Feminism’s Campaign of Sexual Terror

Posted on | January 6, 2015 | 68 Comments

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“Implicit in feminist theory is a parallel argument: the molding, direction, and expression of sexuality organizes society into two sexes — women and men — which division underlies the totality of social relations. Sexuality is that social process which creates, organizes, expresses, and directs desire, creating the social beings we know as women and men, as their relations create society. . . . The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.
“Marxism and feminism are theories of power and its distribution: inequality. They provide accounts of how social arrangements of patterned disparity can be internally rational yet unjust. . . .
“Socially, femaleness means femininity, which means attractiveness to men, which means sexual attractiveness, which means sexual availability on male terms. What defines woman as such is what turns men on. Good girls are ‘attractive,’ bad girls ‘provocative.’ Gender socialization is the process through which women come to identify themselves as sexual beings, as beings that exist for men. It is that process through which women internalize (make their own) a male image of their sexuality as their identity as women. . . . Feminist inquiry into women’s own experience of sexuality revises prior comprehensions of sexual issues and transforms the concept of sexuality itself — its determinants and its role in society and politics. . . . Sex as gender and sex as sexuality are thus defined in terms of each other, but it is sexuality that determines gender, not the other way around.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

Please call the excerpted passage to the attention of Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, or any other prominent 21st-century feminist spokeswoman in politics, journalism or academia.

Ask them: Was Professor MacKinnon wrong, and if so, how?

It’s very simple, you see. Anyone with a college education can read Professor MacKinnon’s words and see what she means. You can read the entire article and judge whether these excerpts are in any way “taken out of context.” You can read Professor MacKinnon’s online biography and see if anyone can dismiss her as a “fringe” figure, obscure and irrelevant to so-called “mainstream” feminism.

The rhetorical habits of feminists are familiar to anyone who has ever attempted to oppose them. You ask them a simple question, a matter of plain fact that can be answered “yes” or “no,” and they will not answer. They will deny your authority to ask them questions, implying that to disagree with them is proof of your bad faith (mala fides), so that their critics are always either accused of defending some heinous abuse (e.g., rape) or else characterized as a misogynist, a deliberate insult for which no evidence is required beyond a skeptical stance vis-à-vis feminism.

Misogynist is a word that has a definition. The etymology of misogynist gives it a literal definition as “woman-hater,” but in America nowadays, it means: Republican, especially a male Republican.

It is would difficult to find evidence that Mitt Romney hates women, but he is a Republican and therefore, all feminists agreed in 2012, he was responsible for a “War on Women.”

Feminists began by blaming the “War on Women” on Rush Limbaugh, who said mean things about Sandra Fluke. The word for someone who says mean things about a feminist is “misogynist.” The word for someone who says mean things about a Republican woman is . . . Democrat.

The terms of the dominant discourse are controlled by the media and academia, both institutions overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats, and so it is nearly impossible to get anyone to notice (much less to admit) the extent to which feminism is simply a partisan propaganda operation through which Democrats exploit the partisan “gender gap” by convincing women that the Republican Party hates women.

Well, what about Catharine McKinnon?

Is she a feminist? Do other feminists agree with her analysis of sexuality? If officials of the Republican Party are expected to answer for everything Rush Limbaugh says — as was the case in the Sandra Fluke imbroglio — why can’t Democrats be asked about the views of eminent feminist ideologues? Of course, I doubt any TV interviewer would ever dream of asking Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren whether they agree with Catharine MacKinnon, couldn’t we at least ask such a question of Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte and other such persons whose status as Official Feminist Spokeswomen is their journalistic raison d’etre?

Heterosexuality is the “structure,” according to Professor MacKinnon, by which males engage in the “organized expropriation” of women’s sexuality. That is to say, all males are sexual predators — parasites who wrongfully exploit females as their sexual victims and thereby produce an “inequality” that is “unjust.” Heterosexuality is a social injustice, a means of oppression that males impose on females.

Perhaps there are feminists who wish to say that I have mischaracterized or oversimplified Professor MacKinnon’s argument.

Then, please, Ms. Valenti and Ms. Marcotte, feel free to explain how I am too stupid to comprehend Professor MacKinnon’s meaning. Let any other feminist — professional or amateur — explain either (a) how I have misinterpreted Professor MacKinnon’s argument, or (b) how Professor MacKinnon’s argument is wrong.

“Well,” the feminist huffs, “this is irrelevant. It’s 2015. What’s the point of bringing up this article from 1982?”

“The issue in rape has been whether the intercourse was provoked/mutually desired, or whether it was forced: was it sex or violence? . . .
“[W]omen notice that sexual harassment looks a great deal like ordinary heterosexual initiation under conditions of gender inequality. Few women are in a position to refuse unwanted sexual initiatives. That consent rather than nonmutuality is the line between rape and intercourse further exposes the inequality in normal social expectations. So does the substantial amount of male force allowed in the focus on the woman’s resistance, which tends to be disabled by socialization to passivity. If sex is ordinarily accepted as something men do to women, the better question would be whether consent is a meaningful concept. Penetration (often by a penis) is also substantially more central to both the legal definition of rape and the male definition of sexual intercourse than it is to women’s sexual violation or sexual pleasure. . . . Although most women are raped by men they know, the closer the relation, the less women are allowed to claim it was rape. . . .
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

Honest readers see the immediate relevance of this. Professor MacKinnon was both prominent and influential in developing the theories of sexuality upon which much of current feminist discourse about “rape culture” is based. And the reader who is intelligent perceives that feminist theory interprets rape not as something separate and distinct from normal sexual interactions between men and women, but rather as something quite difficult to distinguish from normal interactions between men and women under “the social requirements of heterosexuality” within the system of “male sexual dominance and female sexual submission” by which women are oppressed.

If we recognize how feminist theory applies to the current “rape culture” discourse focused on college and university campuses, we also recognize this: Feminists are attempting to criminalize male sexuality, so that every sexual interaction between men and women occurs under the threat of prosecution if at any point, for any reason, the woman becomes unhappy with the interaction. Feminists now vehemently insist that males must be presumed guilty of rape if any woman ever accuses them of rape. No evidence is necessary beyond the accusation, and anyone who does not accept this no-evidence-needed standard is angrily condemned by feminists as a “rape apologist.”

This is anti-male terrorism, creating on university campuses a climate of fear in which “ordinary heterosexual initiation,” to borrow Professor MacKinnon’s phrase, becomes extraordinarily difficult due to the pervasive danger to males that their female partners might accuse them of a felony sex offense, the mere accusation being a de facto conviction.

Feminists are attempting to outlaw heterosexuality on college campuses. And when heterosexuality is outlawed, only outlaws will be heterosexual. Therefore, bad boys win, and nice guys . . .

Well, they say “nice guys finish last,” but nice guys will never finish at all. Certainly there will be no happy endings for the shy, scrupulously law-abiding nerd. Under the feminist regime of anti-male terror, a college boy would need a sense of reckless daring just to smile at a girl, much less speak to her. To attempt a kiss — are you crazy? Attempted kissing is sexual assault. No male who is smart enough to get into Harvard or Yale would dare risk the consequences of trying to kiss a girl.

Perhaps feminists can explain that I’ve misunderstood all this.

Perhaps there are Women’s Studies majors at elite universities who are eagerly willing to consent to sex with the kind of males who are interested in dating Women’s Studies majors at elite universities.

The existence of such males, however, is strictly hypothetical.

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

Comments

68 Responses to “Feminism’s Campaign of Sexual Terror”

Dianna Deeley
January 6th, 2015 @ 12:40 am

“Strictly hypothetical”?
Right up there, I daresay, with unicorns and sparkly vampires.

By the bye, a very happy New Year to you and your family!
Jason Lee
January 6th, 2015 @ 12:47 am

Sexual totalitarianism… Institutionalized feminism has become an evil empire, and a powerful one at that.

This may be unpalatable to those who prefer a narrow definition of Marxism, but it is hard for me to escape the impression that the kernel of feminism has always been a form of Marxism, transmogrified to appeal to hateful, despotic women. First-wave feminism not excluded.
shakins
January 6th, 2015 @ 1:15 am

@ Google is paying, 80$ per<— hour! Work for few hours and have more time with -friends & family! 0n tuesday I got a great new Land R0ver Range Rover from having earned $4151 this last four weeks.Its the most-financialy rewardingI've had. It sounds unbelievable but you wont f0rgive y0urself if you don’t check it

Here is I started—— http://GoogleProjects/Get/Position/now654…

————————————————-

GO TO THE SITE –>>>CLICK NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP
nooyawka212
January 6th, 2015 @ 1:19 am

What you miss and what MacKinnon misses is that sexuality is also directly related to work. To rush to the conclusion of my observation without all that heavy thinking stuff which will appear in a different forum, the bottom line is that traditional male sexuality leads to men being the dominant workers, while feminist sexuality leads to women being the dominant workers. If men’s work does not lead to sexual satisfaction, why do it? If women want to control the sexual discourse and arena they will also have to do the work that men used to do. Feminism lifts the burden of being the economic fulcrum of the family from the shoulders of men onto the shoulders of women. As Maggie Thatcher said about socialism, it works until you run out of other people’s money. I say about feminism, it works until women realize they are doing both their own and other people’s (men’s) jobs.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 6th, 2015 @ 1:42 am

I have to give a partial pass to these feminists, they are bad shit crazy and dangerous, but given they are around Democrat males like Clinton and Epstein, you can understand why they might go insane.
Jim R
January 6th, 2015 @ 1:46 am

Few women are in a position to refuse unwanted sexual initiatives.

And I must have met every one of them when I was in college…

🙂

RSM writes that “Anyone with a college education can read Professor MacKinnon’s words and see what she means.” Well, I confess that it took considerable effort on my part, because what she’s written comes across as gibberish, a (highly successful) effort to expand ideas that can be summed up in a couple of brief sentences into paragraphs of pseudointellectual nonsense.

She seems irate that men like to have sex with women, that sex is something that men do TO women (did she never have a boyfriend or husband???), and that women not only have to take it, but actually have to participate in their own sexual subjugation by dressing and behaving in ways that attract men. In other words, she’s cross that human beings behave… like human beings.

As to sex as power, women actually have quite a lot of power when it comes to sex (more generally, the relations between the sexes), as any high school boy quickly learns. Where feminists have fouled up is in effectively throwing away that power; if I may invoke a homely saying, “Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?”

No male who is smart enough to get into Harvard or Yale would dare risk the consequences of trying to kiss a girl.

Perhaps feminists can explain that I’ve misunderstood all this.

Miri Mogawhateverhernameis MIGHT be able to explain it. Certainly she seems eager to do so, eager to assure guys that women (gasp!) want to have boyfriends and husbands though they also (gasp!) have RULES about it. The problem is that feminists have, in trying to demonstrate their “power” and resistance to “male patriarchy”, ratcheted up the penalties for breaking those rules to the point that dating is like some sort of dystopian game where the losers (“Oh! Sorry, Billy! You BROKE THE RULES!”) get to wear a figurative scarlet “R” on their clothes… or even go to jail.
Adjoran
January 6th, 2015 @ 3:35 am

One of the other aggravating aspects of feminism – besides destroying the very basis of civilization and society – is they’ve made some great old songs disappear from commercial playlists.

When was the last time you heard Shake, Rattle & Roll? http://youtu.be/20Feq_Nt3nM

The Beatles’ Run For Your Life? http://youtu.be/WfktSTXlku0

Pat Travers’ Boom-Boom (Out Go The Lights)? http://youtu.be/nEzz4QTvItA (about 1:30 of intro there) The Little Walter original is pretty good too.
Fail Burton
January 6th, 2015 @ 3:38 am

Feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Laurie Penny are aware we are researching people like Andrea Dworkin and so have just recently launched pre-emptive strikes disowning her. The problem with that are people like MacKinnon, an extremely close colleague of Dworkin, as were Susan Brownmiller and Adrienne Rich.

Modern feminists laughable attempts to disown the basis of their own ideology runs up against a wall real fast. Rich, MacKinnon and Brownmiller are only nominally less sociopathic than Dworkin; more a matter of politeness and facade than anything else. Is Brownmiller maintaining rapists act as raiding shock troops to the benefit of all men really any crazier than Dworkin’s magical Hobbits in 17th century England and 9 million witches genocided by fearful medieval Christian men? How about Adrienne Rich’s self-serving pondering that men suffer a “fatalistic grief” as the “price of masculine dominance.” How is that different from Anita Sarkeesian Tweeting a bell hooks quote “‘Men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it.'”

What Las Vegas oddsmakers would ever predict men are always wrong? That is not a reflection of a neutral observation of the world around us but the view of a sociopathic supremacist cult. People like MacKinnon talk about the reality there is such a thing as crime in the world, but in place of the word “crime” they put the word “men” in the same way Nazis did the word “Jews.” It is not only a hallmark of supremacy to talk about one’s ethnic or sexual opponent in the negative 100% of the time but as if they are a single person. Intersectionalism stinks of resentment which precedes actual events and then constructs an ideology to justify that resentment. The truth is this is an ideology which cannot reproduce itself; only its most hated foes can, and that must sting like a bitch.

“It is… essential that women become well informed about current developments in genetics, cloning, and extrauterine reproduction.” – Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born, 1986

Problem solved.
DoRayMi
January 6th, 2015 @ 3:51 am

From what I’ve noticed is that outside the thought leaders like Marcotte, Valenti, Friedman, etc. the majority of women who claim to be feminists hasnt read a foundational feminist text, hence they all speak in the same dumb cliches like “feminism is about equality”! how they can believe that even on the surface when feminism does nothing but demonize the male gender is baffling, let alone every word that lurks underneath tells a completely different story. What we have on our hands are millions of women brainwashed in man hating, but laboring under the delusion that they are involved in a real civil rights struggle. Even when shown proof they sing the same stupid refrain like a group of Moonies that feminism is about equality.
Daniel Freeman
January 6th, 2015 @ 4:54 am

That’s rich. I heard that Wikipedia is excising the Cultural Marxism article, essentially declaring it a conspiracy theory (under the same standards by which the Patriarchy is supposedly totally legit).
Fail Burton
January 6th, 2015 @ 6:01 am

Don’t underestimate the cleverness of people who spend all their time perfecting rhetoric that interprets the history of the world as oppressive to their in-group. Feminist academics in particular produce nothing but what amount to supremacist conspiracy theories and they have been doing this for decades.

Black activists for example have had great success in portraying the Atlantic Slave Trade as a unique ethnic European phenomenon. When you throw in the late 18th century to 19th century abolitionist movement in England, the truth is close to the opposite. In other words, Europeans were only one of all cultures surrounding the Mediterranean Basin to indulge in slavery. At the same time, it was institutionalized in their lands the least and they were the only ones to try and force the end of slavery in Western Asia and N. Africa. When it comes to mainstreaming hate speech, naivete and ignorance are huge factors.
RS
January 6th, 2015 @ 7:46 am

While the feminist philosophes would certainly love to institute the regime you describe, one can only politicize human relationships so much. Nature always wins out. Yes, there will be the earnest freshman girls who become seduced by radical feminism, but I still think the vast majority will merely nod their heads at the diatribes of the academic lesbian harridans while still seeking a decent guy to marry and with whom to have kids. Alas, those women will not get a platform for their agenda. Instead, they’ll just rear the next generation of humanity.
Adobe_Walls
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:23 am

Which is why it’s merely leftism. Like leftism in general the question is can we afford to wait for this species to go extinct naturally.
Adobe_Walls
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:30 am

Eventually that worm will turn also, will women ever recover from the damage?
Zohydro
January 6th, 2015 @ 9:52 am

Hmmmm…

Cultural Marxism – what that beacon of truth, liberty and justice, the Southern Poverty Law Center, calls a right wing conspiracy theory “with an anti-Semitic twist”…

I note Wikipedia still has its “Frankfurt School” (redirected from “Cultural Marxism”) article up!
Feminism’s Campaign of Sexual Terror : The Other McCain | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
January 6th, 2015 @ 10:25 am

[…] Feminism’s Campaign of Sexual Terror : The Other McCain. […]
Daniel O'Brien
January 6th, 2015 @ 10:29 am

These are the so called “bad boys”. They seem to get away with it.
RS
January 6th, 2015 @ 10:41 am

It’s worthy to also note, the slave trade was part of African Tribal warfare for years and years. The vanquished were sold to Arabs for subsequent sale or directly to the slavers on the African West Coast. Ditto with the so-called Native American “Horse Culture,” a culture facilitated by the simple fact that the Spanish couldn’t keep track of all their livestock.
RS
January 6th, 2015 @ 10:49 am

The recovery will be perhaps not where we expect it. College-bound males will eschew attempting to find mates during their time at university in favor of other venues.

Meanwhile, the university attending, highly educated females will find it increasingly difficult to find a mate of similar social and intellectual standing. Men of their class will simply not be interested because the risks of having a failed relationship deemed “rape” and thereby destroying their future are too great. Say what you will. It’s easier for women to marry “up,” than men. And men are not stupid; they will seek a different source of supply outside of academe.
SouthCentralPA
January 6th, 2015 @ 10:54 am

Truly, one man’s indictment is another’s manifesto…
Dana
January 6th, 2015 @ 11:07 am

Our esteemed host wrote:

It’s very simple, you see. Anyone with a college education can read Professor MacKinnon’s words and see what she means.

Well, I have a college degree, and I can’t see any coherent message. I can, however, detect the whiff of bovine feces, and the passage our host quoted reeks of it. At best, what it says is irrational, that “sexuality that determines gender, not the other way around,” but that is so stupefyingly insane that it can’t even be debated; it is simply dismissed.
Dana
January 6th, 2015 @ 11:16 am

Our very patient host wrote:

The rhetorical habits of feminists are familiar to anyone who has ever
attempted to oppose them. You ask them a simple question, a matter of
plain fact that can be answered “yes” or “no,” and they will not answer.
They will deny your authority to ask them questions, implying that to
disagree with them is proof of your bad faith (mala fides), so that their critics are always either accused of defending some heinous abuse (e.g., rape) or else characterized as a misogynist, a deliberate insult for which no evidence is required beyond a skeptical stance vis-à-vis feminism.

This is the “debate” technique of the left in general: if you in any way question the policies of President Obama, you are a raaaaacist, or whatever accusation sets the questioner back to defending himself against ridiculous charges, and lets the questioned off the hook for having to defend his policies or positions. And the thing is: the left use it because it so often works!
Squid Hunt
January 6th, 2015 @ 12:14 pm

So? Why don’t we ask them? And record it. And play it over and over where they refuse to acknowledge. It’s going to take some ground work. We’re going to have to make these sort of statements common knowledge to the general public. But we should definitely put these politicians on point and ask them how they see it. I’m curious to see how they answer. Or don’t. Remember how devastating it was when that idiot from Kentucky refused to answer whether she voted for Obama?
Squid Hunt
January 6th, 2015 @ 12:18 pm

You do realize that is the end goal of feminism, right? Those that control the work force control pretty much everything else. You say it like women are going to wake up and think, “This is horrible! how did I get here?” But the quality of men that is generally being put out in this current culture has assured women that they can’t count on men and must do it themselves. Look around you and see how things are progressing in almost all fields. See who’s getting the degrees. See who’s moving up the ladder.
CrustyB
January 6th, 2015 @ 12:30 pm

Feminism is 10% of the population trying to convince 40% of the population that they don’t enjoy sex. How’s that working out for ya?

Sarah Palin has five kids, no wonder they hate her.
Adobe_Walls
January 6th, 2015 @ 12:55 pm

The problem starts in grade school where they try to make boys act like girls, often by drugging them. Girls are easier to handle.
Dana
January 6th, 2015 @ 1:12 pm

Well, it’s just obvious that she didn’t want five kids; the evil Todd Palin — who forced her to give up her maiden name, no less! — simply raped her into all of those whelps.

And our host likes to brag that his poor ~~sex slave~~ had six kids! He’s an even worse rapist than Todd Palin.
Daniel Freeman
January 6th, 2015 @ 1:20 pm

I have a passing familiarity with what passes for “sex-positive” feminism, thanks to “peer sex educator” Laci Green’s Sex+ series on YouTube. (I found it educational, and she wasn’t hard to look at.) She actually does her research and presents a lot of facts in a short amount of time; in retrospect, it’s just unfortunate that it has to share that time with a bunch of SJW nonsense.

My point is, looking back on it, I think that Laci was basically promoting every other kind of sex except for procreative PIV. In her specific case, I think it has to do with her rejection of her Mormon upbringing; but it makes me automatically suspicious of all feminists who call themselves “sex-positive” (presumably to differentiate themselves from all those other “sex-negative” feminists).

It makes me think, oh really? So you’re sex-positive, huh. What if it could result in a baby? Still cool with that?
K-Bob
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:07 pm

As long as you make enough public noise about defending their right to a free government abortion, you can be as much of an underage teen rapin,’ sexual predator as you want.
Squid Hunt
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:08 pm

I think the problems start when two people have children before they’re ready to raise them and the father either disappears or is barred from meaningful contribution. Working a bus route at church, one fact becomes crystal clear: Regardless of color or background, those kids are starved for male attention. Putting men back in the home I believe is the first step.
CrustyB
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:10 pm

Remember, feminists don’t look at conception as the result of sex. To them, a baby is an unfortunate side-effect of sex. A “curse,” to paraphrase…somebody.
Adobe_Walls
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:23 pm

Mean while the schools are teaching that one or two mommies with no dad are just as good, maybe even better than a mom and a dad. And by the way go to the office, you said bang bang.
Dana
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:25 pm

And, gosh, we’re surprised when little Johnnie says that ~~he’s~~ she’s really little Janie!
stormykitteh
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

And look who can not change a light bulb nor even take out the trash any longer. Utterly useless contemptible Waaah men. Better off caponizing them and going for the Soylent Green option for those who won’t work.
robertstacymccain
January 6th, 2015 @ 2:43 pm

“Laci was basically promoting every other kind of sex except for procreative PIV.”

This is how the “safe sex” agenda — which originated in a propaganda panic driven by the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s — has completely distorted understanding of sexuality in our popular culture. Between the anti-chastity rhetoric of “pro-sex” feminism, the counterfactual “teen pregnancy epidemic” scare, and the “safe sex” agenda (which is partly subsidized by condom manufacturers, by the way), young people have been getting a bizarre anti-natal message that is, ultimately, also anti-male and anti-heterosexual.

This convergence of forces stigmatizing normal sexual intercourse may be more consensus than conspiracy, but it is certainly not a coincidence. Once you decide that sex is not (and should not be) about love, marriage and procreation, the consequences of those beliefs will tend over time to lead in a certain direction. For young women, the “safe sex” message is like a roadmap to lesbianism or, at least, a sexual career that concludes as a Crazy Cat Lady.
RS
January 6th, 2015 @ 3:49 pm

The title to this post calls to mind “The Terror” of the French Revolution, 1793-94. The feminist “Neo-Jacobin” revolutionaries would do well to recall what happened to Marat and Robespierre when the smoke cleared. Perhaps we’re starting to see the beginnings of that reaction.
Squid Hunt
January 6th, 2015 @ 3:53 pm

Hey, my motto is simple: Outbreed the stupid people.
stormykitteh
January 6th, 2015 @ 4:13 pm

Mine was different – don’t get what you can’t afford. Bonus – I can make my “carbon footprint” as big as I like.
Dump Boehner Junta Fail | Regular Right Guy
January 6th, 2015 @ 4:16 pm

[…] Feminism’s Campaign of Sexual Terror […]
Daniel Freeman
January 6th, 2015 @ 4:33 pm

That almost sounds like a preface. 🙂
Squid Hunt
January 6th, 2015 @ 6:03 pm

Hey, that sounds almost like private property rights.
stormykitteh
January 6th, 2015 @ 6:05 pm

Exactly. LOL Funny how personal responsibility enabled me to retire at 50. Thanks Mom and Dad!
Dana
January 6th, 2015 @ 7:12 pm

Jean-Paul Marat lives on, posterized for immortality.

http://pbr2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/the-death-of-marat-detail.jpg
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:31 pm

For some reason I get bouncebacks on the email address posted in your “about” section, to which I have previously sent you batshit crazy news, so here is more crazy for you, in case you missed it.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/activists-hold-conference-in-support-of-queer-animal-liberation/
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:36 pm

Slavery continues in Africa and the Middle East.
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:38 pm

More people should watch the cautionary tale, Weekend Marriage, from 1932, the theme of which is that women should work only until they snag a husband, have a baby and stay home. Bad things happen if you move to St. Louis.

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1411/Week-End-Marriage/
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:38 pm

You mean that they have children without marriage.
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:42 pm

When I was in high school, a couple of male classmates got their ears pierced. One of them was told he had two choices; remove the earring or move out. This was back in the day that parents could kick kids out upon age 18 – and because some parents did, the law was changed, at least in my state, that parents are responsible for children still in high school even after they’re 18. My sisters friend moved in with us their senior year because of that; my parents neighbor had an absolute chip on her shoulder about any parent who did anything for a kid who was over 18 because her parents booted her at 18.
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:43 pm

I thought those “rules” girls got divorced.

http://therulesbook.com
Nan
January 6th, 2015 @ 8:45 pm

To be fair, he has twins so his wife wasn’t subject to more forced pregnancies than Sarah was.