The Other McCain

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

Mental Illness on Parade

Posted on | January 2, 2015 | 84 Comments

Occasionally, I amuse myself by searching for certain feminist jargon terms on Twitter and RT’ing the wacky results. The jargon of feminism is a way for misfits to normalize their own insanity. That is to say, feminists look at the lives of normal human beings and see oppression. It is wrong for us to be normal, happy and successful, feminists believe, because our happiness and success are obviously the cause of their misery and failure. A few examples should suffice to demonstrate how this operates.

You see that it is wrong, according to feminists, for males to be masculine, for females to be feminine, and for heterosexuality to be assumed as a natural and socially desirable pattern of behavior. Therefore, the weirdos and freaks have invented a special vocabulary used to suggest that the normal beliefs and attitudes of normal people are a type of hateful prejudice. This feminist propaganda tactic has the effect of stigmatizing normal behavior while celebrating deviant behavior as a courageous resistance to social prejudice.

Do not be deceived by this propaganda. It is a species of evil, a lie akin to “Ye shall not surely die . . . ye shall be as gods.”




  • Nan

    And when Romney had binders full of women, that was a problem. Go figure.

  • Nan

    Would the end result be laughter or sexual assault? If sexual assault would it be the lesbians assaulting the feminists or the Polish men, who haven’t been enlightened, getting everybody drunk and proceeding to exhibit their heteropatriarchal normativity?

  • Nan

    You can hit all of them; because you’re part of the patriarchy and your life has been lived within the cocoon of white privilege, you’re automatically considered a hater and that’s mean to the other.

  • Nan

    Which is how you can tell it isn’t militant androgyny.

  • K-Bob

    Grad school is definitely oppressive.

  • RKae

    So they believe the world is a horrible place of tyranny and oppression; that we all must “coexist”… and their solution is to force (and they do want to force it) an entirely new, wacky, untested concept (the dismantling of the “binary” sexual view) on the 99.999% of humanity who have either never heard of it or have heard of it and think it’s insanity.

    …Instead of just saying, “Oh, well, I’m an outcast” and carrying on with their lives while somehow learning to cope with the notion that they’ll never see their worldview portrayed as dominant.

  • Jim R

    Ain’t it neat how they can be totally racist and hate me because I’m white except that it’s not racist because White Privilege?

  • Jim R

    We’ve gone pretty quickly from “Tolerate me” to “Embrace and mainstream my beliefs!”

  • Jim R

    It’ll be just facinating to see how that works out.

    On the other hand, given human beings’ near-infinite capacity for self-deception, I can see some of these poor fools shoved into burqas and beaten if they aren’t 100% submissive and still shout to the heavens how “liberating” it is.

  • DukeLax

    I believe that federally funded perversions to American law enforcement have soiled these definitions so much that any rape statistic they now give will be “Faulty and inflammatory”. But….There are ways to de-construct their perversions and semantics games to refine some actual numbers.

  • DeadMessenger

    Yes, you’re so right. And for that matter…oh, hang on, somebody’s at the door…Honey! Would you get that?……..sounds like it’s DHS and FEMA. Whoops, gotta go.

  • wbkrebs

    Eh? The English language barely has more than one gender.

  • Fail Burton

    “Feminism is the solution and Audre Lorde is our Prophet” isn’t going to go down well in certain parts of that religion. Maybe she’s a spy, like Mata Hari.

  • NeoWayland

    Here’s where most conservatives and I part ways.

    You can’t invoke government to exclusively back your social values either.

    Just because it worked in the past and often works today doesn’t mean it’s THE way that should be enshrined in law “forever and ever amen.”

    Who knows, it might not work tomorrow.

    Which means you have to prove it every day without government force. Just like the progressives.


  • Adobe_Walls

    I’m sorry was that a yes or a no?

  • McGehee

    Maybe by Romance standards, but to people who confuse gender and sex, “he”, “she” and “it” are obviously complex ideas.

  • Adobe_Walls

    I have no idea what your talking about.

  • TruthNotLies

    Life without liberals pissing and moaning about everything…..paradise.

  • RKae

    What a delightful article! It’s all so “reasonable!”

    Of course, she relays her leaving of Catholicism so calmly. It’s very easily done.

    Try leaving your religion now that you’re a Muslim, you moron.

    It never crosses her mind that all of that “questioning my faith” and “my family didn’t understand” produces different results for Muslims than it does for Catholics.

  • RKae

    Seeing how things work out is NOT something the MSM ever likes to do.

    It’s like when they run those stories they so very much like to run where “infidelity saved my marriage!” They never follow those up.

    And for all the stories they run of sex-change operations, then never run stories of later regrets and attempts to change back.

  • Jim R

    Short attention spans coupled with arrogance that doesn’t like to admit error with a hefty dash of “we can’t let the rubes suspect that we’re talking through our hats 90% of the time”.

  • NeoWayland

    You don’t want the “LGBTwhatthef**kisthat demographic” calling the on morality and what is accepted as “normal.”

    I don’t think conservatives should do that either.

    Prove what works today, and don’t be surprised if something else works for the other guy.

    Neither should be set in law because we don’t know what will work best for all people tomorrow.

  • Pingback: News of the Week (Januardy 4th, 2015) | The Political Hat()

  • Adobe_Walls

    Conversing with you can be extremely tedious, as you appear to be at least relatively bright, though I’m beginning to have my doubts. Apparently your view points are completely captured by your prejudices to the point they limit you reading comprehension.

  • NeoWayland

    I could joke about how I only post footnotes…

    I’ll tell you truth. For me, it’s about choice. You may have a favorite toothpaste that you swear is the most amazing thing ever. That’s fine, more power to you.

    Until you insist that everyone must use that toothpaste without fail under penalty of law. Then we have a problem.

    Same with faith and morality.

    Right now there’s a big push to move beyond acceptance of homosexuality to advocating homosexuality in public spaces under force of law.

  • NeoWayland

    That’s wrong. Not because of homosexuality, but because it imposes a choice at the point of a gun.

    At the same, it’s just as wrong to force “traditional” sexuality and morality for exactly the same reason.

    Not because your god or your minister said it’s wrong. That works for you and those who have chosen your faith. But it doesn’t work for someone who hasn’t chosen that.

    You’re free to convince them, but you can’t force them just because you know what’s best for them.

  • NeoWayland

    Making the choice for someone “for their own good” or for “the good of society” is the core of the progressive argument. You won’t win if you rely on their tactics. There are too many ways to turn that back on you.

    Free to choose. That’s it. That’s who I am. That is what I say.

  • Adobe_Walls

    As a wise man once put it.
    “Why are we constantly being hectored about issues related to “LGBT” when there are probably more Lithuanian-Americans than there are lesbian Americans? Should a minority be rewarded with extra attention just because they make obnoxious pests of themselves?”

    “What was once “The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name” has become The Alternative Lifestyle That Won’t Shut Up, and their constant yammering about it has become clichéd and repetitive.”

    The answer to that last question in the first paragraph is obviously, of course not. However that isn’t really my particular beef with the ”what the f**k is that community”. If they hadn’t made themselves the tools and allies of the left they’d never have developed enough visibility to be that obnoxious let alone institute the tyranny they and the left are imposing. I really don’t care one way or the other about Gays or Lesbians, I do believe giving hormones or performing surgery on trans-genders is medical malpractice on the mentally ill. Aside from that and redefining marriage I don’t care what they are or do. If it weren’t for their alliance with the left I and most of population would remain largely unaware of them. I suspect this would prove ideal for all concerned. But the ”gay rights movement” is part of the left and the left is the single greatest threat to humanity, and that really is that.

  • theoldsargesays

    Reactionary right wing bigot!
    [end sarcasm].

    Nah I just don’t see the thrill in it. These folks are definitely insane.
    I think I’ll just stick with the way I was born and continue to mock them. It’s my comfort zone.

  • theoldsargesays
  • NeoWayland

    Except for the marriage part, I pretty much agree with you.

    Personally I think it was a mistake to give marriage legal status, but that is another, much longer discussion.

  • Daniel Freeman

    That was a both. The stats have been perverted for so long, objective numbers were a blindside to everyone, but especially old-school advocates like him.

    I think he still doesn’t really trust it, and with good reason. There are still those who will twist the definitions around on purpose.

  • Daniel Freeman

    The “dismantling-the-gender-binary-person” comic art is actually pretty funny. Patriarchon’s symbol is literally a penis with a crown on it! That is hilarious on many levels, but mostly on the level where that’s actually how feminists see men.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Or possibly worse… “androgynous eroticism.” I halfway think that the Dworkin was trolling us when she coined that oxymoron.