Posted on | September 21, 2014 | No Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Thanks to the Watcher of Weasels for its nomination of “Erection Equals Consent” this week!
- That Mr. G Guy
- Da Tech Guy
- Batshit Crazy News
- The DaleyGator
- A Blog For Dallas Area Catholics
- Regular Right Guy
- Da Tech Guy
- First Street Journal
- A View from the Beach
- Ask Marion
- Independent Sentinel
- Regular Right Guy
- The Right Planet
- Bookworm Room
- Trevor Loudon
- Batshit Crazy News
- Watcher of Weasels
- That Mr. G Guy
- Batshit Crazy News
- Blackmailers Don’t Shoot
- Animal Magnetism
- Proof Positive
- A View from the Beach
- Ninety Miles from Tyranny
Top linkers this week:
- Batshit Crazy News (19)
- That Mr. G Guy (16)
- Regular Right Guy (7)
- A View from the Beach (6)
Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links for next week’s FMJRA is noon on Saturday, September 27.
Posted on | September 21, 2014 | 13 Comments
Left to right: Kate Millett, Ann Jones, Jenny Kitzinger
“Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family. . . . [T]he family effects control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient. As the fundamental instrument and the foundation unit of patriarchal society the family and its roles are prototypical. . . .
“The concept of romantic love affords a means of emotional manipulation which the male is free to exploit, since love is the only circumstance in which the female is (ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity. . . .
“We are not accustomed to associate patriarchy with force. So perfect is its system of socialization, so complete the general assent to its values, so long and so universally has it prevailed in human society, that it scarcely seems to require violent implementation. . . .
“Historically, most patriarchies have institutionalized force through their legal systems. . . .
“Significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical force. . . .
“Patriarchal force also relies on a form of violence particularly sexual in character and realized most completely in the act of rape. The figures of rapes reported represent only a faction of those which occur. . . .”
– Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (1970)
“When we consider the family, we have to talk about child sexual abuse, incest, and the area of family violence that I’ve focused on: wife abuse, marital rape, and battering — often culminating, in the cases I’ve looked into, in homicide. . . . Exploring our sexuality requires freedom, and for women the family structure is still a prison. . . .
“Family ‘stability’ in a patriarchal system depends upon sexual repression of women. …
“We know that men beat women because they can. No one stops them because to do so would be to interfere with the family. . . .
“Violence has always been an important tool for maintaining the family to serve the purposes of patriarchy. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller’s  book, Against Our Will, is a milestone in the women’s movement because it demythologized — desexualized — rape. We learned . . . that sexual and physical violence against women is not ‘sexual’ at all but simply violent. Men use it to dominate women. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller showed us that the rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy. . . . [W]e should be clear that our quarrel is not only with certain abusive men but with male supremacy. Our goal should be not merely to redefine our sexuality but to redefine the world and our place in it.”
– Ann Jones, “Family Matters,” in The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990)
“The professionals who diagnose women’s sexual maladjustments never question the politics of these ‘problems.’ They rarely address fundamental issues such as: Why should women get married? Why should we enjoy ‘feminine’ clothing? What is wrong with ‘homosexual tendencies’? . . . Indeed, why should women want sex with men at all? . . .
“Radical feminist practice is concerned about recognizing our fear, and anger, and refusing to dismiss those reactions as simply ‘dysfunctional.’ It is about organizing collectively to challenge the institutions that deny women’s rage and pain. It is about questioning ‘common-sense’ understandings of the world. Radical feminists have examined the institution of heterosexuality, the social construction of desire and the links between rape and ‘consensual’ sex. These analyses question the existence of ‘truly chosen’ and ‘egalitarian’ heterosexual relations by focusing on the compulsory enforcement of heterosexuality; they are suspicious of appeals to some ‘authentic female sexuality,’ hidden deep within ourselves and uncontaminated by the rule of heteropatriarchy.”
– Jenny Kitzinger, “Sexual Violence and Compulsory Heterosexuality,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism & Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)
Men are to feminism what Jews were to Nazism. As a species of hate propaganda, feminist literature is remarkably resourceful in the ways that these ideologues demonize — and otherize, as post-modernists might say — all males as the universal scapegoats on whom all evil is blamed.
Rush Limbaugh’s famous term “feminazis” is usually seen as crude sarcasm. On page 13 of Susan Faludi’s 1991 book Backlash, she credits Limbaugh’s “broadsides” against feminism for making “his syndicated program the most popular radio talk show in the nation.” Nearly a quarter-century later, we might update Faludi’s phrase to say more accurately that Rush Limbaugh is the most successful broadcaster in radio history, period. And we ought not be so quick to dismiss Limbaugh’s coinage of the word “feminazi” as merely a joke.
Having spent the past several months immersed in the study of radical feminist literature as research for my “Sex Trouble” series, I know that Rush Limbaugh was speaking the literal truth.
It is not merely that feminists are devoted to an ideology of hate that is analogous in many ways to Hitler’s anti-Semitic worldview, but also that feminism is clearly totalitarian in its methods. Never is this more evident than when feminists are talking about rape. You would think, to hear the rhetoric that emanates from our nation’s colleges and universities, that sexual assault is now at an all-time high on campus. Yet all actual evidence indicates that quite nearly the opposite is true.
According to the Justice Department, the rate of sexual violence against females declined 64% between 1995 and 2005: “In 2010,
females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations, compared to about 556,000 in 1995.” Do feminists want us to believe there has been a recent uptick of rape under the Obama Administration? I’m dubious. As far as rape on college campuses is concerned, however, every attempt to verify the widespread claim that 20% of college females are victims of sexual assault has failed, because the actual numbers don’t add up. But if Women’s Studies majors were good at math, they wouldn’t be majoring in Women’s Studies.
Once you understand that there is nothing like an “epidemic” of rape on college campuses, and that feminists are engaged in statistical dishonesty about the frequency of such crimes, a skeptic is immediately prompted to wonder, “What’s this really about?” In a word, power.
This is the classic totalitarian method: Whip up an irrational frenzy about an Issue, and convince people The Enemy is to blame. Your followers, a motley collection of dupes and crackpots who are predisposed to believe whatever you say, are willing to blame The Enemy not only for the Issue, but also for all problems experienced by The Movement, which you lead and in which they are fanatical followers. Your leadership is dependent on their followership, and vice-versa.
In the symbiotic relationship of totalitarian movements, your status as leader requires you to keep your followers convinced that any failure of the Movement is to be blamed either on (a) The Enemy, (b) the enormous challenges inherent to the Issue, or (c) the deficiencies, faint-heartedness and/or possible disloyalty of the followers. You must constantly reinforce these beliefs in the minds of your followers or else, given a quiet moment to reflect on the situation, they might wise up and begin to suspect that failure is due to (d) the incompetence of their leaders who have (e) deliberately misrepresented the Issue and misled the Movement. If ever those doubts begin to occur in the minds of your followers, they might even start to wonder if The Enemy isn’t really an enemy at all.
What I have just recounted are the psychodynamics of every radical movement since the French Revolution, a predictable phenomenon best illustrated by the career of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. A sociopathic thug who managed to shove aside ever other rival to succeed Lenin as leader of the Bolshevik regime, Stalin turned his nearest rival, Leon Trotsky, into a scapegoated figure whose alleged conspiratorial perfidy was a permanent source of the paranoid suspicion necessary to the rationale of a police state. Within a decade of assuming power, Stalin began to turn this suspicion against those original Bolshevik leaders who had loyally served the regime since before the October Revolution and who, as such, were in a position to recognize the bloody failures of Stalin’s leadership. During the infamous Moscow Show Trials, one after another of the Old Bolsheviks were accused of wildly improbable crimes — treason! sabotage! Trotskyism! — to which they were forced to confess and then, in most cases, summarily executed.
As it was with the Bolsheviks, so it is with the feminists. Patriarchy serves in the feminist ideology that purpose which capitalism served for the Soviet revolutionaries. Anyone who questions the ideology of the movement becomes an ally of the Enemy. The duty of every True Believer is to echo the slogans of the movement leadership, as if the movement could be carried to victory merely by the fervor of its followers. The repetition of falsehoods, the faith in erroneous ideology — all the wrongs and failures of a totalitarian movement devoted to The Big Lie, which must ultimately be doomed to the ash heap of history — these are familiar tactics, and once you realize they are merely tactics, they lose their power to intimidate and terrorize you into silence.
For this is exactly the power that feminists seek with their deliberate lies about men, about patriarchy, about “rape culture”:
To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.”
The SlutWalk movement is about rape in pretty much the same sense Nazism was about the Versailles Treaty — it’s the legitimate grievance that empowers a movement of irrational hatred.
So I said last year after finding myself amid that rabble. I’d call them “brownshirts,” but they weren’t wearing shirts. Or pants, either.
It’s probably kind of hard to goosestep while wearing 3-inch heels and fishnet stockings, but the fascist vibe was so overwhelming I could almost hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass. My memories of the rally at the end of the march have faded, and I can’t find my notes of the speeches the SlutWalk leaders made, but then again, why bother translating them into English? Their speeches were much better in the original German. They made a documentary about SlutWalk. It was directed by Leni Riefenstahl.
Ah, I could keep riffing like this all night, you see. But why should I making jokes when it’s so much funnier just to quote feminists?
“This account of the politics of lesbianism locates it firmly within the framework of radical feminist ideology. The role of heterosexuality as an institution of patriarchal control, and the potential of lesbianism for subverting male domination are made explicit. . . .
“It is argued that a relationship between any individual woman and man cannot be understood without reference to the political structure of male supremacy and male domination, which invests each man with power over each woman. . .
“Thus the ‘personal’ (including romance, falling in love, sexual attraction, fantasy, and personal relationships generally) is ‘political’ in at least two senses: firstly that it is the personal experience of women that generates and informs feminist theory, and secondly in that feminist theory offers a structure within which individual experience can be interpreted and understood. . . . .
“In this account, men (rather than merely ‘society,’ ‘institutions’ or ‘conditioning’) are seen as the enemy. . . .
“In this account, the blame is put squarely on men, and separatism is represented as a legitimate strategy. . . .
“These are the views which underlie the theory of political lesbianism — the theory that women can and should choose lesbianism as part of the political strategy of feminism — and this account endorses constructionist theories of sexuality. . . .
“This factor, then, involves a constructionist version of sexuality in which heterosexuality is seen as imposed by men on to women, and in which lesbianism represents a challenge to male supremacy.”
– Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)
OK, that’s not funny so much as it is deranged and frightening, but perhaps you see my point. Radical feminists have a clear ideology — a theoretical framework — which informs their rhetoric, and they have spend decades erecting this edifice of error, so that it is now deeply embedded in the belief system of elite academia. This one 1987 book by Professor Kitzinger, for example, has been cited nearly 900 times in scholarly literature. If Professor Kitzinger is wrong, her errors are widely popular among her academic peers.
Professor Kitzinger is not describing a “born-that-way” theory of lesbianism, and she explicitly rejects (as do radical feminists, in general) the claim that heterosexuality is natural. You can trace a direct narrative arc from Kate Millett’s claims in 1970 — where the patriarchal family “effects control and conformity,” where romantic love is simply “a means of emotional manipulation,” where rape is a political weapon of patriarchy — to the claims of Professor Kitzinger in 1987. And we see this direct line of thought continued forward to the present, expressed in feminist slogans which now emerge spontaneously from the Twitter account of Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine:
— sfpelosi (@sfpelosi) September 20, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 21, 2014
You can see the New York Times account of Chrstine Pelosi’s marriage to Peter Kaufman and conclude that heteronormative patriarchy has been very good to her. Why, therefore, does she feel the need to speak as if “reinforcing heteronormative patriarchy” were a hate crime? Because these are the ideas that prevail within the culture of the elite, to which Christine Pelosi so clearly belongs. If this were 1962, she’d be talking about modern art and civil rights, but it’s 2014, so she’s talking about heteronormative patriarchy.
Meanwhile, I’m still trying to figure out how “rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy,” as was explained by the eminent Ann Jones. She’s got all kinds of honors: “Her work has received generous support from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, where she held the Mildred Londa Weisman Fellowship in 2010-11, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (2011-12), and the Fulbright Foundation (2012).” Obviously, she’s so much smarter than the rest of us (especially me) that she understands how I am “served” by the crimes of rapists. Some creep I never heard of rapes a woman I never met in a distant place I’ve never been and don’t plan ever to visit — Boulder, Colorado, for example — and I am thereby “served,” you see, because this criminal is “enforcing male supremacy.”
While you’re trying to figure that one out, let me ask you to ponder another question: “Who benefits from feminism?”
Who profits, who is empowered, whose social prestige is enhanced by the promulgation of this anti-male/anti-heterosexual propaganda?
“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
– Rush Limbaugh
You got that one right, Rush. You damned sure got that right.
Posted on | September 20, 2014 | 35 Comments
– by Wombat-socho
Finally scraped enough Amazon gift certificates together to order S.M. Stirling’s The Golden Princess, which is the latest in the series of “Change” novels that began with Dies the Fire. It’s the sequel to The Given Sacrifice, in which Mike Havel’s bastard son Rudi Mackenzie (a/k/a the High King of Montival) dies at the hands of Koreans who have come all the way across the Pacific in pursuit of the Emperor of Japan. Now Rudi’s daughter, Crown Princess Orlaith, and the new Empress, Reiko, must overcome their fathers’ deaths and plunge into the heart of the Death Lands formerly known as Los Angeles in pursuit of one of Japan’s Sacred Treasures – with not only savage cannibal Eaters but, apparently, the evil that once manifested itself in Montival’s deadly enemies the Cutters. Some reviewers at Amazon complained that this book basically just sets the table for the next arc in the Change series, in which we’re acquainted with the sons and daughters of the heroes and heroines of the war against the Prophet as they set off with Orlaith, Reiko and her household guards on an adventure that sounds only slightly less deadly than Rudi’s own cross-continent quest for the Sword of the Lady.
I for one am just as happy to have a book like this now instead of a fat volume thick enough to stun an ox two years from now. Unlike certain other authors I won’t name, but whose initials are Harry Turtledove, I can rely on Stirling not to lose track of his characters or endlessly repeat the same facts over and over again until you want to throw the book out the window. That having been said, while The Golden Princess stands on its own just fine, you really ought to at least read The Given Sacrifice if you don’t have time to read the other nine books in the series.
Also, while I normally don’t review stuff you can’t find on Amazon (because, like Stacy, I am all about the Shameless Capitalism) I am making an exception for Rory Modena’s Sparrowind (available through Lulu, and hopefully soon on Amazon) which is a cute little tale about a nearsighted dragon, the runt of his clutch, who decides to become a knight and hoard books, since he’s clearly not cut out to be a normal dragon. Hilarity and triumph ensue; I would unreservedly recommend this if you’re looking for something to read the kids as a bedtime book, or if you want something light and fluffy with a dash of humor. I’ll be reposting a link for this when it appears on Amazon – but why wait? You can always convert it from EPub format to Kindle or Nook using Calibre – which is freeware.
I was sent a review copy of Auntie Jodi’s Helpful Hints, which reminds me somewhat of P.J. O’Rourke’s infamous The Bachelor Home Companion except that Jodi Adler’s advice is more about high society (interpret that as you will) in LA and New York, and how one deals with the innumerable tedious people encountered there. Some of the advice is serious, but half the fun is guessing which of the many nuggets in this slim volume those might be. In the meantime, it’s a light and amusing read, especially recommended to those fond of snark and sarcasm.
Finally, we come to the Qwerkywriter. Spotted on Facebook in the feed of some steampunk-obsessed friend of mine, I at first mistook this for the USB Typewriter (“A groundbreaking advancement in the field of obsolescence!”) which I had half-seriously recommended to Stacy some years ago while he was struggling with TweetDeck and other annoyances of the 21st century*. Qwerkywriter is just a keyboard, though, without the annoying requirement to actually own an iPad or some other tablet. We can preorder one for just $309 before they hit the market next summer – just in time for the 2016 Presidential campaign, when a durable keyboard like this will be an indispensable asset to the Shoe Leather Campaign Fund! Who’s with me?
Posted on | September 19, 2014 | 65 Comments
Audre Lorde (left), Marilyn Frye (center) and Monique Wittig (right)
“I agreed to take part in a New York University Institute for Humanities conference a year ago. . . .
“I stand here as a black lesbian feminist, having been invited to comment within the only panel at this conference where the input of black feminists and lesbians is represented. What this says about the vision of this conference is sad, in a country where racism, sexism and homophobia are inseparable. . . .
“The absence of any consideration of lesbian consciousness or the consciousness of third world women leaves a serious gap within this conference. . . .
“For women, the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered. It is this real connection, which is so feared by a patriarchal world.”
– Audre Lorde, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” 1979
“I want to ask heterosexual academic feminists to do some hard analytical and reflective work. To begin, I want to say to them:
“I wish you would notice that you are heterosexual.
“I wish you would grow to the understanding that you choose heterosexuality.
“I would like you to rise each morning and know that you are heterosexual and that you choose to be heterosexual — that you are and choose to be a member of a privileged and dominant class, one of your privileges being not to notice.
“I wish you would stop and seriously consider, as a broad and long-term feminist political strategy, the conversion of women to a woman-identified and woman-directed sexuality and eroticism, as a way of breaking the grip of men on women’s minds and women’s bodies, of removing women from the chronic attachment to the primary situations of sexual and physical violence that is rained upon women by men, and as a way of promoting women’s firm and reliable bonding against oppression. . . .
“There is so much pressure on women to be heterosexual, and this pressure is both so pervasive and so completely denied, that I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
– Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980
“A materialist feminist approach to women’s oppression destroys the idea that women are a ‘natural group’ . . . What the analysis accomplishes on the level of ideas, practice makes actual at the level of facts: by its very existence, lesbian society destroys the artificial (social) fact constituting women as a ‘natural group.’ A lesbian society pragmatically reveals that the division from men of which women have been the object is a political one . . .
“Lesbian is the only concept I know of which is beyond the categories of sex (woman and man). . . . For what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man, a relation that we have previously called servitude . . . a relation which lesbians escape by refusing to become or to stay heterosexual. . . . [O]ur survival demands that we contribute all our strength to the destruction of the class of women within which men appropriate women. This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression.”
– Monique Wittig, “One Is Not Born a Woman,” 1981
Two of these quotes (Lorde and Wittig) are excerpted from The Essential Feminist Reader, edited by Estelle B. Freedman (2007), while the quote from Frye is from her 1992 collection Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism. Readers will notice that all three of these quotes were from the same era, 1979-81. Thus you see how early radical lesbians began consistently demanding that the feminist movement must challenge heterosexuality as “natural” for women, insisting that what Audre Lorde called the “real connection” of “lesbian consciousness” was “feared by a patriarchal world.” Marilyn Frye called for “a broad and long-term feminist political strategy” by Women’s Studies professors of converting their students to lesbianism “as a way of promoting women’s firm and reliable bonding against oppression.” Why? Because only by “the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system,” Monique Wittig said, can women “escape” their “servitude” and “oppression” by men.
Do you think these are obscure “fringe” feminists? Do a Google search for Audre Lorde and you get more 500,000 citations. Marilyn Frye was a professor at Michigan State University for more than 30 years who “was chosen as Phi Beta Kappa’s Romanell Professor in Philosophy for 2007-2008.” Google Monique Wittig and you get nearly 200,000 citations.
Are you tempted to reply, “So what?” OK, then, why don’t you Google the name of the editor of The Essential Feminist Reader — that’s another 200,000 or so citations — and you’ll learn from the Wikipedia biography of Estelle B. Freedman that she is “the Edgar E. Robinson Professor in U.S. History at Stanford University,” that one of the books she coedited “received the 2013 John Boswell Prize from the Committee on LGBT History of the American Historical Association,” while another book co-edited by Professor Freedman “was cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his 2003 opinion for Lawrence v. Texas, with which the American Supreme Court overturned all remaining anti-sodomy laws.”
Do you still want to say, “So what?” Or are you ready to admit feminists mean what they say, and that feminism should be taken seriously?
BTW, Professor Freedman’s latest book is Redefining Rape, in which she “demonstrates that our definition of rape has depended heavily on dynamics of political power and social privilege.”
People had better wake the hell up.
Posted on | September 19, 2014 | No Comments
Mark Knopfler stays around for the guitar, but I think Buffet brings a twist of lime and a smile to the lyric in this cover version of a tune that just looks at a rough weeks and says: “Yeah, shag all that.”
Not to disrespect Knopfler’s original, more gravelly lyric. Mark’s is still too close to the break-up, and drips more regret on the floor.
Posted on | September 19, 2014 | 153 Comments
Or maybe “Slate Spanks the Bottom” would be a better way to describe the nadir of editorial judgment whereby the desperate quest for traffic — let’s face it, they’ll do anything to get hits — led them to publish Jillian Keenan’s perverted prose:
Once again, I’ve been accused of pedophilia. Well, to be technical, my sexual identity was called “somewhat pedophilic.” But we’re talking about one of the most loathsome things a person can be accused of, so why split hairs? I’m also regularly told that my sexuality is “repulsive,” “damaged,” and “abusive.” But all of those feel like Valentines compared with “pedophilic.”
People say this to me so often because I’m kinky, and I’ve written about it. I have a spanking fetish. In my case, that means I like to be spanked, usually with a hand, belt, hairbrush, wooden spoon, switch, or paddle. It sexually gratifies me. I’ve had submissive fantasies for as long as I can remember, and it’s part of my identity. I consider my kink to be my sexual orientation. . . .
Eventually, she gets to her point:
So I have a question: If it’s “somewhat pedophilic” when my adult husband consensually spanks me in a simulated “punishment,” what should we call it when parents do the same physical thing to actual children in an actual punishment?
I realize that many well-meaning parents will disagree with me, but spanking kids is gross. . . .
Stephen Green at PJ Tatler gives Keenan the spanking she deserves, but leaves unpunished the editors at Slate who thought it was “clever” to give Keenan a platform to parade her perversion. This is a perfect example of the 21st-century progressive sexual philosophy: Any Sex Is Good Sex, as Long as It’s Not Normal Sex.
Does anyone suppose the editors of Slate would be interested in an article headlined, “Making Babies With My Wife Is Awesome”?
Only if the author were a lesbian.
This is the logic of the post-Windsor age: Having secured recognition for same-sex marriage — so that everyone is now required to approve of homosexuality, or else — Our Moral Superiors in the cultural elite are hard at work undermining the legitimacy of normal sexuality.
It is not now, nor was it ever, “sexual equality” that the Left has sought during the Culture Wars. Rather, they seek for themselves uncontested power to define what is sexually acceptable, so that the cultural elite (a distinct class of people who include the editors of liberal publications, radical university professors, and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among others) displace the moral authority previously exercised in our society by Judeo-Christian belief.
What we are learning — what we should have anticipated, what we should have been warned against, had our leaders been astute enough to perceive the danger — is that no society can long sustain itself when two conceptions of moral idealism are in competition. One or another system of belief must ultimately prevail in government, in law, in social custom, and the subversive enemies of American civilization have always known this. Unfortunately, this cultural logic has seldom been made apparent by our most eminent conservative intellectuals who, wishing neither to appear intolerant nor to risk the accusation of inciting irrational fear, have tended generally to underestimate the danger and have failed to make clear the stark choices our nation faces.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 18, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 18, 2014
Those who still cherish a traditional vision of the American Dream for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, must recognize that our society cannot forever continue this struggle between two competing moral ideals. We must contemplate the consequences of defeat in the Culture War. While traditionalists have long tolerated perverts like Jillian Keenan — what do we care how she gets her depraved private thrills? — we see that the perverts, once emboldened by the knowledge of their cultural authority in the post-Windsor age, are unwilling to extend to traditionalists a similar toleration. Nor can we afford to ignore the claims of radical feminists like Catherine Deveny, when every day brings further confirmation that their beliefs now enjoy hegemonic dominance within our institutions of higher education.
While producing the “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism’s war on human nature, I have frequently deployed my habitual sarcasm to mock the absurdity of feminist beliefs. However, no one should assume from my cheerful good humor that I do not take this project seriously. As crazy as feminists may seem, as laughably wrong as their ideas may be, they are extremely serious in their purpose to destroy traditional morality in our society. They and their allies have seized power in the elite precincts of academia and have used that power to influence every institution of our society, from the Supreme Court to your local public school. If you don’t understand what is happening, and in what direction our society is heading, you have not been paying attention.
My advice to anyone who has been ignoring this menace is to wake the hell up. There may still be time to save our nation from destruction.
Posted on | September 19, 2014 | 2 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Scots Hae Voted Nae
Five Big Takeaways From Xi’s Visit To India
One of them being promised investments falling $80 billion short
Alleged Arsonist Jailed As Wildfires Scorch California
Pollock Pines man charged with setting the massive King Fire
Union chief Palinkas warns of porous southern border, lax visa enforcement
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Supply Glut Forces Asian Crude Further Down: WTI $92.87, Brent $97.55
Larry Ellison Steps Down As Oracle’s CEO
Alibaba Prices IPO At $68, Raises $21.8 Billion
US Housing Starts Tumble In August
Dow, S&P At Records As Fed-Driven Rally Continues
Stock Market Lifts US Households Wealth
Bug Infects iOS 8 HealthKit, Delaying Third-Party App Launches
Android L To Offer Default Encryption
Cloudflare Launches Open Source Keyless SSL
Qualcomm Announces Vuforia For Digital Eyewear
Wireless Is The Growth Engine At Verizon
Indians win 2-1 on sac fly in 13th
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Duchess Of Cambridge Cancels Malta Visit; Morning Sickness To Blame
Prince William to pinch-hit
Chief of Thai Junta Apologizes For Bikini Comment
Mexico Sends Troops To Cabo San Lucas To Halt Post-Storm Rioting
Scottish MPs To Be Barred From Voting On English Laws
Aussies Uncover Islamist Plot For Mumbai-Style Attack On Parliament
Richard Rahul Verma Named US Ambassador To India
Tropical Storm Flooding Shuts Down Manila
Canada Quietly Takes Two Small Russian Banks Off Sanctions List
Fiji Coup Leader’s Party Set To Form Government Alone After Decisive Win
Israel Believes Syria Kept “Significant” Stocks Of Chemical Weapons
What The Missing Billions Say About Sino-Indian Relations
BLOGS & STUFF
Batshit Crazy News: Back From The Dead! ZomBlog Apocalypse! Go throw money at them!
Doug Powers: Have The Democrats Already Picked A Scapegoat For A Possible November Election Massacre?
Twitchy: How Moronic Is Sally Kohn? THIS Moronic.
American Power: How The Left Gave UK Girls To Muslim Rape Gangs
American Thinker: Where Are The Newspapers On Education?
BLACKFIVE: White House Press Briefing – GEN Dempsey Says “Boots On The Ground”
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin To Speak At Values Voter Summit
Don Surber: Scottish Independence And West Virginia
Jammie Wearing Fools: ISIS Calls For “Lone Wolves” To Find Service Members’ Homes, Then “Show Up And Slaughter Them”
Joe For America: Remember Michael Brown? The Media Doesn’t.
JustOneMinute: Hey, Dude, Where’s My Gender Gap?
Shot In The Dark: Our National Monologue
STUMP: Public Pension Watch – More Reactions To Calpers Pulling Out Of Hedge Funds
The Gateway Pundit: Penn State Officials Threaten To Call Police On Students Handing Out Copies Of The Constitution
The Jawa Report: Good News! ISIS Openly Recruiting In Turkey On Istanbul Buses
The Lonely Conservative: Ezekiel Emanuel Thinks 75 Years Is A Long Enough Life For You Peasants
This Ain’t Hell: Army Private Arrested For Smuggling Illegals
Weasel Zippers: Dem Senator Blocks Ted Cruz Bill To Seize Passports Of ISIS Jihadis Returning To US
Megan McArdle: Boring Lives, Boring Television
Deadline to submit links for the FMJRA is tomorrow at noon.
Deadline to submit links for Rule 5 Sunday is tomorrow at midnight.
DO THAT TOO.
Keep your favorite wombat in protein bars & e-books!
Buy stuff through these Amazon links!
Shop Amazon – Kindle Paperwhite – For Reading, Tablets Can’t Compete
Posted on | September 18, 2014 | 49 Comments
Feminist blogger @joyintorah18 RT’d the above image on Twitter, which was noticed by MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) Mike Buchanan, and someone then called it to my attention. OK, so who is this feminist? Not the naked lady in the picture, I mean @joyintorah18?
Joy is a Canadian who runs a site called “Mancheeze,” which she describes as “dedicated to critiquing the Manosphere, a loose connection of anti-feminist/misogynist websites run by men.” And she recently put up a post with this headline:
It seems that Joy is running a sort of online clearinghouse for this stuff, in other words. To quote from her post:
A couple of female commenters, Wendy and chiiill, have expressed they are happily in relationships with men. One of the things MRA’s and other male supremacists like to do is say feminists hate men. This is clearly not true. Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.
Granted there are some women, like myself, who for political and personal reasons will not have a sexual relationship with men but it’s NOT the only relationship you can have with a person.
I have male friends. They’re just very few and far between and I don’t see them sexually so it removes much of the problem. Men who can carry on a great friendship with me are far more valuable to ME.
I consciously choose to have sexual relationships strictly with women but there is ONE man who I did have a sexual relationship with and who I fell in love with.
This whole ‘manhater’ line is just a cop out projection that they use to woman hate.
There are so many things wrong with this “argument” that it could be mined endlessly — the Comstock Lode of feminist neurosis — but Joy is not significant enough to deserve such labors, and is not as creatively crazy as Witchwind. So let me just focus on this odd sentence: “Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.”
It is a fact that Andrea Dworkin was legally married to a man. She was a lesbian and her husband, John Stoltenberg, is a gay man who first met Dworkin in 1974. They lived together for about 30 years. But to say that Dworkin “was married happily” is to abuse the definition of “married” as well as to abuse the definition of “happily.”
Was Andrea Dworkin ever happy about anything? Perhaps her rants against men and sex made her “happy” in the same way the blitzkrieg of Poland made Hitler “happy,” but that’s about it.
A sentence like that could never be written by any honest person who cared about facts, but Joy is a Canadian feminist.
Let’s talk about John Stoltenberg, the gay man to whom Andrea Dworkin was, we are told, “married happily.” In 1989, Stoltenberg published Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice, in which he “argues that male sexual identity is entirely a political and ethical construction whose advantages grow out of injustice.” In 1994, he published The End of Manhood, about which a reviewer wrote, “The notion of manhood itself, says Stoltenberg, is a sham, a trap — and those who would redeem it or remythologize it are kidding themselves, for manhood is a mask, incompatible with truly human selfhood.”
To put it as bluntly as possible, Stoltenberg’s attitude toward masculinity is the attitude of Aesop’s fox toward the grapes: He pretends to scorn that which he desires, but is unable to possess.
Any psychologist would recognize that Stoltenberg’s personality is warped by masochistic tendencies and — hey! — did I mention he lived with Andrea Dworkin for 30 years?
John Stoltenberg’s life, career and ideas are a testimony to the truth of something Glenn Reynold recently remarked:
I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves.
This is exactly right. Sane, happy, normal people don’t need “movements” to validate their self-worth. However, people who are “broken” — unhappy, abnormal and/or mentally ill — are continually chasing after some cause, some crusade, some source of secular salvation that inspires them to immanetize the eschaton.
If they can’t save the world, these deranged souls can at least make themselves believe they are morally superior to the rest of us — we who are sane, happy and normal. This would be harmless, were it not for the fact that such “movements” are supported by intellectuals who turn these crackpot crusades into powerful political forces that result in the enactment of policies that make life miserable for everybody. And so we return to the Canadian feminist Joy, and her weird claim: “Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.”
About six weeks after Andrea Dworkin died in 2005 — she was 58 and had been nearly crippled by damage to her knees resulting from her morbid obesity — Ariel Levy published a long article about Dworkin in New York magazine called “The Prisoner of Sex.” Go read that article (Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five) and then tell me how “happily” Dworkin was married. It’s absurd even to argue about it, and if not for this Canadian feminist idiot Joy, I wouldn’t bother.
Go read Joy’s “radical feminist” post and laugh at the absurdity of it: She’s arguing with a blog commenter and, congratulating herself on what she considers her triumphant victory, she then struts before her readership: “Praise me, for I have slain the dreaded MRA!”
A cheap stunt, that. At least when I stomp a troll like Bill Schmalfeldt, I manage to make a clever joke or two. Joy is neither clever nor humorous. The fact that she’s got an entire blog devoted to trolling MRAs is a sad testimony to the pathetic emptiness of her life.
keep looking »