The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sex Trouble: Yes, Feminists DO ‘Practice Witchcraft … and Become Lesbians’

Posted on | February 26, 2015 | 38 Comments

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
Pat Robertson, 1992

Today the first edition of my book Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature is available for purchase from Amazon — just in time for CPAC — and by happy coincidence, another journalist has recently confirmed what I have been telling you guys for months: Every single word of that quote is true.

All any researcher has to do is to Google “Dianic Wicca” or “Goddess Movement” to learn all they need to know about this, but I went beyond that; I’ve already read five books about neopagan witchcraft and especially about the feminist witch cult known as “Reclaiming.”

The link between feminism, lesbianism and — yes, believe it or not — witchcraft is familiar territory for those who have been reading the “Sex Trouble” series here for the past seven months, but it was news to Guardian columnist Sady Doyle:

Season of the witch: why young women
are flocking to the ancient craft

Rapper Azealia Banks brought witchcraft back into the mainstream by tweeting ‘I’m really a witch’. But women in the US have been harnessing its power for decades as a ‘spiritual but not religious’ way to express feminist ambitions

. . .Witchcraft — and the embrace of “magical” practices, like reading tarot cards — has recently experienced a resurgence of sorts among young, creative, politically engaged women.
This is largely reflected in niche corners of US pop culture: 2013’s American Horror Story: Coven, in which witchcraft stood in for girl power, was the most popular American Horror Story season ever. A popular Tumblr blog, Charmcore, purports to be run by three witch sisters; it gives sarcastic “magical” advice and praise of the female celebrities it deems to be “obvious witches”. On the more serious side, teen sensation Rookie magazine has published tarot tutorials along with more standard-issue feminist and fashion advice, and Autostraddle, a popular left-leaning blog for young queer women, has an in-house tarot columnist. Speaking of which, those tarot cards are available in trendy Brooklyn knickknack shops and Urban Outfitters, as well as new age stores. And these days, no one thinks there’s anything weird about herbal medicine and other potions. . . .
“To reclaim the word witch is to reclaim our right, as women, to be powerful,” wrote Starhawk, in her seminal 1979 book The Spiral Dance. “To be a witch is to identify with 9 million victims of bigotry and hatred and to take responsibility for shaping a world in which prejudice claims no more victims.”
Today, The Spiral Dance is in its third edition, and has sold over 300,000 copies. It is many people’s first introduction to Wicca, the earth-based spiritual movement that was created in the 1950s and has come to be a recognized religion around the world. It is also one of the most well known and comprehensive texts from a very particular moment in feminist history which until recently was largely unfashionable: the “women’s spirituality” movement, in which women radically rewrote existing religions, or simply made their own to be in line with the goals of women’s liberation.

Doyle quotes Autostraddle’s lesbian tarot columnist talking about “women who were persecuted in the past — wise women, witches, women who practiced that kind of ‘kitchen table’ healing that wasn’t part of the patriarchal progression of medicine.” This feminist myth of medieval witches as pagan proto-feminists persecuted by religious patriarchy was promoted in the 1970s by radical lesbians Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin. As I explain in Sex Trouble, “These claims have since been debunked by legitimate historians, including the British professor Ronald Hutton, whose 1999 book The Triumph of the Moon is arguably the definitive history of modern witchcraft.”

Let me make two points about my methods as a journalist:

  1. I never underestimate the intelligence of my readers. It is a common mistake of journalists to think they are endowed with special wisdom, so that they must explain everything to readers who are presumed to be too stupid to figure things out on their own. Such an arrogant attitude insults the reader. Besides, who wants a readership of dimwit ignoramuses? Daily Kos?
  2. In the Internet age, every reader is their own fact-checker. You can use Google the same as me. If I were to start just making stuff up like a Rolling Stone reporter, my readers would bust me in a heartbeat. There’s no point trying to deceive or mislead readers. Even if I wanted to lie to you, I couldn’t get away with it. My job is to find the truth and write the truth, and if it weren’t for the relationship of trust that has been developed with regular readers here in the past seven years, I wouldn’t be doing this.

Nobody has a monopoly on the facts, so I encourage readers to do their own research. So many of the stories I tell here begin with somebody in the comments throwing in a link, or a Twitter follower tipping me off to a story. And this whole crazy radical feminist trip really began when one of my friendly readers called my attention to this crazy sentence:

“No woman is heterosexual.”

As I explain in the concluding chapter of Sex Trouble:

That four-word sentence sent me off on an investigation of her sources, especially including Professor Dee Graham, whose 1994 book Loving to Survive theorized female heterosexuality as a response to male-inflicted “sexual terror,” akin to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Understanding this claim in turn required me to examine the sources cited in Graham’s bibliography, including lesbian feminists like Marilyn Frye, Adrienne Rich, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde and Charlotte Bunch. Graham even managed to work in a citation to “Starhawk” (neé Miriam Simos), the lesbian feminist who was the founding high priestess of a California-based pagan witchcraft cult known as Reclaiming. From such dubious sources Graham had propounded her theory of sexuality, based in a view of men as violent oppressors and women as victims suffering under tyrannical male supremacy.

Still more, from the same concluding chapter:

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 now at Amazon and read the whole thing, which brings the whole thing full circle back around to Starhawk, Dianic Wicca and the “Goddess Movement.” All of this may seem like kooky fringe stuff to some readers, but you’re not stupid. Do you really think an experienced political reporter would have spent so many months on this subject just for the fun of it? Oh, sure, it’s a lot of fun to point and laugh at these kooks and weirdos, but perhaps you’ve forgotten how this began with “The Long Shadow of the Lavender Menace.” Perhaps you didn’t recognize the significance of all those names of radical lesbians who joined the Women’s Liberation movement in the 1970s. I did.

This story isn’t going to go away, my friends. Republican strategists never had a motive to go that deep in their opposition research files in 2008, because Obama destroyed Hillary in the Democrat primaries. Yet the smart money now says Hillary is a near-certainty for the 2016 nomination; she seems to have no serious Democrat opponent. The connections between Hillary Clinton and Charlotte Bunch (who has never recanted her 1972 lesbian manifesto) and the 1995 Beijing women’s conference? Yeah, that subject is likely to become very interesting to a lot of people if and when Hillary gets the Democrat presidential nomination. Trust me on this. The prophetic omens are clear.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature . . .”
Romans 1:22, 26 (KJV)

This special 120-page first edition of Sex Trouble is, of course, really a preview of the larger work that I now expect to finish by this fall. My original plan was to have the whole thing wrapped up months ago, but then I got swept up in the whirlpool of this radical madness and realized there was so much to synthesize and explain that there was no way I could do it in a hurry. Rather than force readers to wait another six months, however, I decided to put together this first edition for the loyal readers who have done so much already support this project.

Keep me in your prayers as I continue toiling away at this. Please buy my book, help promote it to others and don’t forget the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:




Bookmark and Share

ISIS Killer Identified as Computer Science Major Mohammed Emwazi

Posted on | February 26, 2015 | 35 Comments

Don’t tell @MarieHarf this, but middle-class Muslims from England with university degrees become radical Islamic terrorists:

The world knows him as “Jihadi John,” the masked man with a British accent who has beheaded several hostages held by the Islamic State and who taunts audiences in videos circulated widely online.
But his real name, according to friends and others familiar with his case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming. He is believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined the Islamic State, the group whose barbarity he has come to symbolize. . . .
A representative of a British human rights group who had been in contact with Emwazi before he left for Syria also said he believed Emwazi was Jihadi John, a moniker given to him by some of the hostages he once held. . . .
The Kuwaiti-born Emwazi, in his mid-20s, appears to have left little trail on social media or elsewhere online. Those who knew him say he was polite and had a penchant for wearing stylish clothes while adhering to the tenets of his Islamic faith. He had a beard and was mindful of making eye contact with women, friends said. . . .
He was raised in a middle-class neighborhood in London and on occasion prayed at a mosque in Greenwich.
The friends, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, believe that Emwazi started to radicalize after a planned safari in Tanzania following his graduation from the University of Westminster.
Emwazi and two friends — a German convert to Islam named Omar and another man, Abu Talib — never made it on the trip. Once they landed in Dar es Salaam, in May 2009, they were detained by police and held overnight. It’s unclear whether the reason for the detention was made clear to the three, but they were eventually deported.
Emwazi flew to Amsterdam, where he claimed that an officer from MI5, Britain’s domestic security agency, accused him of trying to reach Somalia, where the militant group al-Shabab operates in the southern part of the country, according to e-mails that he sent to [Asim Qureshi, research director at the rights group, CAGE] and that were provided to The Post.
Emwazi denied the accusation and claimed that MI5 representatives had tried to recruit him. But a former hostage said Jihadi John was obsessed with Somalia and made his captives watch videos about al-Shabab, which is allied with al-Qaeda. . . .
Shortly afterward, Emwazi decided to move to his birthplace, Kuwait, where he landed a job working for a computer company, according to the e-mails he wrote to Qureshi. He came back to London twice, the second time to finalize his wedding plans to a woman in Kuwait. . . .
In June 2010, however, counterterrorism officials in Britain detained him again — this time fingerprinting him and searching his belongings. When he tried to fly back to Kuwait the next day, he was prevented from doing so.
“I had a job waiting for me and marriage to get started,” he wrote in a June 2010 e-mail to Qureshi. But now “I feel like a prisoner, only not in a cage, in London. A person imprisoned & controlled by security service men, stopping me from living my new life in my birthplace & country, Kuwait.”
Nearly four months later, when a court in New York sentenced Aafia Siddiqui, an al-Qaeda operative convicted for the attempted murder of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, Emwazi expressed sympathy for her, saying he had “heard the upsetting news regarding our sister. .?.?. This should only keep us firmer towards fighting for freedom and justice!!!”

You can read the whole thing. Basically, Emwazi was suspected of terrorist sympathies as early as 2009. Contrary to anything claimed by the idiot Marie Harf, Emwazi’s grievance (like the grievances of jihadis in general) has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with Islam and hatred of the West. It may be true that many ISIS fighters come from impoverished backgrounds, but if poverty caused terrorism, then why aren’t the many millions of impoverished Hindus in India joining Hindu terrorist groups? Why don’t impoverished Buddhists join Buddhist terrorist groups? Why don’t impoverished Baptists join Baptist terrorist groups?

No, it’s not Hindus or Buddists or Baptists or Lutherans or Zorastrians who hate us and want to kill us. It’s Muslims.

Why do they hate us? BECAUSE THEY HATE!


Bookmark and Share

Will No One Rid Us Of This Turbulent Godbag Christofascist Scott Walker?

Posted on | February 26, 2015 | 42 Comments

by Smitty

Via HotAir headlines, this blog must chip in and do its part to support raising awareness of the danger of Scott Walker. John Cassidy’s so-called attack on Walker in The New Yorker was so tepid as to invite the question of whether Cassidy is actually a stealth admirer. Let’s see if we can’t be a helpy helper-blog (original text in italics):

Let’s stipulate up front that Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, is an odious politician whose ascension to the Presidency would be a disaster.

“Odious” and “disaster” hardly seem to capture the breadth of what’s going on here. Let’s see if we can crank the hyperbole up a bit, shall we?

OMFG, Scott Walker is the political equivalent of Godzilla, and his Presidency would be a four-year Stephen King stream of consciousness!

Our readers should be clutching their pearls in fear and inching toward the fainting couch straight away. Are we warming to the task? Yes! Yes, we are:

Set aside, for a moment, his repeated refusal, in the past few days, to say whether he believes that President Obama loves America, or whether he believes that the President is a Christian, and look instead at Walker’s record running what used to be one of America’s more progressive states. Having cut taxes for the wealthy and stripped many of Wisconsin’s public-sector unions of their collective-bargaining rights, he is now preparing to sign a legislative bill that would cripple unions in the private sector. Many wealthy conservatives, such as the Koch brothers, who have funnelled a lot of money to groups supporting Walker, regard him as someone who’s turning his state into a showcase for what they want the rest of America to look like.

See, now, this paragraph is hardly Koch-tacular enough. Steroids, please:

No detail is too small for his reign of anti-Progressive, Jurrasic hate. From rejecting Evolution to the President’s affection for the country to Obama’s painstakingly measured, abstract affection generally directed at the Diety, Walker is the Spleen Of Infinite Dumping! But, like some vast lizard of old, these teensy hersies are just tiny twists of the knife compared to what he’s done to Sacred Unions, public and private. Walker-zilla wants to sacrifice them, Tokyo-style, on his altar of contempt for the 40 hour work week, and all the other good things that organized labor has done for this country! And it’s all at the behest of those hellspawn Kochs, who are so diabolical that they make Beelze-Bush the Anti-Clinton look like the adorable Wendy Davis. Could she by, say, May, play Fay Wray, lay gay lei on Walker-Kong, and move a real scandal along?

Hopefully Cassidy will read that last sentence and kiss this blog’s assonance. More:

But just how threatening is he? If you’ve been following the political news during the past week, you may well have the impression that he’s stumbling in his campaign for the 2016 G.O.P. nomination. Among the political commentariat, the consensus of opinion is that Walker’s repeated refusal to distance himself from Rudy Giuliani’s incendiary comments about Obama, and his subsequent encounter with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz and Robert Costa, during which he appeared to question Obama’s religious faith and took some shots at the media for asking him silly questions, weren’t merely reprehensible: they were serious gaffes that raised questions about Walker’s political abilities.

Again, this prose is hardly turgid enough to hold this badger-wolf at bay. But this blog goes to 11!

Has he threatened you? Personally? With a sharpened piece of rebar? He could. He’s the quiet type that sure seems like he’d be a good neighbor, until the first responders start rolling in, sirens blaring. But do you want to know why he failed to rip Giuliani’s beating, raaaaacist, hate-filled heart from Rudy’s aged torso on command from the media? Because, behind that little PK façade, Scott Walker is actually a Priest of Cthulhu! Pinky swear. Giuliani, too. All these GOP elite are, according to The So there was no way Walker could do anything other than join in the chant and scheme the rejection of all that our President holds dear. Dangerous? Does Sarah Palin say “You betcha?”. Stop. These. Reprehensible. Madman. He is the greatest existential threat to the ascension of Her Majesty (Peace Be Upon Her) next year.

One could go on, but duty calls. Pray for all of our officials. The ones in office, the ones that may yet be elected. The ones you favor, but especially the ones you don’t (1Tim2).
Also, shout out to MKH for “Godbag Christofascist“.
If you want, you can wade through the rest of Cassidy’s rant.

Bookmark and Share


Posted on | February 25, 2015 | 29 Comments

Today’s vote in the Senate drew furious scorn in a statement from grassroots conservative activist Becky Gerritson:

I along with millions of conservatives around the country are furious with the Republicans’ surrender in the Senate today! We listened to Republican promises to curb spending, restore our liberties and stop President Obama’s illegal executive orders regarding immigration. We helped them win the Senate in November; giving them the largest majority in the House and Senate since WWII. Hopes were high.
However, instead of seizing the power they had been given by the voters, Republican leaders have timidly continued business as usual. In December, kowtowing to Democrat spin on shutting down the government, they passed a trillion dollar spending bill with the promise that in February they would stop President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill.
But now, as the deadline for funding DHS approaches and the Democrats have filibustered (four times) a bill that would fund DHS except for Obama’s Illegal Amnesty, the Republicans are again showing their lack of resolve. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has revealed his feckless leadership and instead of holding the line on defunding executive amnesty, he is offering a “clean bill” to the Democrats on a silver platter. They are holding all the cards and yet they are folding!
According to exit polls, 75% of Americans reject Obama’s executive action. So Republican leadership didn’t merely let down their party, they abandoned their country. Whether Mitch McConnell’s feeble stewardship is due to cowardice or complicity, he has embarrassed and weakened his office, his party and our nation.
Becky Gerritson
President, Wetumpka TEA Party (AL)
“Born Free American Woman”–Congressional Testimony

Some people you can walk over and live to tell about it. But you don’t do that to people from Wetumpka, Alabama.


Bookmark and Share

You Had Me at ‘Pansexual’

Posted on | February 25, 2015 | 48 Comments

Kathy Shaidle on Twitter called my attention to this video, shot at a protest Tuesday in Toronto about a proposed new sex education curriculum in Ontario schools. Critics of the curriculum are criticizing the province’s Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne (who is a lesbian, as Canadian Liberals usually are), and there was a rally Tuesday that drew about 200 opponents. There were also a handful of counter-protesters supporting the Liberal lesbian-approved curriculum. A counter-protest leader is interviewed at about the 1:15 mark of this video:

“I am a non-binary so that means I don’t identify as male or female and I am pansexual which means I am attracted to all genders. I grew up in the current sex-ed curriculum in a Catholic school environment that was very limited in terms of talking about any relations that were outside of marital cisgender heterosexual intercourse.”

Yet, despite this, she turned out to be a non-binary pansexual, and a Liberal. Probably looked it up on the Internet.

Speaking of looking things up on the Internet:

“From ‘anal fluid’ to the ‘nine genders,’ it’s obvious that this curriculum is pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one.”


Bookmark and Share

The #RapeCulture Feminists Ignore

Posted on | February 25, 2015 | 12 Comments

Don’t expect @JessicaValenti or any other feminist to mention the names Qumaire Rainey, Edward London and Casey Franks:

One of several victims of a Jan. 19 home invasion and robbery was sexually assaulted four times by three of the assailants, according to Metro’s arrest report.
Three teens arrested in the attacks were in court Friday morning.
The judge set no bail for 18-year-old Qumaire Rainey, 18, Edward London, 17, and Casey Franks, 16. . . .
The attacks and robbery began about 7:30 p.m. when four male teens kicked in the door of the home in the southwest Las Vegas Valley, grabbed a male victim, forced him to the floor and pointed a gun to his head. As some of the men began ransacking the house, another suspect held a knife to the victim’s throat.
An adult woman who was sleeping upstairs was awakened by loud crashes and noise. One of the assailants pushed through the door into her bedroom and put a gun to her head. He repeatedly questioned her: “Where is the safe, bitch? Where is the money? Where is the gold?” The man then walked down the hallway to the children’s bedroom.
In that bedroom, he confronted another adult woman who was sleeping with two children. After demanding to know where he would find valuables, he ordered her to keep the children in the room or they all would be killed. After taking valuables from the bedroom, the man returned to the other adult woman.
He forced her into another bedroom, pulled off her clothing and began sexually assaulting her. She begged him not to rape her. She told police he choked her as he raped her. Another suspect entered the room and demanded that she perform oral sex on him.
A third suspect then came to the room and raped her. She begged him to stop.
Moments later, another assailant, who appeared to be the group’s leader, ordered the other suspect to stop assaulting the woman. “This isn’t why we’re here. If you wanna get your rocks off, we can call one our bitches or hoes.” He then helped the woman off the floor and apologized.
As soon as this man left the room, another suspect entered and raped the woman a third time.

Raped three times by three armed assailants in her own home — yeah, you might think a story like that would be of interest to feminists who manufactured a fake gang rape at the University of Virginia to dramatize their “rape culture” agenda. In fact, the victim in Las Vegas is something of a celebrity, a former porn performer known at Cytherea.

Despite the high-profile victim and the brutality of the crime, however, this has been greeted with total silence from the “rape culture” feminists. Matt Forney at Return of Kings explains:

Feminists won’t address Cytherea’s rape because her story destroys their entire narrative. . . . Acknowledging what happened to Cytherea would ruin their con game. . . .
One look at the race of Cytherea’s alleged rapists and you can see a big reason why the left won’t touch the story. The media is constantly on the lookout for what Tom Wolfe calls the “Great White Defendant,” a criminal case featuring a white man who is utterly guilty of victimizing a woman or a racial minority.
This desire to demonize white men drives not only popular rape hoaxes such as the Duke lacrosse case or the UVA rape story, but white-on-black crime stories such as the Trayvon Martin case and the Ferguson debacle.
Feminists are also ignoring Cytherea’s rape because of the class factor. The rape stories that SJWs [“Social Justice Warriors”] squirt tears over — such as UVA rape liar Jackie Coakley or “Mattress Girl” Emma Sulkowicz—involve upper-class white girls being purportedly brutalized by “entitled,” “privileged” white men. . . .
SJWs are so wedded to their narrative of rape being perpetuated by upper-class white men that they’ll rush to defend any wealthy white girl who cries rape, no matter how obvious her lie.

Meanwhile, feminists ignore victims of actual rapists. You can almost hear Andrew Breitbart hissing “their precious narrative.”


Bookmark and Share

Feminist Stupidity Daily: Ideological Aggression and the Kafkatrapping Game

Posted on | February 25, 2015 | 67 Comments

“Once a woman is singled out by a men’s rights group such as A Voice for Men, the misogynist Reddit forum The Red Pill or even just a right-wing Twitter account like Twitchy, she is deluged with hatred.”
Michelle Goldberg, Washington Post

Because I’ve been busy offline the past few days, the stupidity has been piling up, and I need to clear away some backlog. Let’s start by checking in at the repository of amateurish nonsense, Everyday Feminism:

7 Ways to Lovingly Support Your
Gender Non-Binary Partner

(Why is your partner “gender non-binary”? Is there a drastic shortage of normal human beings on the planet? Are you so desperate you’ll date any doomed weirdo that shows up?)

Thinking Critically About Who Pays for the Date
The primary dating script, as advertised by American pop culture (most notably, romantic comedies), supposedly serves as a map to help us navigate romantic love’s rough, rough terrain.
However, in a society that privileges different types of people over others, that map is filled with hazardous roadblocks for some and traffic-free highways for others.
One of the most significant factors in determining who gets assigned which roles from the dating script is money. . . . When we spend it, how we spend it, and who is spending it all come under scrutiny in this classist society.
Consequently, who pays for the date (and the contract that payment supposedly creates) is usually rooted in assumptions about gender and sexuality that deserve a lot more scrutiny. . . .

(Yeah, thinking critically about gender assumptions in classist society. Good luck getting a first date. A second date? No way.)

5 Ways to Deal with Misguided
(But Well-Intentioned) Allies

We’ve all been there. Whether it’s a self-proclaimed “male feminist” making sex-shaming comments on a Facebook post or the “LGBTQIA-friendly” straight ally unwittingly making transphobic slurs at a party – the misguided ally is nearly impossible to avoid.
It’s not that the misguided ally is a bad person. We know they don’t want to hurt us. But they do.
And then, often times, they hurt us even more by choosing to blame to us for whatever awkward experience ensues as opposed to taking accountability.
Though these instances are irritating, their irritation is nuanced. They often facilitate in safer spaces becoming unsafe, which, in turn, expedites the increased formation of identity-exclusive spaces.
And while having spaces just for marginalized people themselves (spaces specifically for people of color, or trans folks, or for women-identified people) isn’t inherently wrong, they often end up being centered around healing from the harmful microaggressions of “allies.” . . .

Do you understand what’s wrong here? These feminist zombies are so desperate they’re scraping around for “gender non-binary” partners, but then it’s time for a lecture about who should pay for the date “in this classist society.” And, although I can’t imagine who would want to be an “ally” to these obnoxious losers, if you do want to be their “ally,” that means you’ve got to watch every word you say, because you can’t make any “sex-shaming” comments or “transphobic slurs.”

Where do they get the idea that the rest of us have nothing better to do with our lives than to scrupulously avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of Special Snowflakes? Hypersensitive political correctness is just a game for moral narcissists — More Progressive Than Thou! — who sit around congratulating themselves on how “inclusive” they are.

Do I seem irritated? You’d be irritated, too, if you’d been reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape, a collection of articles edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. This is a very bad book written by very bad women, among them the execrable Stacey May Fowles, whose essay begins thus:

Because I’m a feminist who enjoys domination, bondage, and pain in the bedroom, it should be pretty obvious why I often remain mute and, well, pretty closeted about my sexuality.

Yeah, but you had to write a 3,000-word essay about it, didn’t you? Other contributors to Yes Means Yes include Kimberly Springer, a Ph.D. in Women’s Studies whose essay is entitled, “Queering Black Female Heterosexuality,” and Kate Harding, a “fat-acceptance” blogger who provides an essay called, “How Do You F–k a Fat Woman?” My favorite (and by “favorite,” I mean most wretched) of the whole collection, however, is “Reclaiming Touch: Rape Culture, Explicit Verbal Consent, and Body Sovereignty,” which asks the question: “Can we really draw a sharp line between sexual assault and unwanted nonsexual touch?” Most people would have no problem answering “yes” to that question, but here we encounter a feminist claiming that a hug between friends is an act that should require Explicit Verbal Consent.

My first instinct when I read craziness like this is to investigate the source. It is my common-sense suspicion that crazy ideas are usually the product of crazy minds, and in this case we’ve hit the Big Jackpot of Crazy. The author of the “Reclaiming Touch” essay is Hazel/Cedar Troost, who uses the “gender-neutral pronouns” ze and hir. What kind of crazy is this? Let’s read the “about” page at Hazel/Cedar’s blog:

This is a blog by a Chicago transsexual queer/woman who’s tired of making herself as small as possible to fit the demands of trans misogynistic feminism and trans activism.
It’s also a blog about gender theory & activism (simultaneously feminist and trans), misogyny (trans & NOS), transphobia, anti-racism, intersectionality, sustainability, privilege, language & terminology, power, body sovereignty, gender/sex self-determination, radical politics, “radical” politics, bad allies, accountability, BDSM, violence (domestic, intimate, sexual, emotional, physical, stranger, hate, racialized, institutional, systemic, and more), disabled, fat, & survivor politics, healthcare, and whatever else ze feels inspired to write on.

To translate: “Stay away from me, normal people!”

Aggressive weirdness — an insistence that the ordinary behaviors of normal people are oppressive — has become increasingly characteristic of the feminist fringe. If you greet a friend with a common gesture of affection, your hug might be “unwanted touch” that violates their “body sovereignty,” while your expectation that people are either male or female could infringe their right to “gender/sex self-determination.” And if you point out how strange these attitudes and behaviors are? You’re obviously some kind of hater.

What feminists and their allies are doing here is creating a landscape covered with opportunities for Kafkatrapping:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping” . . .
The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Activists manufacture opportunities to accuse others of moral failing, and if you cooperate with them — if you attempt to be an “ally” of these progressives who continually produce demands that you acknowledge your guilt — then you must “become complicit” by routinely accusing others of these political sins. This is why feminists have manufactured a “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses. Using phony statistics and false accusations to mau-mau politicians into enacting bad legislation, feminists provoke criticism, and then demonize critics — e.g., George Will and K.C. Johnson — whom they brand “rape apologists,” so that critics are accused of being pro-rape merely because they point out errors in feminist arguments or flaws in policies that feminists advocate.

“With enough fear, you can manufacture a crisis, and a crisis gives you ‘an opportunity to do things . . . you could not do before,’ as President Obama’s former chief of staff noted in his famous remarks about not letting a crisis ‘go to waste.’”
Hans Bader, Minding the Campus


It’s all about silencing and discrediting opposition, see? Feminism is a totalitarian movement directly derived from the Marxist/Leninist model of the Bolshevik Revolution. “All power to the Soviets!” has become “All power to the feminists!”

We are all now constantly monitored by Feminist Commissars, the enforcers of a Police State regime. You must be careful, comrade, because your “harmful microaggressions” and your failure to obtain “Explicit Verbal Consent” before hugging someone are political crimes for which you might be subjected to a reenactment of the Moscow Show Trials before you are sent to the Feminist Gulag.

Americans understand that feminism’s ambitions are ultimately incompatible with human liberty. Yet if you dare speak out against it, your’re terrorists, and the monstrous ideologues who aspire to be your totalitarian overlords claim to be victims!

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that while feminists have taken to repeating stories about how terrorized they are by the Internet — death threats, rape threats and the like — we haven’t seen anyone arrested, prosecuted or even served with a restraining order by any of these helpless feminist victims? Having been targeted for harassment by deranged sociopaths (who have proven they are willing to target people in real life), I know how to successfully fight back: Identify the cowards who are perpetrating such behavior, and call them out by name.

What are the names of the people who are perpetrating harassment against feminists? Identify them. Call them out.

Give me a list of names of these anti-feminist “terrorists,” with proof of their wrongdoing, and I will denounce them.

Expect to be waiting a long time before we ever see such a list, because the vagueness of these claims of feminist victimhood serves the purposes of political propaganda:

A. Opponents criticize feminist arguments;
B. Feminists are victims of harassment;
and therefore
C. Critics are responsible for the harassment of feminists.

This faulty syllogism is about falsely creating collective guilt, so that George Will is implicitly accused of inciting people to “dox” Brianna Wu and K.C. Johnson is smeared with responsibility for rape threats against Anita Sarkeesian. If all critics of feminist (collectively) are to blame for every harm experienced by feminists (collectively), you see, then anyone who writes in opposition to feminism can be Kafkatrapped.

Feminists can demand that, e.g., Professor Glenn Reynolds denounce the harassment of, inter alia, Jessica Valenti, even though the harassment is committed by some dimwit Reddit troll who has nothing to do with Professor Reynolds. It’s the same thing with “rape culture.”

Everybody is against rape, right? Yet if you criticize feminist rhetoric on this issue — if you suggest, for example, that there would be fewer sexual assaults on campus if university officials cracked down on underage drinking — then you are engaged in “victim blaming” or “slut shaming,” so that you then can be branded a “rape apologist” no matter how strongly you condemn rape. The purpose of feminism’s “rape culture” discourse is to create this generalized accusation of collective guilt, so that anyone who disagrees with feminists can be portrayed as responsible for crimes they have never committed.

Welcome to the 21st century, comrade. The commissars have taken over our culture and it’s Kafkatrapping all the way down.


Bookmark and Share

In The Mailbox: 02.25.15

Posted on | February 25, 2015 | 4 Comments

– compiled by Wombat-socho

EBL: Shake Down Al
Doug Powers: John Kerry’s Talking Like He Only Knows Russia From Watching Rocky IV
Twitchy: Susan Rice Terms Netanyahu Visit “Destructive”
David Thompson: Uncanny Powers Are A Feminist Issue

American Power: Path Clears For Net Neutrality Ahead Of FCC Vote
American thinker: The Left’s War On White America
BLACKFIVE: Free Fire Zone – Jobs Or Jihad?
Conservatives4Palin: Rudy Giuliani – I May Have Been Blunt, But I Was Right
Don Surber: Legalize Cocaine, Ban Sugar?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Senior State Department Official In Charge Of Counterterrorism Arrested For Soliciting Sex From A Minor
Joe For America: BATFE To Ban Ammunition. Again.
JustOneMinute: The Boys Of Jihad
Pamela Geller: EXCLUSIVE – UJA President Alisa Doctoroff Major Donor to State Dept. Effort To Boost Arab Vote In Israel
Protein Wisdom: Western Exceptionalism
Shot In The Dark: Trulbert! Part XXVIII – Gladiators’ Waltz
STUMP: Obamacare Tax Watch – Tax Form, Tax Form, Who’s Got The Tax Form?
The Gateway Pundit: Retired Admiral Says Anyone Can See Obama’s Strategy Is Anti-US, Pro-Islamic
The Jawa Report: Jawas 2, Khaled_IbnAbdelAziz 0
The Lonely Conservative: Dem Rep. Keith Ellison – We Need More Boodle In Minneapolis To Keep Somalis From Going Jihadi
This Ain’t Hell: American Legion Reacts To VA Secretary McDonald’s Lie
Weasel Zippers: Netanyahu Refuses To Meet With Senate Democrats
Megan McArdle: Why Walmart Is Raising Its Everyday Low Wages
Mark Steyn: O Beautiful, For Specious Guys

Shope Amazon Warehouse Deals – Deep Discounts on Open-Box Jewelry

Bookmark and Share
keep looking »