Chair
Hogewash: This Should Be Interesting
Jammie Wearing Fools: Leaked E-Mails – State Democrat Leaders Think Obama’s New Organizing Army Is “Grade A Bullshit”
Joe For America: President Trump Overturns Obama Coal Mining Rule
Power Line: Anti-Trump Reporter Gets Unwelcome Surprise
Shark Tank: Trump To Hold First Post-Inauguration Rally In Melbourne, FL
Shot In The Dark: It’s A Start
STUMP: Friday Trumpery – Let’s Go Shopping!
The Jawa Report: The Mother Of The Mother Of All Press Conferences
The Political Hat: From Canada, In Your General Direction
This Ain’t Hell: Twenty-Six Years Ago Tonight, also, Harward Rejects National Security Adviser Post
War Is Boring: How To Lose The War In Afghanistan
Weasel Zippers: ABC News Reporter Claims Constitution Requires Trump To Take Reporters’ Questions, also, Bogus NYT “Scoops” On Trump, Russia Are Recycled Propaganda
Megan McArdle: A Sign That Obamacare Exchanges Are Failing
Mark Steyn: The Age Of Civilizational Self-Loathing
Posted on | February 16, 2017 | No Comments
Embattled Louisiana State Senator Troy Brown has resigned from office he announced Thursday afternoon.
At Thursday’s announcement, Brown stated, “In both criminal manners, the judges issued a punishment that is commensurate to the offense. If we did a parallel for what the Senate body is doing on the criminal side, it amounts to an execution.”
The Louisiana Senate was set to meet next Monday for a hearing in which Senator Dan Claitor, a Republican from Baton Rouge, said he would call for Brown’s expulsion from the Senate due to Brown’s abuse against women.
Brown, a Democrat from Geismar, has pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges involving physical abuse against his wife and another woman.
Brown’s attorney, Jill Craft, appeared before a Senate committee Wednesday asking for various records to help defend her client who initially said he would fight expulsion. Craft argued that misdemeanor charges should not be a reason to expel a state senator.
“It’s not a question of a misdemeanor. It is a question of beating women multiple times,” said Sen. Claitor. . . .
Claitor said that during Monday’s expulsion hearing, he planning to play a recording of the 911 call Brown’s wife made to police to report the abuse. In the recording, Senator Brown can be heard cursing in the background. His son can also be heard in the background crying. . . .
Brown pleaded no contest in January to a misdemeanor charge of domestic abuse battery, arising from allegations he bit his wife’s arm. He pleaded no contest in September to a misdemeanor simple battery charge stemming from allegations he punched a girlfriend.
Go ahead, ask Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti when they’re going to write about Senator Brown. Feminists don’t actually care about “violence against women.” That’s just a partisan campaign slogan like “choice” and “equality” that feminists use to elect Democrats.
Posted on | February 16, 2017 | No Comments
The CEO of Twitter seemingly believes America is currently experiencing civil unrest comparable to the Arab Spring, a series of revolutionary protests, coups and civil wars in the Arab world a few years ago.
While the social media company appears to be treading water after a rough past few months, which includes a number of high-level staff departures and a relatively sinking stock price, Twitter Founder Jack Dorsey sees his platform’s influence in society remaining largely the same, if not growing.
“A lot of the same patterns we’ve seen during the Iranian Green Revolution and the Arab Spring,” Dorsey said Wednesday at a tech conference hosted by Goldman Sachs, according to Fortune. “It was stunning to see how Twitter was being used to have a conversation about the government, with the government.”
Dorsey recounted the first time he got the impression that Twitter was so integral to American society: the protests and riots in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014.
“As a culture in the U.S., we’ve focused on things that didn’t matter as much,” Dorsey said, according to Fortune. “Now, everything is brought into perspective, and Twitter is at center of the most important conversations.”
Yeah — inciting race riot is an “important conversation,” but Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos for saying rude things to an overrated actress. Speaking of overrated actresses, Sarah Silverman fantasizes the U.S. military would join a “resistance” against President Trump.
Twitter lost another 39 cents per share today. The company lost $457 million last year, and the CEO is sharing the Sarah Silverman fantasy of a left-wing coup d’etat. We’d be living under an SJW junta led by Anita Sarkeesian, Leslie Jones and Zoe Quinn if it were up to Jack Dorsey.
(Hat-tip: @groupwbench on Gab.)
Posted on | February 16, 2017 | 1 Comment
The idea that mothers can unilaterally prevent their sons from displaying misogyny if they just put in the requisite amount of effort to “raise them right,” is such a slap in the face to women who have raised sons for millennia.
Would misogyny no longer exist if all the women before us had just tried a bit harder? Were they somehow deficient, too ignorant or ‘backwards’ to figure misogyny out? Because that’s the logical conclusion of that argument: you can prevent your son from exerting any oppression if you just work hard enough, so you’ve failed if he exhibits the misogyny which characterises male socialisation. If you don’t somehow shield him from all the societal influences teaching him to hate and devalue you and everyone like you, you’re responsible because you could have prevented it, you layabout.
It’s just another way to blame women for misogyny.
Let us ask, “What does she mean by ‘misogyny’?” Or what do the words “oppression” and “societal influences” signify in this discourse? Feminists have a way of throwing around words as if there were universal agreement about what constitutes “misogyny,” a word that often means nothing more than a tendency to disagree with feminists. As to Sarah’s argument about whether mothers are responsible for their sons’ “misogyny,” this raises the question: “How is she qualified to judge?”
What does this 24-year-old woman know about child-rearing? Or what does she know, for that matter, about “male socialisation”? What is the basis of her expertise, that we should accept her assertions?
One of the essential problems of feminist discourse in the 21st-century is that so many of the participants are women who are simply too young to speak with experiential authority on the subjects they address, and who refuse any counsel from those who do possess such experience.
This typical feminist impudence — “Shut up and let me lecture you!” — expresses an attitude of disrespect which the feminist herself would consider “misogyny” if a man did it to her. And we may surmise that this know-it-all sense of superiority among young feminists has a lot to do with why their interactions with males are so unpleasant.
Because I know a thing or two about child-rearing, and also about how “male socialisation” actually operates, I’m disinclined to be lectured on these subjects by this woman who is younger (and, I would bet $20, less accomplished) than my three oldest children. While I prefer not to waste time arguing with fools, Sarah’s comments about “male socialisation” raise an important point that feminists tend to overlook when judging male behavior: The man who succeeds in life must do so in competition with other men, and his success also requires him to work in cooperation with other men. Think of a football player, for example. He must compete to gain a spot on the team, and he must cooperate with his teammates. His success in this requires him to be accepted as “one of the guys,” to live up to the standards of behavior expected by his coaches and teammates.
Now, is the professional football star likely to be a “misogynist”? Yes, in some sense of the word — he esteems masculine values and male camaraderie, and is likely to view women primarily in terms of their desirability as romantic companions. He may not be rude or overtly “sexist” in his behavior toward women, but he is always “one of the guys,” an attitude that is necessary to his success.
This attitude is perfectly simple to understand, and there is no reason why women should be offended by it, except . . “equality.”
Damn that foolish idea that everything must be 50-50 or else women are suffering from patriarchal oppression. Go back to the silly controversy Martha Burk provoked about the Augusta National Golf Club’s all-male membership. Is it wrong for all-male organizations to exist? Why?
This absurd feminist resentment of male institutions has real-world consequences which require serious attention from serious adults:
Feminists don’t give a damn about America’s defense capability. The feminist movement arose within the radical anti-war New Left of the late 1960s, and feminists have always been against the U.S. military. Were it up to the leaders of the feminist movement, the American military would be no more powerful than Sweden, France or Denmark. Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm. The protection of our interests abroad requires America to maintain a force capable of deterring aggression: “Peace Through Superior Firepower.”
Feminists hate the U.S. military because feminists hate America, but beyond that, feminists simply fail to understand male psychology. Aggression and violence are an inescapable reality of male existence, as every schoolboy knows. There is always a bully looking for some weakling to pick on, and bullies will form gangs to prey upon the weak. A boy must demonstrate his ability and willingness to defend himself against aggression, and he must make friends with other boys who will assist in his defense against any gang attack. The gang warfare that plagues America’s inner cities (there have already been 122 people shot in Chicago so far this month) is what happens when grown-ups fail to suppress the violent tendencies of young men. . . .
keep looking »