Posted on | July 31, 2015 | 1 Comment
The flood abated, and Korban son of Korbill surveyed the ruin by the light of a harvest moon. He and his archers had climbed high in a thick copse of trees on a flanking hill as the orc horde forded River Myzods. The arrival of the flood waters had taken out half of the invasion, as well as the engaged defenders. Father.
The confusion of the deluge had thrown the balance of the orcs into a frenzied retreat, saving the kingdom.
Father would. . .be picking his way back to the rally point now.
His armor was heavier, somehow.
Posted on | July 31, 2015 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
Thanks to all the folks who bought stuff through my Amazon links this month, and special thanks to Loyal Commenter RS, who bought Preston & Palacios’ Franco: A Personal and Political Biography off my wish list!
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Major Bambi, Also, Mandy Nagy Needs Our Help!
Da Tech Guy: A Tale of Two Emmets
Louder With Crowder: Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson Leaks All
Michelle Malkin: Desperate Dems Recycle Planned Parenthood’s Mammogram Lie
Twitchy: Senator Boxer’s Lecture About “Legitimate” Health Care Ends With Truth Booms
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: CBS Evening News Covers Release Of Fourth Planned Parenthood Video
American Thinker: Exposed – America’s Enemies Within
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin – Thanks, Senators Deb Fischer And Joni Ernst!
Don Surber: Camille Paglia, Frenemy Of Conservatives
Joe For America: Satanic Temple Raises Money For…Guess Which Party?
JustOneMinute: We Hardly Knew Ye
Pamela Geller: Kerry Claims Iran’s “Death To America” Chants Don’t Mean They Want To Kill Us
Protein Wisdom: Planned Parenthood – Even Worse Than You Thought
Shot In The Dark: Rolling In Glorious Victimhood
STUMP: Public Pension Quicktakes – All About Illinois And Chicago
The Gateway Pundit: DNC Chair Stumped, Can’t Explain Difference Between Democratic Party And Socialism
The Jawa Report: This Is Un-Freaking-American
The Lonely Conservative: US Intel Community Bracing For Security Breaches Thanks To Hillary’s E-Mails
This Ain’t Hell: Marine Corps Gazette Censors LTC Germano
Weasel Zippers: Why Is Planned Parenthood Trying To Suppress Videos? Evidence Of Buyers Getting “Fully Intact Babies”
Megan McArdle: Campus Rape Debate Needs Better Numbers
Mark Steyn: Unnatural Selection
Posted on | July 31, 2015 | 55 Comments
When your daughter’s sunbathing by your family’s backyard pool and she tells you there’s a drone hovering over her, what are you going to do? Well, if you’re in Bullitt County, Kentucky, you go get your shotgun and blast that dadgum thing out of the sky:
A Hillview man has been arrested after he shot down a drone flying over his property — but he’s not making any apologies for it.
It happened Sunday night at a home on Earlywood Way, just south of the intersection between Smith Lane and Mud Lane in Bullitt County, according to an arrest report.
Hillview Police say they were called to the home of 47-year-old William H. Merideth after someone complained about a firearm.
When they arrived, police say Merideth told them he had shot down a drone that was flying over his house. The drone was hit in mid-air and crashed in a field near Merideth’s home.
Police say the owner of the drone claimed he was flying it to get pictures of a friend’s house — and that the cost of the drone was over $1,800.
Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. He was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center, and released on Monday.
WDRB News spoke with Merideth Tuesday afternoon, and he gave his side of the story.
“Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard,” Merideth said. “And they come in and said, ‘Dad, there’s a drone out here, flying over everybody’s yard.'”
Merideth’s neighbors saw it too.
“It was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then she finally waved and it took off,” said neighbor Kim VanMeter.
VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird.
“I just think you should have privacy in your own backyard,” she said.
Merideth agrees and said he had to go see for himself.
“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got under their back yard,” Merideth said. “I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property.’”
That moment soon arrived, he said.
“Within a minute or so, here it came,” he said. “It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky.”
“I didn’t shoot across the road, I didn’t shoot across my neighbor’s fences, I shot directly into the air,” he added.
It wasn’t long before the drone’s owners appeared.
“Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds,” Merideth said.
“They asked me, ‘Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?’ and I said, ‘Yes I am,'” he said. “I had my 40[-caliber] Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, ‘If you cross my sidewalk, there’s gonna be another shooting.'”
You tell ’em, buddy! Hell, yeah!
An armed society is a polite society, as Robert Heinlein said, and it’s certainly not polite to send your drone out snooping over other people’s property. If a man thinks you’re messing with his daughters in Bullitt County, Kentucky? You had better consider yourself lucky that your drone was the only thing he shot.
Posted on | July 31, 2015 | 16 Comments
Hansjorg Wyss is a 79-year-old Swiss business mogul who is “a generous donor to major liberal groups like the Center for American Progress and longtime financial patron of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta.” In December, Wyss made a $5 million commitment to Hillary Clinton’s “No Ceilings” women’s empowerment project at the Clinton Foundation. However, Wyss has been accused of sexually abusing a Colorado woman, according to a report by Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller:
At issue in the federal district court case was a $1.5 million settlement of a suit brought by Jacqueline Long, a Colorado woman who charged that Wyss brutally and sexually abused her for years while serving as his employee.
Long, a former development officer at the HJW Foundation, said she had to have sex with him in return for his grants to non-profits that focused on at-risk youth and sex trafficking, causes to which she was passionately devoted.
“He was not interested in these programs,” Long told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an exclusive interview. “He was only doing it in reward for my having sex with him. It was a tool for leverage.”
Pollock published that article last month. Now, lawyers for Wyss are trying to intimidate the woman (and the Daily Caller) into silence:
Hansjorg Wyss — a foreign billionaire with intimate ties to the United States’ top Democrats — wants authorities to imprison an American woman for speaking publicly about allegations of sexual abuse at his hands. . . .
Jacqueline Long of Aspen, Colorado alleges that Wyss would demand sex, and then later shower her with expensive gifts and contributions to causes she, as a development officer, advised the foundation to support.
Shortly after The Daily Caller News Foundation published a June 8 article that quoted Long, a lawyer for Wyss (pronounced “Vees”) filed an “emergency motion” asking Philadelphia County’s Court of Common Pleas to impose sanctions, including imprisonment, to prevent further violations of the non-disclosure provision of a May 2013 settlement agreement.
The court has yet to decide on the Wyss motion, which was filed June 17.
Lawyers for Wyss, a Swiss businessman who in December 2014 contributed $5 million to The Clinton Foundation’s feminist “No Ceilings” project — a favorite of Hillary Clinton — also threatened TheDCNF.
In a June 9 letter to The Daily Caller News Foundation, Wyss attorney Carolyn P. Short demanded an “immediate retraction” of the earlier report because, she charged, the article contained many “blatant falsehoods.” Failure to retract would result in litigation, Short warned.
In response, TheDCNF asked Short to cite specific errors in the story. In a June 10 email to Short, TheDCNF’s counsel replied, “you refer to ‘many blatant falsehoods’ in the reporting. If you can identify what specifically is false, we will review it immediately. If any thing is incorrect, we want to fix it.”
Short declined to identify any errors. Instead, she made a sweeping assertion, claiming the article contained “reckless, damaging and false allegations from a former disgruntled employee who is solely seeking to leverage those false statements for financial gain.” . . .
The original June 8 story highlighted Long’s case. She was a former employee at a Wyss foundation and at a California vineyard he owns. She described a lengthy intimate relationship with Wyss that allegedly turned violent and abusive.
The 2013 settlement agreement provided a $1.5 million payment to Long and a provision in which both parties agreed to keep details of the agreement secret.
Long’s supporters vigorously defend her and denounce Wyss, arguing that threatening her with jail for going public about his conduct toward her amounts to another round of abuse.
“I think he’s taking a bullying tactic,” Long friend Katie Beckley told TheDCNF. It’s another form of abuse.” Beckley specializes in grief therapy and operates a counseling practice in Aspen.
“He decided to be so vengeful toward her. It was pure vengeance. I was encouraged to see her speaking out. I think it showed a lot of courage,” Beckley said.
Here’s the thing: Non-disclosure agreements are there for a reason. When rich men pay hush money to their former mistresses, they expect to get what they pay for, namely, silence. It would seem that Jacqueline Long got her money, but she didn’t shut up.
For $1.5 million, you can buy a whole lot of silence, but that’s chump change to a guy like Wyss, and once the details of the lawsuit leaked to the media, he had a whole new problem. You see, it’s not the Daily Caller’s fault Jacqueline Long can’t keep her mouth shut, and it’s certainly not my fault. By trying to make Jacqueline Long shut up — and by trying to intimidate the Daily Caller — Wyss’s lawyers are calling attention to a story that we might otherwise have ignored.
This is called “The Streisand Effect.”
They chose poorly.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) July 31, 2015
Posted on | July 30, 2015 | 29 Comments
Three members of the fraternity accused in a now-retracted Rolling Stone article of facilitating a brutal gang rape are suing the magazine, its publisher and the author.
George Elias IV, Ross Fowler and Stephen Hadford allege in their lawsuit that they were easily identified as members of Phi Kappa Psi who could have participated in the gang-rape, which was proved false shortly after the article was published. The three men have since graduated but allege in their lawsuit that they were subjected to harassment following the article’s publication.
Elias’ bedroom was at the top of the first flight of stairs in the fraternity house, and was “the mostly likely scene of the alleged crime,” the former students say. Elias says in the lawsuit that after “family friends, acquaintances, co-workers and reporters” identified him as one of the potential attackers, they “interrogated him, humiliated him, and scolded him.” Fowler and Hadford say they “suffered similar attacks.”
The lawsuit alleges that the students’ names and hometowns were listed online by anonymous Internet commenters, ensuring their “names will forever be associated with the alleged gang rape.” . . .
Once Elias was identified, he was “solicited daily for three consecutive days at his own home” by T. Rees Shapiro of the Washington Post, whose own investigation into the Rolling Stone claims brought about the article’s demise. Elias claims in the lawsuit that he “became nervous and distraught that reporters were easily able to find him and solicit him at his home.” . . .
The men are suing for two counts of defamation and “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” requesting $75,000 for each of the three counts.
The Rolling Stone story at the center of the lawsuit, “A Rape on Campus,” claimed that a University of Virginia college freshman named “Jackie” was gang-raped by seven fraternity members at a Phi Psi party. One of her alleged attackers was her date for the evening, “Drew,” who allegedly worked as a lifeguard at the school aquatics facility. . . .
As the story fell apart, different names were given for “Drew,” including “Haven Monahan.”
The fraternity members note in their lawsuit that no such party or gathering took place the night Jackie claimed — there was no pledging in the fall semester, no one named “Drew” or “Haven Monahan” was a member at the time, no member worked as a lifeguard at the time and no member matched the physical description given in the article.
In fact, neither “Drew” nor “Haven Monahan” ever existed.
Further, Charlottesville police investigated the claims made in the article and acknowledged in a press conference that the department was “not able to conclude to any substantive degree” that such claims were accurate.
The false article led to Phi Psi’s fraternity house being vandalized, and the fraternity was suspended by U.Va. President Teresa Sullivan, who, even after admitting the story was false, imposed numerous restrictions on Phi Psi and other fraternities.
The fraternity members’ lawsuit is the second filed against Rolling Stone due to the retracted story. U.Va. Dean Nicole Eramo, who was the only named villain in the article, filed a lawsuit in May against the magazine for its portrayal of her.
Amid the lawsuits, Rolling Stone announced that Managing Editor Will Dana is set to leave the magazine on Aug. 7. Dana issued an apology for the discredited article on Dec. 5, 2014, and received a backlash for suggesting that the problem with the story was the magazine’s “misplaced” trust in Jackie. . . .
Dana told the Columbia Journalism Review, which did a deep dive into the journalistic failures of the article, that he didn’t know Erdely hadn’t found the rapist named by Jackie, and when the source stopped responding to messages, Dana allowed Erdely to stop looking for the accused rapist and use a pseudonym in the article.
Rolling Stone’s publisher, Jann S. Wenner, whose media company is also being sued by the fraternity members, didn’t answer questions about whether Dana was leaving due to the gang-rape article. Instead, through a spokesman, he told the New York Times that “many factors go into a decision like this.”
Dana does not have another job lined up, and no successor has been named.
- July 19: ‘Rape Culture’ or ‘Libel Culture’? Lawyers for Rolling Stone Blame the Victim
- May 12: UVA Dean Files $7.5 Million Lawsuit Against Rolling Stone Over Rape Hoax
- April 9: A Coven of Liars: Sabrina Rubin Erdley, Emily Renda and Catherine Lhamon
- April 6: The Standards of Liberal Journalism Are Every Bit as Real as ‘Haven Monahan’
- March 24: Caught in a Web of Lies at UVA
- Jan. 13: UVA Fraternity Cleared by Police, But Fraternities Are Punished Anyway
- Dec. 16: As Real as Rape: How Bad Journalism Advances Feminism’s Anti-Male Agenda
- Dec. 12: As UVA Rape Story Falls Apart, Feminists Try to Save ‘Rape Culture’ Narrative
Posted on | July 30, 2015 | 13 Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
Post delayed by a morning appointment at the VA and an inadvertent upgrade to Windows 10 when I got home.
Apologies for any inconvenience.
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: $600 Haircut
Da Tech Guy: Some Names The MSM Hasn’t Mentioned From Baltimore
Michelle Malkin: Obama Cronyism Plus Your Personal Data Equals Trouble
Twitchy: DAMNING – These Six Quotes From The Fourth Planned Parenthood Video Will Make Your Blood Boil
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Marxist Political “Cartoonist” Ted Rall Fired By L.A. Times
American Thinker: Untermenschen – The Language Of Death
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Nemesis By Catherine Coulter
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – Planned Parenthood Targets Minority Women
Don Surber: Ford Changed Everything
Joe For America: Libs Coming After Trump Hard – And Failing
JustOneMinute: And Nobody He Knew Voted For Nixon
Pamela Geller: More UK Muslims Have Joined ISIS Than The Armed Forces
Protein Wisdom: Cecil The Lion Was Not “Murdered”
Shot In The Dark: 200,000 Victories
STUMP: Americans On The Move, Driven Out By Costs
The Gateway Pundit: Facts Are Facts – Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers Since 1932
The Jawa Report: “Canteen Boy” And The Super Gays
This Ain’t Hell: VA Psychiatrist In Forum Discussion – “Off Yourself”
Weasel Zippers: Planned Parenthood Workers Laugh While Sorting Through “Five-Star” Baby Parts – “Another Boy!”
Megan McArdle: Upstate New York Can’t Afford $15 An Hour
Mark Steyn: Queer Theory Meets African Studies
Thanks to Loyal Commenter Dead Messenger, who bought me stuff off my wish list!
Shop Amazon – Save an Extra 35% on ACDelco Cabin Air Filters with Subscribe & Save
Posted on | July 30, 2015 | 53 Comments
“Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. … Women’s bodies are possessed by men. … Women are an enslaved population. … Women are an occupied people.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1977 speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in Letters from a War Zone (1993)
One of the strange things about feminism is how this movement, built upon hateful slander, has acquired the power to silence its critics. In 1977, when a few dozen women turned out to hear Andrea Dworkin speak in Amherst, it was still possible to oppose feminism on an American university campus. Today, dissenting voices are almost never heard in academia, where feminists exercise the kind of controlling power wielded by the mullahs in Tehran or by Kim Jung Un in Pyongyang.
What has happened is that the pursuit of “equality” — enforced by federal authority under Title IX — has made university officials fearful of claims of “discrimination” under the so-called “hostile environment” doctrine. No one in academia dares to challenge feminism directly. Remember that Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard after he suggested there are “innate differences” between men and women. Feminists stage tumultuous protests whenever a dissident like Christina Hoff Sommers or Wendy McElroy appears on campus.
Silencing opposition is necessary to feminism’s success in reducing educational opportunities for males. Females are already 57 percent of college enrollment and in some fields, such as psychology, women outnumber males more than 3-to-1. As the percentage of males on campus dwindles, feminists in academia become ever more vehement in their denunciations of male students as rapists and harassers. Colleges now “teach women that men are the enemy and men are treated as such on campus,” as Helen Smith explains in her book Men on Strike. “Many men have just decided that they don’t belong in college . . . more and more men drop out of college or never attend.”
Feminist hegemony in academia has fostered an implacable hostility toward males on campus, and perceptive young men recognize feminism as the source of this hatred. The problem is that there are few if any male professors on the faculty of the modern university who are willing to criticize feminist ideology. With no good examples to follow, young men tend to express their opposition to feminism in ways that are crude and inarticulate, transparently motivated by personal resentment. This tendency, in turn, inspires feminists to become even more militant, as when Helen Lewis declared in 2012 that “the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.” Such circular reasoning — that opposition to feminism proves the need for more feminism — points us toward a future of endless hostility, as feminism becomes more and more anti-male, and men become more and more anti-feminist.
We can only avert such an escalation of hostility by understanding its origins and history, which requires us recognize the actual source of this conflict, namely feminist aggression. Consider, as an example, the role played by the radical provocateur Andrea Dworkin. In her 1993 collection Letters from a War Zone, Dworkin includes her 1977 speech at Amherst denouncing pornography:
Fascist propaganda celebrating sexual violence against women is sweeping this land. Fascist propaganda celebrating the sexual degradation of women is innundating cities, college campuses, small towns. Pornography is the propaganda of sexual fascism. Pornography is the propaganda of sexual terrorism.
Rather than to describe pornography as immoral and obscene, you see, Dworkin characterized it as expressing male “sexual fascism.” This is an important distinction. A Christian must deplore pornography as sinful, yet Dworkin was a radical atheist who hated Christianity at least as much as she hated pornography. Rather than condeming pornography on moral grounds, Dworkin made pornography Exhibit A in her political indictment of males. Introducing the text of that 1977 speech (“Pornography: The New Terrorism,” page 197 of Letters from a War Zone), Dworkin tells us that she subsequently “gave this speech on lots of college campuses.” She also describes the immediate effect this speech had the first time she gave it to University of Massachusetts students:
They mobilized on the spot to demonstrate against the pornography being shown on campus: a film advertised in the school newspaper . . . that had been brought on campus by a man who had just been arrested for beating the woman he lived with.
Porno films being shown on the campus of a state university? That never happened when I was in college in Alabama back in the 1970s, but then again, Alabama is not Massachusetts. However, there was an interesting denouement to Dworkin’s speech at U-Mass. A few months later, undoubtedly incited by her radicalism, feminists on the staff of the student newspaper began quarreling with males on the staff over editorial policy and, in May 1978, feminist protesters seized control of the newspaper’s offices:
Fifty women took over the offices of the student newspaper of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst at 2 a.m. [May 1], demanding that women’s news receive more coverage in the paper.
The protesters, who were still in the building last night, said they will not leave until their demands are met in a “legally binding document.”
The students are demanding guaranteed space for women’s news, editorial control over women’s stories and the right of women’s staff members to pick women’s news editors.
William Sundstrom, the editor-in-chief, said the paper will probably not change its policies “because news should be integrated, not segregated.” . . .
Sit-in leaders said yesterday they decided to occupy the building when provious negotiations “accomplished nothing.”
“In the past, women’s news staff attempts to provide high quality coverage of women’s issues have been consistently sabotaged by staff members of other departments,” Julie Melrose, women’s editor and a sit-in leader, said yesterday.
She alleged that the staff arbitrarily cuts news stories about women, censors feminist editorials, omits articles submitted by women, runs sexist ads, and harasses female staff members.
Michael Smolens, sports editor and one of the paper’s negotiators, said yesterday the newspaper covers women’s issues fairly, adding the protesters are upset because the news “lacks a feminist bent.”
The only time he remembers that the staff censored a feminist editorial was when the editorial attacked staff members by name, Smolens said.
Whether the claims of censorship and harassment were true is perhaps irrelevant at this late date. The point is that feminists resented the authority of the male editors, either in terms of editorial content or staffing decisions, and insisted that women on the staff should be permitted to exercise control independent of the male editors.
This incident demonstrated the teleological purpose of feminism, to abolish male power, per se. As long as any man occupies any position in which he exercises any authority over any women, feminism’s work is not accomplished. Viewing the world through the distorted lenses of radicalism, the feminist sees herself as oppressed — a member of “an enslaved population . . . an occupied people,” as Dworkin said — and resents any man who possesses superior status, prestige or influence. Feminist ideology portrays males as parasitical usurpers, and thus denies that any man can ever deserve respect for his achievements, because his success is always the result of unfair “male privilege.” Nor can any authority exercised by a man ever be recognized as legitimate by feminists, because male power is inherently harmful to women.
What emerges from this resentful worldview is a feminist rhetoric that is deliberately insulting toward males. No man is trustworthy, no man deserves praise and no man possesses any ability that can entitle him to feminist admiration. This is why the “male feminist” is such a pathetic figure, imagining that he can earn respect from women by endorsing an ideology that denies any intrinsic basis for such respect. (Feminism’s first rule for men is “SHUT UP!”) Feminists reserve a particularly venomous hatred for liberal men like Noah Berlatsky, whose “Playboy Feminism” has made him a target of Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy’s ire.
Confronted by the characteric hatefulness of the feminist, a young man is likely to deduce that this angry woman — who seems to despise him merely because he is male — is a lesbian. Certainly this deduction is not unwarranted, when we consider, inter alia, that the leading introductory Women’s Studies textbook is edited by three lesbian professors, and that the communications director of the Feminist Majority Foundation described herself as a “raging lesbian feminist.” To quote the title of a 2010 textbook written by Professor Mimi Marinucci, Feminism Is Queer, and who am I to disagree? Despite all evidence, including Professor Bonnie Zimmerman’s declaration that “historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena,” any man who points this out is met with angry condemnation. You are a misogynist, a bigoted homophobe expressing ignorant stereotypes, if you mention the remarkable prevalence of lesbianism among feminists.
“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)
Recall that Professor Graham’s theories about “sexual terror” were a chief inspiration for the feminist blogger Radical Wind’s rant “PIV is always rape, OK?” The well-informed researcher thumbing through the notes, bibliography and index of Professor Graham’s 1994 book notices that she cites a veritable all-star lineup of Second-Wave lesbian feminists: Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Audre Lorde, Sonia Johnson, Pauline Bart, Marilyn Frye and, of course, Andrea Dworkin:
Dworkin, A., 87, 93, 116, 123, 162, 200, 206, 275, 276
That’s an index entry from p. 310 of Professor Graham’s book, which includes citations to Dworkin’s Woman Hating (1974), Right Wing Women (1983) and Intercourse (1987). This is certainly not a coincidence, any more than the 1978 feminist takeover of the U-Mass student newspaper was a coincidence. Andrea Dworkin knew exactly what she was doing when she incited feminist hatred against males,, and on page 27 of Letters from a War Zone,, Dworkin describes what happened after the U-Mass takeover, “The male editors especially aroused anger against the women by calling them lesbians.” Describing this as a “hate campaign these male editors waged,” Dworkin provided the text of a speech she gave at a rally in support of the U-Mass feminists in which she compared the student newspapers male editors to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels:
Enemies of women, those who are determined to deny us freedom and dignity, use the word lesbian to provoke a hatred of women who do not conform. . . . This hatred is sustained and expressed by virtually every insitituion. . . The threat is that this hatred will explode into violence. The threat is omnipresent because violence against women is culturally applauded. . . .
It is horrifying, but not surprising, that the males on the [student newspaper] . . . have used the word lesbian in the malicious way I have just discribed. With contempt and ridicule, they have been waging a furtive, ruthless propaganda campaign against the feminist occupiers. They are using the word lesbian to rouse the most virulent woman hating on this campus.. . . They are using the word lesbian to hide the true history of their own woman-hating malice in running that corrupt, pretentious, utterly hypocritical newspaper.
These were serious accusations and, in comparing the male student editors to Goebbels, certainly Andrea Dworkin intended to inflame women’s hatred against them. One thing Dworkin did not do, however, was to deny that the feminist protesters at U-Mass were in fact lesbians.
Were they? In the wake of the protests, U-Mass hired Janice Raymond (a lesbian protégé of Mary Daly) as a professor of Women’s Women’s studies, where she remained until her retirement in 2002. In the acknowledgements for her 1986 book A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection, Professor Raymond thanks Andrea Dworkin (“a source of inspiration and strength”) and also thanks another woman whose name may you might recognize: “Julie Melrose dauntlessly read the proofs of this book aloud with me.” Professor Raymond’s personal proofreader, you see, was the same Julie Melrose who as a U-Mass undergraduate led the occupation of the student newspaper. However, don’t speculate why Ms. Melrose would be proofreading a lesbian professor’s lesbian book years later, or you’ll be called a Nazi who wants to “provoke a hatred of women who do not conform.”
So, whatever happened to the male editors of the U-Mass Collegian? In her 1978 speech, Dworkin said these young men “used words to foster ignorance and to encourage bigotry”:
It is shameful to continue to tolerate their flagrant contempt for women, for lesbians; for words, for news, for simple fairness and equity. It is honorable and right to take from them the power they have so abused. I hope that you will strip them of it altogether.
Down with men! Strip them of their power! This is the sum and essence of radical feminism — males can never be trusted with power, because males will always use power to oppress women.
Dworkin’s denunciation, however, failed to persuade university officials to act against the Collegian‘s male editors. William Sundstrom, the editor-in-chief, went on to get his Ph.D. in economics from Stanford and is now a professor at Santa Clara University in California. Meanwhile, the Collegian‘s sports editor — the paper’s negotiator during their standoff with the feminist protest mob — has gone onto an illustrious career in journalism. Michael Smolens has been government and politics editor at the San Diego Union-Tribune since 1992.
Feminists foster hatred against men, and it should not surprise us that men resent this hatred. Nor should we be surprised by the association between feminism and lesbianism, which feminists themselves have done so much to encourage. This is a real phenomenon, as I explain in the final chapter of Sex Trouble:
In 1980, Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” And why shouldn’t this have been the expected result?
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?
You can buy Sex Trouble at Amazon and read the whole thing. It is not yet illegal to tell the truth about feminism, nor is it “hate” to say that a lesbian is a lesbian. It is feminists, and not their critics, who are promoting hate by inciting hostility between men and women.
Cathy Young described Andrea Dworkin as “a relentless preacher of hatred toward men.” Dworkin has been dead for more than 10 years, but the hatred she encouraged lives on, and the only weapon with which we can fight feminism is the truth.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 30, 2015
Please keep me in your prayers as I continue toiling away at this project. Please buy my book, help promote it to others and don’t forget the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:
Posted on | July 29, 2015 | 2 Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Planned Parenthood Responds To Its Terrible Mistake
Doug Powers: Third Planned Parenthood Video Definitely Has Nothing To Do With Profit
Twitchy: Three University of Virginia Students Sue Rolling Stone Over Debunked Rape Story
keep looking »
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: L.A. Superior Court Issues Restraining Order Barring Release Of New Planned Parenthood Videos
American Thinker: Panic In Pittsburgh – Media Struggling To Ignore Black Mob Violence
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Hunters By Tom Young
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin – #BlackLivesMatter…Even In The Womb
Don Surber: I Won The Internet?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Planned Parenthood Butchers Now Warning News Organizations Against Airing Undercover Videos
Joe For America: Five-Year-Old White Girl Shot, Killed By Black Guys, Al Sharpton Silent
JustOneMinute: Mickey Kaus Delivers One For The “Must Read” Stack
Pamela Geller: Iran Executes Almost 700 People In Six Months While Obama Yells At Kenya About Gay Marriage
Protein Wisdom: “On Hating The Jews”
Shot In The Dark: A Good Girl With A Gun
STUMP: Chicago’s DAY OF DOOM! (N.B. has no actual Doctor Doom content)
The Gateway Pundit: BREAKING POLL – Donald Trump Leads All GOP Candidates With Hispanic Voters
The Jawa Report: Loony Liberals Want To Ban Mel Brooks
The Lonely Conservative: Judge Threatens To Hold Obama Administration Officials In Contempt Of Court
This Ain’t Hell: Fight For Armed Recruiters Stymied By Complex Laws And Scaredy Cats
Weasel Zippers: Obama Threatens To Veto VA Accountability Bill
Megan McArdle: Rent Control Makes Sense Only For Politicians
Mark Steyn: Clumps, Lies, And Videotape