Ivy League Butt Sex and Journalism

Posted on | September 23, 2017 | No Comments

When I worked at The Washington Times, our editor was Wes Pruden, son of a Southern Baptist minister, who believed that a newspaper should be sufficiently wholesome to be read by the entire family. There were certain words you simply did not use in The Times, and references to sexual behavior had to be phrased with discretion. Enforcing these standards of journalistic decency was quite challenging during the Lewinsky scandal, which broke two months after I arrived at The Times, and in my subsequent years as the editor of the “Culture, Etc.” page, I often became frustrated with the fact that I could not use direct quotes from some of the shockingly obscene materials that were funded by federal taxpayers in the name of “health” and “education.”

Well, now I’m my own editor and can use the phrase “Butt Sex” in a headline, because let’s face it, this is the Internet, OK? If your children have access to the Internet, reading that phrase isn’t likely to shock them. They’ve probably already seen it — not just in words, but video.

One of the real wake-up calls for me was the 2014 “Belle Knox” scandal, when Duke University freshman Miriam Weeks was exposed as a porn performer. In interviews, she said she started watching porn when she was only 11 or 12 years old. How many exclamation points does that deserve? How can I possibly express the absolute horror that grips the mind of any parent at the thought that this girl, the daughter of a devout Catholic parents, whose father was a physician and an Army officer, was watching hard-core porn when she was in sixth grade?

One of the impediments facing conservatives in the Culture Wars is that, in defending standards of decency and morality, we are unable (or perhaps unwilling) to speak bluntly about what it is we are critiquing. When I was in Massachusetts earlier this month, I was interviewed by Molly Finn on her WCCA-TV program Close to Home and, when she talked about my book Sex Trouble, she was obliged to warn viewers that it is “an R-rated book” because I quote radical feminists in their own words, including words that begin with “c” and “f.”

Robert Stacy McCain interviewed on WCCA-TV's "Close to Home" with Molly Finn. https://t.co/bLdsbG3pZQ

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) September 23, 2017

These problems in fighting the Culture War came to mind this morning when I read about the latest controversy from the Ivy League:

Leaders of the student newspaper at Princeton University have disbanded the publication’s independent editorial board, a move that comes after the group put forth a string of right-leaning opinions, including denouncing the women’s center for its radical feminist agenda and arguing in favor of due process.
“The top editors of the Prince have no involvement in what we write,” said Jack Whelan, a member of the dissolved editorial board, in an interview with The College Fix. “The reason why were we were destroyed is the opinions we published on a regular basis were more conservative than the opinions published on a daily basis in the Princetonian as a whole.”

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) It so happens that my great-grandfather’s brigade was led by a Princeton alumnus, Brig. Gen. J.J. Archer, who was captured (along with my ancestor Pvt. Winston Wood Bolt) by the Union’s Iron Brigade in the opening clash of the Battle of Gettysburg. Thus you might say I have an inherited affection for Princeton, and what are they teaching kids there nowadays? Let’s read the “controversial” editorial:

Since women first enrolled as full-time undergraduates at the University in 1969, female students have made tremendous contributions to our community. As women continually strive to improve their standing on campus, the Board finds the Women’s Center deficient in its role in this effort, because we believe the Center is neither as inclusive nor as effective as it could be. The Board urges the Women’s Center to refocus its programming to emphasize core issues directly affecting the undergraduate experience that are more inclusive of a politically diverse female student body, as well as of all genders. We further propose the Women’s Center solicit greater input from students in order to facilitate more representative programming.
The Women’s Center must have clearer, more appropriate priorities that better correlate with the student experience. The third full week of classes alone featured extensive Women’s Center programming on sex: “Developing a Self-Pleasure Practice” (Oct. 5), three separate sessions titled “Sex with the Lights On” (Oct. 4-6), and “Yoga for Better Sex” (Oct. 6). These events were advertised with posters that included questions like “Where is the male g-spot?” and “Anal is his favorite thing — what’s yours?” . . .

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! Ivy League sodomy lessons? What would General Archer say to that? And what would Wes Pruden say? How can you get readers to understand what’s going on at elite universities without quoting these posters advertising butt sex as “his favorite thing”?

It costs $62,750 a year for parents to send their kid to Princeton, where the Women’s Center quotes lesbian feminist Audre Lorde on its website, and the program coordinator is a self-described “queer, anti-racist white woman” named Jordan Dixon (“pronouns she/her”). How much is Jordan Dixon being paid to promote butt sex at Princeton?

How much federal aid does Princeton University receive annually? Why is it now impermissible for student journalists at Princeton to criticize the Women’s Center? Is anyone on campus at Princeton even allowed to say that butt sex is (a) nasty and (b) specifically forbidden by Judeo-Christian morality? Or would it now be considered an intolerable expression of “homophobia” to quote the Bible at Princeton?

Ladies of Princeton! Wake up! If your boyfriend wants butt sex, you need to ask yourself a simple question: Why? Where did he get the idea that this unsanitary and painful activity was something you should try?

Back when I was in school, aspiring journalists were taught to ask questions and report the facts, rather than to ignore whatever unpleasant truths did not fit within some kind of official institutional ideology. Yet it is apparent that ideology (“Anal sex is awesome!”) is now more important than facts (“Ouch! That hurts! Stop!”) at Princeton, and the student newspaper has become corrupted — “Decadent and Depraved” — by the identity-politics dogma of The Cult of Social Justice.

The situation at Princeton illustrates how far our culture has gone down a slippery slope lubricated with intellectual Astroglide, as I said in 2013. Where will this Weimar decadence lead? “We have weighed anchor, sailed off into uncharted waters without a compass, and are now badly adrift in those regions of the ancient maps marked ‘Here Be Dragons.'”

Wes Pruden would never approve “Butt Sex” in a headline, but I think he would agree with me that Princeton was better in General Archer’s day. Of course, that’s something no one at Princeton now would be allowed to say, for reasons having nothing to do with pro-sodomy feminism.

Floyd Lee Corkins could not be reached for comment.

Another 30 minutes of Robert Stacy McCain interview with Molly Finn on "Close to Home" (WCCA-TV, Worcester, Mass.) https://t.co/JQxpGcPakZ

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) September 23, 2017

Category: Fear. Loathing., Journalism, Sex Trouble, The Ivy League Is Depraved and Decadent

FMJRA 2.0: Silent Running

Posted on | September 23, 2017 | No Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Not All That Obscure
Animal Magnetism
A View From The Beach
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
Proof Positive
EBL

Feminist ‘Comes Out’ and Nobody Cares
Welcome To My Playpen
The DaleyGator
Adam Piggott
EBL

The Wisdom of the Crapper
Updated: Important Announcement
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: The Valley Road
The Pirate’s Cove
A View From The Beach
EBL

Transgender Bullies Make Worldwide News After Attack in London’s Hyde Park
A View From The Beach
EBL

Crazy People Are Dangerous: ‘Non-Binary’ LGBT Student Activist Shot Dead
A View From The Beach
EBL

Anti-White Radicals Terrorize Republican Students at the University of Minnesota
A View From The Beach
Adam Piggott
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.18.17
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.19.17
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

University of North Carolina Continues Promoting Anti-Male Hate Propaganda
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.20.17
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

When Feminism ‘Succeeds’
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.21.17
Proof Positive
EBL

Let’s Put It This Way: Maybe @DDLovato Isn’t a Lesbian (But Her Girlfriend Is)
Welcome To My Playpen

In The Mailbox: 09.22.17
EBL

News Flash: Boys and Girls Are Different

Posted on | September 23, 2017 | No Comments

The World Health Organization wastes money on gender theory studies:

Girls are weak and boys are strong — that’s the crushing finding of a comprehensive new study of children and their parents around the world.
The groundbreaking global study, released by the World Health Organization and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, reveals that it makes no difference whether a child is raised in Baltimore, Beijing or New Delhi — the universal stereotype surrounding what it means to be a girl or a boy prevails.
“We found children at a very early age — from the most conservative to the most liberal societies — quickly internalize this myth that girls are vulnerable and boys are strong and independent,” said Robert Blum, director of the Global Early Adolescent Study, based at Johns Hopkins University. “And this message is being constantly reinforced at almost every turn, by siblings, classmates, teachers, parents, guardians, relatives, clergy and coaches.”
The six-year study of gender expectations around the world saw researchers speak to 450 children aged 10 to 14 with a parent or guardian, from 15 different countries of varying degrees of wealth and development.

As Sarah Hoyt observes, these alleged “stereotypes” aren’t so much harmful as they are realistic. And these “gender expectations” are associated with success and happiness. That is to say, if you want your son to grow up to be a successful man, he must learn to be strong. Women like strong men, and while it sounds insulting to call women “weak” or “vulnerable,” parents of girls have to protect their daughters, and girls must learn to protect themselves, to avoid dangerous situations.

Much of the epidemic of anxiety and depression among young women is, I believe, caused by the unrealistic rhetoric of “empowerment” that schools, media and parents are drumming into girls’ heads. The expectation that every girl will grow up to be a fiercely independent success story — a Yale graduate with a Harvard law degree, or a Stanford-educated software engineer — is preached like gospel in suburban public schools. All the programs on TV portray women having high-powered careers and also, of course, having romantic adventures in glamorous settings. This Hollywood imagery of “empowerment,” reinforced in schools and by parental ambitions, is driving girls crazy.

Y’know what? Bring back home economics. Teach girls it’s OK to enjoy doing girl stuff — cooking, fashion, interior design, child care. There are actually career opportunities in these fields, and if educators would stop insisting that every girl has to go to college, maybe they could find some kind of job where they’d be happy. But oh, no, the feminists wouldn’t allow schools teaching girls to make sandwiches . . .

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 09.22.17

Posted on | September 22, 2017 | No Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: A Mendoucheous Dotard Probably Doomed Graham-Cassidy Obamacare Repeal
Twitchy: MSNBC’s Ari melber Gets Roundly Fact-Checked Over “Nonpartisan” Jimmy Kimmel Claim
Louder With Crowder: The Legendary Mel Brooks – “Political Correctness Will Be The Death Of Comedy”
According To Hoyt: When The Mask Slips
Monster Hunter Nation: Monster Hunter Files Hits #1 In Its Category On Amazon
Vox Popoli: George R.R. Martin On Jerry Pournelle, also, SJW-Converged Comics

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #57 – The Principles Episode, also, Friday Links & Hawt Chicks – The “Keep ‘Er Moving” Edition
American Power: The Mexico Earthquake – Scenes Of Devastation & Hope, also, Herta Mueller, The Hunger Angel
American Thinker: Master Of The Twitter Universe
Animal Magnetism: Rule 5 GMO Nutballery Friday
BattleSwarm: LinkSwarm For September 22
Bring The HEAT: 79 Years Ago – The Deadly 1938 Hurricane
CDR Salamander: Diversity Thursday, also, Fullbore Friday
Da Tech Guy: Couldn’t Be Done, also, Nolan Ryan & The Conventional Wisdom Of Experts
Don Surber: Jim Acosta, White House Tool
Dustbury: Hoplophobe Express
The Geller Report: Iranian President Rouhani Says Security For Israel “Not Possible”
Hogewash: Blogsmoke, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: It’s Now Indisputable – That Cop-Hating John Jay Jerk Has To Go
Joe For America: Here’s Why Trump’s New “Beast” Limo Sports Weird Camo Pattern
JustOneMinute: Manafort Surveillance RE-STARTED After He Left Trump Campaign
Legal Insurrection: Stacy’s Crazy Cousin John “Cannot In Good Conscience” Vote For Graham-Cassidy
Power Line: The FBI – Still Stonewalling
Shark Tank: South Florida Councilman/Attorney Files Questionable Suit Against FP&L
Shot In The Dark: Don’t Try This Yourself (Unless You’re Suitably “Progressive”)
STUMP: On Full Public Pension Funding – A Followup
The Jawa Report: Swiss Imams Charged With Jihadtube Activities
The Political Hat: Decolonizing The Cannibal
This Ain’t Hell: Fake NEO Order In Korea, also, Army Says Botched Repair Caused Tennessee Crash
Weasel Zippers: It’s Shocking How Empty The Stadium Was For Thursday Night Football, also, #blacklivesmatter Whines That WWI Symbol At Oklahoma Museum Is Offensive
Megan McArdle: Trump Slams The Brakes On Self-Driving Cars
Mark Steyn: The Lies Of James Clapper

Today’s Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Outlet Deals

Category: Linkagery

Let’s Put It This Way: Maybe @DDLovato Isn’t a Lesbian (But Her Girlfriend Is)

Posted on | September 22, 2017 | No Comments

In case you don’t know who Demi Lovato is — because you’re an adult and have an actual life — she is an ex-Disney starlet who has struggled with mental illness ever since she got dumped by Joe Jonas in 2010.

Or maybe she was always crazy, not to mention those rumors of being a teenage cocaine addict, but that’s all ex-Disney starlets, right? Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus — being a child star on Disney is excellent preparation for a life of rehab, DUI arrests, etc. If you want your daughter to grow up to be a dope-addled sex maniac, just send her down to Orlando and let the Mouse People™ teach her how it’s done.

Demi Lovato has survived her post-Disney career better than most. She’s developed a sort of cult following as a pop singer — the hashtag is #Lovatics — and most of her fans seem to be girls with “issues” of one sort or another. They’re fat, or they’re depressed, or they don’t have boyfriends, or some combination of these factors. Basically, if you’re a skinny happy girl with a boyfriend, you’re not Demi’s target audience.

Also, for the past few years, Demi’s been pandering to the LGBT crowd. When I say “pandering,” I don’t mean she’s not sincerely gay, but rather that her gayness has been commercially beneficial to her in an era when the Compulsory Approval Doctrine requires everyone to celebrate homosexuality as if we were all Grand Marshals of the San Francisco Pride parade. Sympathy for gay people has been de rigueur in academia, journalism, politics and show business for decades now, and everybody’s anxious to avoid suspicion of “homophobia.” It’s a scandal nowadays to prefer normal sex, and even using a word like “normal” might be enough to put you on the SPLC hate map. But I digress . . .

How gay is Demi Lovato? She’s been hinting around for three or four years. She performed at the Los Angeles Gay Pride festival in 2014, but her publicists issued a press release that vaguely described her as “an active advocate of the LGBT community.” OK, how “active” is she, and does her advocacy include dining at the all-you-can-eat seafood buffet?

Ah, details, details — but never mind the colorful metaphors, because the paparazzi finally got pictures of Demi Lovato with her girlfriend.

Despite all this headline buzz (coincidentally or not, just as Demi’s releasing a new album, as the cynics among us must note) the ex-starlet proved herself to be a cunning linguist, by issuing a non-denial of her relationship that was also a non-confirmation of her gayness. Lovato’s shrewd ambiguity could be clever show-business publicity to keep up the gossip tabloid guessing-game, but the Serious Gay Journalist™ crowd wants to turn everything into an LGBT identity-politics statement.

Demi Lovato’s Reason For Refusing To Talk
About Her Sexuality Is Total Bulls**t

You can click that headline if you want to laugh at a silly gay man hyperventilating about why it’s wrong — wrong! wrong! wrong! — for Demi Lovato not to publicly confess that she’s as gay as the president of the Rosie O’Donnell Fan Club. Or whatever. The editor of HuffPoQueer is very serious about homosexuality, in a way strangely reminiscent of the late Rev. Fred Phelps. As a Christian conservative, probably I should be writing seriously about how Demi Lovato’s carnal perversion will doom her to destruction in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15), but why preach a sermon when you can just torment celebrity sinners with sarcasm?

Besides which, first of all, Joe Jonas is as much doomed to Hell as Demi Lovato, and perhaps more deserving of eternal destruction than she is. How many girls did Joe pump and dump like he did Demi? Dozens, I’m sure, and whatever happened to all those women he used and discarded? How many of them turned out as bad as Demi Lovato or worse? There’s a reason why I’m glad my 24-year-old twin sons are both married, because otherwise they’d be out there casually breaking hearts with no regard for the consequences, temporal or eternal. But once again I digress . . .

The other reason why I’m not preaching a fire and brimstone sermon about Demi Lovato is because she is fully aware that she’s a sinner, and is therefore “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). We need not doubt that Demi can rationalize her sin in her “reprobate mind” (Romans 1:28) and is under “strong delusion” (II Thessalonians 2:11). Perhaps some of my devout friends will say a prayer for Demi Lovato’s repentance, but why waste prayers on an “active advocate” of evil? There are too many good people suffering in this world for me to spend much time worrying about the souls of celebrity millionaire perverts. Why pray for Demi Lovato when there are boys younger than her deployed to Kandahar, fighting Taliban terrorists and not knowing if they’ll ever make it back home?

What has Demi Lovato ever done that should merit admiration or sympathy from anyone? She was a 10-year-old “star” on Barney and Friends, the most wretched children’s show in TV history, starred in Camp Rock at age 13, then leveraged her forgettable Disney series into an record deal. She is basically just a manufactured commodity marketed by the entertainment industry. Her life has been a public performance since childhood, and trying to separate her image from her authentic self is impossible, because how can there be anything truly authentic left beneath the show-business façade she’s been paid to display all these years? If there is a “real” Demi behind the masquerade, is she someone we would actually like? Or is she just another soulless atheist who sees herself existing in a godless world without meaning or purpose?

Just because Demi Lovato refuses to label her “sexuality” doesn’t mean we can’t. Her sexuality is — wait for it — a marketing gimmick.

And isn’t that just pathetic? One might muster some sympathy for the secretly homosexual celebrity who is trapped in the closet, but I don’t want to deal with a libel suit from Tom Cruise, so never mind. On the other hand, sex sells, and what better way for Demi Lovato to keep her name in the headlines — and sell her new album — than to take her (alleged) lesbian girlfriend to Disneyland and let the paparazzi get some pictures, then invoke her privacy when reporters ask questions.

Clever little game, really, and we ought to call it what it is, rather than to pretend that Demi’s too dumb to know exactly what she’s doing. If you’re going to sell your soul, might as well make a profit, eh? Oh, and it looks like Joe Jonas is boning yet another starlet who will, no doubt, eventually end up as pathetic as Demi Lovato. Joe is so going to Hell . . .

SPLC: Heterosexuals are a 'hate group,' basically. https://t.co/TE2KQpVRIc

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) September 22, 2017

Category: Celebrities, Gays

In The Mailbox: 09.21.17

Posted on | September 21, 2017 | No Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Valerie Plame Celebrates The Jewish High Holidays – Those Warmongering Jews!
Twitchy: Will Tough Guy Jimmy Kimmel Accept This Offer From Heritage Action?
Louder With Crowder: South Park Skewers Constant Liberal Social Media Outrage

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Mythical Boundaries Of Hate Speech
American Power: How To Exploit The Left’s National Nervous Breakdown
American Thinker: Explaining The Narcissistic Rage Of The Left
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Armored Column News
BattleSwarm: Blogroll Addition – Judicial Watch
Bring The HEAT: Huntsville Man To Receive Medal Of Honor For Vietnam Heroics
CDR Salamander: Secure Shipyard Jobs…In China
Da Tech Guy: The Notion That Graham-Cassidy Has To Pass To Save The GOP Is Ludicrous
Don Surber: Why CNN Told You Trump’s Campaign Was Wiretapped
Dustbury: Powermongery
The Geller Report: NH Muslim “Refugee” Rapes Several Little Girls As Young As Seven
Hogewash: Mean Words, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: New Democratic Party Leader Threatens Fox Host With Violence
Joe For America: Trump Expands US Military Presence In Israel
JustOneMinute: The Graham-Cassidy Health Care Bill
Legal Insurrection: IT Aide In House Network Scandal Allegedly Abused Three Women
Power Line: Why Trump is So Much Fun, also, Trump v. Obama On Foreign Policy
Shark Tank: Rand Paul Equates Graham-Cassidy To 2013 Senate Amnesty Bill
Shot In The Dark: The North Loop Is Burning! Part III – Never Never Land
The Jawa Report: Feelgood Video Of The Day – Kilroy Drones ISIS Execution, also, Dear Rasmea Odeh
The Political Hat: Mandatory Diversity – In The College, In The Market, In Pedagogy
This Ain’t Hell: Afghan President Outlines Strategy
Weasel Zippers: We’re All Going To Die!!! (Again), also, Absentee NOLA Mayor Landrieu Natters About Statues While His City Has No Water
Mark Steyn: The Decadence of Democrats, also, The Inability To Uni-Task

Today’s Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Outlet Deals

Category: Linkagery

When Feminism ‘Succeeds’

Posted on | September 21, 2017 | No Comments

“What is feminism?”

This was the question that I addressed in my presentation Sept. 9 in Leominster, Massachusetts, hosted by the Worcester Tea Party, Da Tech Guy Blog and Granite Grok. (Click here to see the 30-minute video.)

What most people don’t understand about feminism is that the movement is entirely destructive in its goals. This is a consequence of the Marxist influence on feminist ideology. Any careful student of Marxism, and its historical manifestation in the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes, recognizes that Marx (and Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, et al.) did not begin with a plan to replace the capitalist system. How would socialism work? This was not a question that Marxist revolutionaries spent much time pondering. What mattered was the radical dream of destroying a bourgeois society that they condemned in toto. Destruction was Marxism’s goal, and what came after the revolution — the “dictatorship of the proletariat” — would just work itself out somehow.

Well, we know that worked out. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, everyone with two eyes and a functional brain realizes that the Marxist-Leninist dream has produced nothing but fear, hunger and violence. To this day, from Pyongyang to Caracas, we see the nightmare of poverty and terror that descends upon any place where socialist revolutionaries “succeed.” And because the modern feminist movement owes its origins to the radical New Left of the 1960s, feminism incorporates the fundamentally destructive nature of Marxist ideology.

My presentation in Massachusetts featured some two dozen quotes from feminists, spanning more than 40 years, demonstrating the deranged nature of this destructive ideology. “Smash patriarchy” — and then what?

Exactly what did feminists have in mind to replace “patriarchy”? If your answer to that question is “equality,” then you must then tell me what this imaginary regime of equality will look like — how it will operate in practice, not theory — and demonstrate that your radical dream is both (a) possible and (b) preferable to the allegedly unjust society that you will destroy in order to bring about your heaven-on-earth feminist utopia.

It is evident that no feminist leader was ever required to provide such a plan back in those days of dope-addled radicalism in the 1960s and ’70s, and anyone interested in feminism’s history ought to consider the points I made, and the questions I raised, in my Sept. 9 presentation:

One of the key founders of the Women’s Liberation Movement was Shulamith Firestone, who in 1968 used a mailing list of SDS women to organize the first radical feminist groups in New York and Washington, D.C. . . . Firestone’s 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex reflected the Marxist influence on feminist ideology. She condemned the “biological family” as a source of “tyranny,” and advocated the “elimination . . . of the sex distinction itself.”
Whatever happened to Shulamith Firestone? She was eventually diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. For decades, she lived on public assistance. She died alone, at age 67, in a tiny apartment in August 2012. By the time they found her body, she had been dead for a week.
Another early radical Women’s Liberation group, led by Ti-Grace Atkinson, called themselves simply “The Feminists.” In their manifesto, they described men as “enemies” and “oppressors” of women, and vowed to destroy “sex roles,” which they claimed are the product of a political “class separation.” Again, this shows the extent to which Second-Wave feminists borrowed their ideology and rhetoric from Marxism.
It was in a 1969 interview with Life magazine that Ti-Grace Atkinson declared, “Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery.” One of her comrades, Sheila Cronan, elaborated on this claim by saying that the cruelty of marriage is demonstrated by “the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.” Now, we see how feminist ideology is based in claims of “oppression.” Men are the “enemy,” marriage is “slavery” and the family is “tyranny.” Where does this kind of rhetoric logically lead? . . .

Well, you can watch the whole thing on YouTube. Nearly 50 years after Shulamith Firestone began organizing what was then called the Women’s Liberation Movement (what is now known as “Second Wave” feminism), the real-life consequences are everywhere around us:

Tennessee made headlines as the Deadbeat Dad Capital of the World a few years ago. The story started in May 2012 with Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville, who had reportedly sired 30 offspring by 11 different women. WREG-TV quoted Hatchett: “I had four kids in the same year. Twice.” When that story drew nationwide attention — “Tennessee Baby Machine Is A State Inmate” was the Smoking Gun headline — a Memphis TV station did some checking with local court records and discovered that Terry Tyrone Turnage had spawned 23 children with 17 different women, while Richard M. Colbert was the father of 25 children by 18 different women. Then in 2013, a Nashville TV station reported that Orlando Shaw, 33, was the father of 22 children by 14 different women. “I was young and ambitious, and I love women,” Shaw told WTVF. “You can’t knock no man for loving women.”
In case you lost count: 4 men, 60 women, 100 children.
None of these serial inseminators was a “father” beyond the mere facts of biology. They were not capable of paying child-support adequate to the needs of their offspring, nor did they support the “baby mamas” who incubated their seed. Various taxpayer-funded government programs — Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, AFDC, etc. — make possible such reckless sprees of irresponsible procreation. Any student of sociology would expect that when these children are old enough to reproduce, they will do so in similarly disordered ways. And this is what feminists call success. . . .

Read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree.

A friend on Twitter commented that my columns sometimes “make me so angry I want to punch a feminazi.” Let me state for the record that I am against punching feminazis. The smart thing to do is to shun feminists — avoid them completely — and to advise others to do the same.

"Feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it." https://t.co/bnG8iaOGva

Thanks! @DaTechGuyblog @GraniteGrok pic.twitter.com/Wj9iH0ma6S

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) September 21, 2017