The Other McCain

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

FMJRA 2.0: Meanwhile at Balticon…

Posted on | May 23, 2015 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

War Against Human Nature: What Feminists Pay $47,030 a Year to Learn
Dyspepsia Generation
Da Tech Guy
Political Hat
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

Rule 5 Sunday: Last Dance In Washington
Batshit Crazy News
Animal Magnetism
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Ninety Miles from Tyranny

Lesbian Harassment in College? Lawsuit Alleges ‘Sexually Charged’ Hazing
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
Living In Anglo-America
IOTW Report
A View from the Beach

FMJRA 2.0: Roll With It
The Pirate’s Cove
BlurBrain
Batshit Crazy News

Cincinnatus and the Giant
Batshit Crazy News

Hating Babies, Hating Mothers
Regular Right Guy
Da Tech Guy

LIVE AT FIVESIX: 05.19.15
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Suspect Named in Quadruple Murder
Batshit Crazy News

Tracinski Is Half Correct
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

It Purports To Survey Those Confused Concerning The Wedding Tackle–Why Would The Math NOT Be Queer?
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America

Virginia Democrat Lawmaker Admits Fathering Baby With Teenage Girl
Batshit Crazy News

Shorter Her Majesty:
Batshit Crazy News

Without Irony or Self-Awareness
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Jim-O-Rama
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (13)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (5)

Plus the usual assortment of near misses…

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Shop Amazon – Save 30% on Outdoor Research Clothing – Memorial Day Sale

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Posted on | May 23, 2015 | 22 Comments

Excuse my long spells of non-blogging this week, but I spent Wednesday and Thursday writing a 3,000-word post  that still needs a few final touches. My sloth is more apparent than real and, also, I keep getting distracted by, y’know, news. Just a few odds and ends before I return to the Siberian salt mines . . .

The phrase “Feminist-Industrial Complex” was first used, so far as I can tell, in a 2008 column about Sarah Palin by Jonah Goldberg. I began using the phrase in 2014 without realizing where it originated, and if Jonah swiped it from somewhere else, let the claimant step forward or otherwise Jonah gets the credit when I publish the revised and expanded second edition of Sex Trouble in about three months.

Because the book is focused on academia — specifically university Women’s Studies programs, where radical feminist gender theory is propagated — I have used “Feminist-Industrial Complex” to refer primarily to these institutions. Removed from marketplace pressures, subsidized by taxpayers and protected by Title X from any opposition or criticism on campus, the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex is the intellectual bulwark of the entire movement. Speaking of which, Mark Hemingway has a nice a feature about how Christina Hoff Sommers has sparked furious reaction in her recent appearances on campus:

Before Sommers’s speech at Oberlin, 150 feminists signed a letter to the campus newspaper claiming that, among other libelous assertions, Sommers was a “rape denialist” for daring to poke holes in the improbable campus rape statistics bandied about. (According to an article in Slate last year, the commonly spouted figure that one-quarter of college women are victims of rape or attempted rape “would mean that young American college women are raped at a rate similar to women in Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war.”) The Oberlin letter was titled “In Response to Sommers’ Talk: A Love Letter to Ourselves” and urged students to boycott the speech and attend another event hosted in a “safe space.” While Sommers went on to address a full lecture hall, the Oberlin Review reported that “the alternative event, ‘We’re Still Here,’ was attended by approximately 35 students and one dog.” Disappointingly, the Review did not elaborate on how exactly Sommers’s presence on campus had managed to traumatize the dog.
The intensity of the opposition Sommers is facing may be new, but its seeds were planted a few years ago. Sommers says some of the opposition to her is a logical consequence of government policy. In 2011 the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice told campuses they were obligated under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to protect women from harassment—even exposure to sexual language and innuendo—and that they had to lower their standards for determining guilt. “The colleges panicked, but it empowered that contingent. … The ‘drama feminists’ suddenly could hold the school hostage because they could threaten lawsuits under Title IX,” she says.

You can read the whole thing. The key point is that the sudden onlaught of “rape culture” discourse on university campuses in recent years did not happen coincidentally, or in response to an actual “crisis” or “epidemic” of sexual assault. Instead, federal authorities in the Obama administration undertook this initiative. Why? Believe it or not, because of National Public Radio:

[In 2010] reporters at National Public Radio teamed up with the left-leaning journalism organization Center for Public Integrity (CPI) to produce and promote a 104-page “investigative reporting series” (PDF) entitled “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice.” . . .
The executive director of CPI, Bill Buzenberg, summed up the plight of millions of young women on campus in a single word: “Nightmare.” According to the report, serial predators are roaming free on college campuses. . . .
The findings were widely and uncritically reported and won multiple journalism prizes, including a Peabody Award (known as the Pulitzer Prize for radio), as well as the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Justice and Human Rights Reporting and the Dart Award for Excellence in Coverage of Trauma. . . .
Russlynn Ali, a little-known Education Department official, was galvanized by the NPR/CPI findings. . . .
On April 4, 2011, she sent her now-famous Dear Colleague letter to colleges across the nation providing detailed guidelines on the draconian steps colleges should take to fight what she called a “plague” of sexual violence. . . .

You can read the rest of that article by Dr. Sommers at the Daily Beast, including the fact that NPR broadcast the now-discredited claim that “one out of five college women will be sexually assaulted.”

This is simply not true, and yet if you point out what’s wrong with this bogus statistic (derived from a 2007 survey with serious methodological flaws) you are accused of being a “rape denialist,” as the feminists at Oberlin branded Dr. Sommers. The best estimates of the frequency of sexual assault on U.S. campuses put the number far lower. Even by the most elastic definition (e.g., “unwelcome” touching), it’s hard to find credible evidence that the number is worse than 1-in-40 which, as Dr. Summers notes, is “far too many, but a long way from one in five.”

Here we see a convergence of three separate but strategically allied forces — liberal journalists, campus activists and federal bureaucrats — whose combined efforts produced a myth about rape and, when the facts contradict the myth, feminists refuse to yield to reality. Instead, feminists falsely accuse critics like Dr. Sommers of being misogynists, indifferent to the suffering of victims.

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
Sandra Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

This is it, you see: Having obtained “consciousness of victimization,” the feminist makes victimhood the basis of her identity, so that she experiences an existential crisis if anyone points out that she is not, in fact, suffering from oppression. A student at Oberlin College (annual tuition $48,682) is actually a member of a privileged elite, yet feminists would have her believe — as she arrives on this picturesque 440-acre campus — that she is at risk of being enslaved by male supremacy and subjected to sexual brutality: Fear and Loathing of the Penis!

This paranoia has made it extremely hazardous for male students to pursue romance on the modern campus, as Paul Nungesser discovered at Columbia University. One of his accusers told her tale of oppression at the feminist blog Jezebel:

The incident happened my junior year at Columbia, when Paul followed me upstairs at a party, came into a room with me uninvited, closed the door behind us, and grabbed me. I politely said, “Hey, no, come on, let’s go back downstairs.” He didn’t listen. He held me close to him as I said no, and continued to pull me against him. I pushed him off and left the room quickly. I told a few friends and my boyfriend at the time how creepy and weird it was.

Creepy and weird, yes. Criminal? Therein lies the problem.

No one would condone the behavior alleged here — it’s clearly wrong — but as it happened at a party where, we may assume, everyone was drinking, this isn’t exactly startling. Back when I was in college in Alabama, a drunk guy who tried to “get fresh” that way might have gotten punched by the girl’s boyfriend, but I guess students at Columbia (annual tuition $51,008) aren’t the redneck type. At any rate, this girl didn’t decide to complain to university officials until after Emma Sulkowicz filed her claim that Nungesser raped her:

Then, a year later, a friend approached me and asked if we could speak privately. She told me she’d heard that Paul had apparently raped someone, and that the story had reminded her of what he had done to me a year before. . . .
My friend gave me the name and number of someone at Columbia I could talk to if I wanted to file a complaint. I wondered if what had happened between me and Paul was really sexual assault: there was no penetration, I had no bruises, I got away. But Columbia defines “Sexual Assault—Non-Consensual Sexual Contact” as “Any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person’s consent.” That is exactly what happened to me, and so I decided to file a complaint.

Dear God in heaven! She admits here to joining a conspiracy, a vendetta inspired by Sulkowicz’s desire for revenge against her former “love,” Nungesser. (Click here to read the Nungesser civil rights complaint against Columbia.) Her incident with Nungesser at the party — which, as I say, is nothing we would condone, if it happened as alleged — was just a “creepy and weird” encounter that she shrugged off until a friend of Sulkowicz encouraged her to file a complaint. However, universities now effectively criminalize “touching .  . . without a person’s consent,” which would seem to require either:

  1. Romance devoid of spontaneity or impulse, in which lovers seek explicit verbal consent prior to each touch;
    or
  2. A clairvoyant ability to know in advance whether any specific touch was welcome.

We try to imagine the conversations required by this policy: “Having complied with your prior request that I kiss your neck, Tiffany, may I now have permission to caress your lower back?”

Back in the day . . . No, I’m not going to waive my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Justice Department might institute some new policy where my alma mater would be forced to begin an investigation and retroactively prosecute me for trying to get to third base on the first date — if, hypothetically, I had ever done such a thing, which I can neither confirm nor deny until I have consulted with my attorney. These allegations that I engaged in sexual activity at Jacksonville State University are mere hearsay, your honor! I object to this line of questioning, and demand that this testimony be stricken from the record! Also, I must remind the jury that I was under the influence of dangerous hallucinogens during my undergraduate career, and therefore I was legally insane the whole time, as numerous witnesses will testify.

Having established my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, then, what advice do I have for college boys nowadays?

  • Think ahead. Regard all females as potentially hostile and always keep in mind that any girl who tries to flirt with you could be setting you up for a sexual assault complaint. Approach every male-female encounter with extreme caution, and always consider whether you could defend your actions in a court of law.
  • Only speak when spoken to. Males have no right to initiate communication with females on the modern campus. Your attempt to make friendly small talk with a girl could be construed as harassment, potentially resulting in expulsion.
  • Avoid elite schools. It seems that false rape accusations mostly occur at expensive private schools. Save your money and go to the nearest community college for two years, then transfer to a state university. Your diploma may not have the prestige of a degree from Oberlin, Georgetown or an Ivy League school, but you are less likely to encounter a raging feminist lunatic at a state school and it’s entirely possible that you could meet a normal woman who doesn’t consider heterosexuality a hate crime.

There are still normal women out there, allegedly. However . . .

Inmate who won order for sex reassignment
surgery recommended for parole

Be careful, guys. You live in an increasingly dangerous world.





 

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | May 22, 2015 | 16 Comments

by Smitty

A retro sock hop, and the band played doo-wop. My intentions were rogueish. I’d find some little sophomore something and let it be known that Judy and I were finished in a public way. That tramp.
Locked eyes on a little blond girl in pony tails; green eyes, makeup, clothing and accessories arranged to perfection. Gave her the smile like the big vaudeville stage hook. Pulled her to me as a slow song started.
Her converse mounted mine. Her arms wrapped around my neck as we settled into a wet kiss.
Then she chomped down on my lip.

Update: also in the mix are Darleen, Jimmy, and BigGator5

Without Irony or Self-Awareness

Posted on | May 22, 2015 | 50 Comments

@MaliniMohana is a feminist and wrote this:

“By representing your own group as uniquely virtuous, you can easily de-humanise another population.”

Yet this is exactly what feminism is about: Portraying women as uniquely virtuous and de-humanizing men. Mohana was writing about Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), but she evidently doesn’t realize that there are women MRAs who understand the dreadful truth, i.e., “Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.”

However, it’s very difficult to blame Mohana for her hateful attitude, because she lives in South Africa, “Rape Capital of the World,” which descended into nightmarish ruin under the presidency of Thabo Mbeki and has never really recovered.

How bad is South Africa? It’s worse than Detroit.

If hating men could ever be justified, the conditions in South Africa would certainly be considered sufficient justification. Our overprivileged American college girls can scarcely imagine the scale of horrors perpetrated against women in South Africa, where the government’s corruption is exceeded only by the government’s pathetic incompetence.





 

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It

Posted on | May 21, 2015 | 81 Comments

Emma Sulkowicz lies about rape and Hillary Clinton lies about everything, but feminists insist that no woman ever lies about anything. Feminism is an ideology based on the belief that women have a monopoly on virtue. All women are intelligent, kind and honest, according to feminist theory, and all men are stupid, selfish and untrustworthy. Therefore, women have a right to everything, and men have no rights at all — except, perhaps, the right to remain silent.

Because SHUT UP!

The Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s and ’70s was inspired by the idea of a Leninist “revolutionary vanguard” seizing power on behalf of women as a collective “oppressed class.” The Redstockings Manifesto of 1969 declared:

We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. . . .
We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture.

Prior to 1969, in other words, the “existing ideologies . . . of male supremacist culture” had kept women ignorant of their own “experience,” about which no male knows anything. Because women’s “personal exprience” and “feelings” are the only valid basis for feminist analysis, everything anyone claimed to “know” prior to 1969 was automatically invalidated because all “knowledge” prior to the feminist revolution was produced by a male-dominated “power structure.”

Nothing is true unless feminist leaders say it is true. You cannot believe anything a man says . . . What? A man said something?

Whatever else being a feminist might mean, it means that men can never speak without permission and, because men are stupid and dishonest, everything men say is wrong, anyway.

Therefore, SHUT UP!

Of all the “existing ideologies” which feminists set out to destroy, none was more dangerous than the idea that human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is obviously false, according to Feminist Logic™ because:

  1. It was written by a man;
  2. It was written prior to 1969;
  3. There is no “Creator”;
    and
  4. Men have no rights.

Only women have rights, according to Feminist Logic™ and if any man says he has rights . . . What? A man said something?

SHUT UP!

The five characteristic modes of feminist discourse are:

  1. The anti-male lecture;
  2. The victimhood testimonial;
  3. The dishonest slogan;
  4. The slanderous accusation;
    and
  5. The angry rant against anyone who dares to disagree.

It is impossible to debate a feminist because disagreement is hate and yet, because of the so-called “First Amendment” — a male-supremacist ideology if ever there was one — some men still believe they should be allowed to speak and write things feminists don’t approve. These dangerous oppressors are called “Men’s Rights Activists” (MRAs) and, believe it or not, even in 2015 it is still legal for them to have their own website called “A Voice for Men.” This is obviously a misogynistic hate crime and, because I am so notorious for engaging in patriarchal heteronormativity, I was asked to contribute an article:

A movement organized with the death of innocents as one of its basic demands is not a movement that will be honest or ethical in the pursuit of its other demands. Feminism’s lies are therefore never accidental or random. Rather, deliberate deception is necessary to the movement’s success. Feminists lie because if they told the truth, their movement would be recognized for what it is, and would collapse in discredited failure.
Having spent more than a year researching feminist theory, I have exposed what can only be described as a bottomless abyss of perverse insanity. . . .

Read the whole thing at A Voice for Men. It’s not illegal, yet.

 

Shorter Her Majesty:

Posted on | May 21, 2015 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Lesbian Harassment in College? Lawsuit Alleges ‘Sexually Charged’ Hazing

Posted on | May 21, 2015 | 60 Comments

Earlier this month, St. Joseph’s University announced it had suspended its women’s softball program after “a parent and student came forward in late March, alleging freshman had been forced to drink alcohol and engage in sexual conduct when they joined the team in the fall.” Four players were suspended in April after reports of what Philadelphia ABC affiliate WPVI-TV called “allegations too graphic to be outlined.” Now a former player has filed a federal lawsuit:

A former softball player at St. Joseph’s University claims in a lawsuit that she endured sexually charged hazing so bad that she contemplated suicide and was forced to quit the team.
The federal lawsuit by the unidentified plaintiff against the university and softball coach Terri Adams alleges “a widespread and well-known culture of abusive and sexually charged hazing” on the team.
The plaintiff alleges that during a weeklong hazing period in 2013, the player was subjected to demeaning behavior such as being forced to perform a sexually lewd dance, to ask and answer sexual questions and tell sexual stories. She alleges that she saw other freshman players forced to simulate sex acts. . . .
The lawsuit alleges that throughout her freshman year and continuing into her sophomore year, she was given demeaning nicknames, harassed and belittled and was “often reduced to tears and began having suicidal thoughts.” She said she was eventually forced to quit the team.
The suit alleges that officials were aware of the activities and intimidated and threatened her for trying to draw attention to them.

(Hat tip: Lead and Gold on Twitter.)

Anybody who knows anything about women’s collegiate sports knows how prevalent lesbianism is among female varsity athletes. So the “culture of abusive and sexually charge hazing” was lesbian hazing, and the “sex acts” players were “forced to simulate” were lesbian sex acts and, while I haven’t seen the full complaint yet, it is entirely reasonable for the reader to assume that the upperclassmen who led the hazing were lesbians, and that the team’s coach is also a lesbian. Yet the word “lesbian” appears nowhere in any of the media coverage of these allegations, because it would be considered homophobic to mention it. Because facts are now hate, you see.

No one in the media dares even suggest the nature of the psychological brutality allegedly inflicted on this girl “subjected to demeaning behavior” and driven to the brink of suicide because, perhaps, she didn’t conform to the “well-known culture” enforced by her lesbian teammates.

This happened at Saint Joseph’s University, a private Catholic school where annual tuition is $40,580. Does anyone imagine that the pious Catholics who founded Saint Joseph’s in 1851 could have imagined such a thing? Or do you suppose that the alumni whose contributions help support this university are aware of what is being taught to Saint Joseph’s students today? The Gender Studies program at the university requires all students minoring in the subject to take “Seminar in Feminist Theories,” and here is the course description:

GEN 200 Seminar in Feminist Theories
This course provides a survey of feminist frameworks for thinking about sex, gender and oppression. The course begins with a consideration of whether the distinction between gender and sex is tenable, what it means to say that a category is socially constructed and how socially constructed categories can be oppressive. Given women’s diversity, the latter part of the course considers critiques of attempts to provide a single systematic feminist framework. This will lead us to rethink the project of feminist theory and consider its possible new directions.

In other words, this is a crash course in feminist gender theory — ” the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and every student who pursues a minor in Gender Studies at Saint Joseph’s is required to take this class. The Pope has specifically condemned “gender theory,” and yet it is being promulgated at a Catholic university where lesbian softball players allegedly harassed a teammate so severely that she contemplated suicide and quit the team.

This is what “gender equality” means in 2015.

Gosh, somebody really ought to write a book about this . . .

 

UPDATE: Thanks to Stephen Sheiko on Twitter for sending the link to the full federal complaint in Jane Doe v. Saint Joseph’s University, which is an absolutely horrifying document to read. Coach Terri Adams began recruiting this player while the girl was just a sophomore in high school, and repeatedly assured the girl and her parents what a “wholesome” family-oriented Catholic environment SJU provided. The hazing included a letter to freshmen players that made explicit reference to same-sex activity and yet — here’s your kick-in-the-head irony — the plaintiff says that she was later subjected to gaybaiting!

Members of the team told the girl she was a lesbian and should “come out” as such, despite the allegedly “wholesome” Catholic atmosphere that Coach Adams had promised. You will notice that the lawsuit references assistant coach Brooke Darreff, who graduated from SJU in 2010 and returned to the university in 2012 as a graduate student to help coach the softball team. What was Coach Darreff’s major? Psychology.

Anybody want to convince me that a 27-year-old psychology graduate student doesn’t know what this kind of sexualized torture of teenage girls is intended to accomplish? Bullshit.





 

Virginia Democrat Lawmaker Admits Fathering Baby With Teenage Girl

Posted on | May 21, 2015 | 27 Comments

Washington Free Beacon reports:

Virginia Democrat Joe Morrissey admittedon Wednesday morning that he is the father of a child with a teenage girl who was his former secretary, though he denied that he had a sexual relationship with the girl while fighting the charges in court.
Morrissey faced multiple felony charges that could have put him behind bars for up to 41 years, but reached a plea agreement that reduced his time in jail to less than a year and allowed him to maintain his seat in the Virginia House of Delegates.
Morrissey released a pictures to NBC 12 of him holding the baby alongside his former secretary . . .
Morrissey agreed to a special plea agreement which allowed him to accept guilt for the charges without admitting to the charge that he had sex with the girl, Myrna Pride, were true. Throughout his campaign to maintain his seat, which he ran out of a jail cell, he denied that the allegations were true.
Morrissey won reelection as an Independent because Virginia Democrats chose another candidate.
Even after traveling to be with Pride, during the birth of the child, Morrissey maintained he had never had a sexual relationship with the girl.

Democrats: The Jailbait Party.

 

keep looking »