The Other McCain

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

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Posted on | May 23, 2015 | 73 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.





 

Comments

73 Responses to “Credit Where Credit Is Due”

  1. RS
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 7:10 am

    Defaulting to behavior consistent with your Christian upbringing is probably also good advice for the young man going off to college. Pursue relationships through campus church/Christian organizations instead of the bars. I know that’s the advice I gave.

    As for choice of colleges or universities, parents need to remember that their cooperation is necessary in order for students to finance attendance at these elite colleges. It’s tempting to want to brag, “My kid’s attending Snooty Eastern U.” but a little research shows that their are still very affordable public universities with good reputations and high employment outcomes for graduates which don’t break the bank. While the ideological BS exists everywhere, it’s not as prevalent at regional state schools. (My eldest graduated with three degrees in Humanities and was mercifully spared the various “grievance courses.” One class in “Women’s Literature” was it.

  2. robertstacymccain
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 7:47 am

    Defaulting to behavior consistent with your Christian upbringing is probably also good advice for the young man going off to college.

    Indeed, but it is inevitable that many young fellows will arrive on campus with the same reckless party-’til-you-puke mentality I had, and some few words of strictly secular advice seemed appropriate, considering that I somehow managed to survive those years.

    In contemplating the current campus climate, I’ve often thought, “Would I be able to cope in this environment and, if so, how?” It occurs to me that being up-front and honest about one’s intentions is best. Studying what Paul Nungesser did wrong vis-a-vis Emma Sulkowicz (and comparing it to other similar cases) we see the friends-with-benefits model is deeply flawed, failing to account for the realities of human nature. Half a century after the Sexual Revolution, even secular and promiscuous women still generally have psychological issues that prevent them from fully enjoying sex, per se, outside the context of a loving and committed relationship. Shameless sexual hedonism is much more rare in women than in men, and so when Emma Sulkowicz texted “f–k me in the butt” to Paul Nungesser, this should have been like a flare in the night sky, a warning that she was emotionally unstable. She seems clearly to have hoped for a romantic relationship with Nungesser, but was embarrassed to admit that. It is easier for many young women nowadays to express craven sexual lust than to admit their actual desire to be loved, and I think a lot of young guys are confused by these mixed messages. As religious morality has waned, and as the “script” of romantic custom has been dissolved by an acidic postmodern cynicism, many youth simply don’t know how to negotiate their male-female relationships in what we adults would consider a reasonable manner.

    Therefore, I’d tell a young guy who is “on the hunt,” so to speak, to consider that it is better to lose out on an opportunity to “score,” if he cannot “score” on a basis of honesty. Don’t get yourself into a situation where there is confusion as to whether it’s friendship, romance or just straight-out carnal lust. If you think a girl is getting the wrong idea about the transaction, better to tell her the blunt truth and risk scaring her off, than to “lead her on” (to use an old-fashioned phrase) with romantic dreams you must eventually shatter.

    Love is a contact sport. Severe emotional injuries occur routinely. If you can’t play the game by fair rules, you’d be better of just staying on the sidelines.

  3. RS
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 8:12 am

    Postmodern “deconstruction” necessitates destruction of rules and mores which have stood us in good stead for multiple generations. Yet society wonders why young people are the way they are.

    Assume solely for purposes of argument that a “Rape Culture” in fact exists on college campuses to the extent the feminists claim. Query, how then did we arrive at this point after 50 years of modern feminism? I’ve not heard or read affirmative accounts from women who went to college decades ago, when the number of women on campus were less, claiming a “rape culture” back when in the glory days of the Patriarchy before women caught on to our nefarious plot.

    It seems intuitively obvious that any “rape culture” which exists is due solely to society’s divorcing sex from the typical “courtship track,” i.e. dating for a period of time, betrothal followed by marriage and children, each stage of which marked by greater physical intimacy. That is, the level of physical intimacy was dependent upon the nature of the relationship. The stronger the relationship, the more intimate it became.

    Now, not so much as evidenced by the whole “friends with benefits” business.

    The other problem for these young women is that their college flirtations with “We’re All Victims” Feminism is destroying their ability to find mates of similar stature for the future. College educated people generally want to marry and procreate with each other. Given the toxic atmosphere on today’s campuses, young men are better off seeking romance and long term relationships anyplace but among their peers at university.

  4. RS
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 8:36 am

    Related? (Via Ace)

  5. M. Thompson
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 9:23 am

    I just graduated with a degree in Accounting from Husky Hockey State U a couple of weeks ago, and did my token grievance/diversity course a couple years ago. Despite being properly antagonistic to many of the ideas (hated one book because the protagonist was useless, and said some incendiary things) I still got an “A”. The key is properly conducting the argument.

  6. Matt_SE
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 9:52 am

    “Instead, federal authorities in the Obama administration undertook this initiative. Why? Believe it or not, because of National Public Radio:”
    This administration has a long history of collusion with non-governmental bodies to agitate for action. It is all astro-turf.
    I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if this were the case with the NPR story, since it’s been done serially with the EPA and Sierra Club.
    When you think about it, it’s actually the gist of Fast & Furious too.

  7. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 10:00 am

    It is amazing what insanity you can get into fueled with hormones, chemical additives, and alcohol.

  8. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 10:07 am

    I watched Million Dollar Arm the night of the Mad Men finale (coincidence, it came from Netflix the day before). There was a scene where Jon Hamm spends the night with his tenant Lake Bell (who lives in a mother-daughter apartment behind his house). The MLB prospects from India cannot fathom such intimacy without marriage (or at least being engaged). It was sort of touching and also sort of sad.

  9. Mike G.
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 10:17 am

    Did you read the comments after the article? It didn’t take long for it to descend into blaming the ‘Joos’, and how its all a Zionist plot, with some cultural Marxism thrown in to spice things up.

  10. Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz’s Media Saga Continues: Columbia Graduation Day | Batshit Crazy News
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 10:29 am

    […] TOM: Credit where Credit Is Due […]

  11. MichaelAdams
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 12:17 pm

    Kids at these schools, even the so-called private ones, are subsidized by us, the bourgeois taxpayers, who do not live that way, nor do our grown children, nor, if God answer prayer affirmatively, will our grandchildren. They make messes of their lives, continue to do so after graduation, and expect us to continue to subsidize them. There is a First Rule of Holes application here, I think.

    Oh, yes, our son met his wife at Freshman Orientation, accepted her invitation to a church she wanted to visit, eventually baptized her, and married her a few months later.

  12. guinspen
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 12:20 pm

    …the Oberlin Review reported that “the alternative event, ‘We’re Still Here,’ was attended by approximately 35 students and one dog.”

    I demand a recount.

  13. Shawn Smith
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 12:50 pm

    Insofar as there is actual sexual misbehavior on our college campuses (not a rape crisis), the blame lies squarely with feminists. They have done their best to destroy both chastity and chivalry. What kind of men did they think they were going to get?

    But, of course, I forgot, a logical chain of thinking from cause to effect, particularly as it regards human behavior, is part of the oppressive patriarchy, and does not apply to them.

  14. Shawn Smith
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 12:51 pm

    Don’t forget one more key ingredient: A profoundly deadened moral sense from being told right and wrong are just opinions.

  15. Matt_SE
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

    The feminists were well aware of the kind of men this would produce: the kind they wanted to demonize.
    The Patriarchy™ didn’t actually exist, not as RadFems envisioned it, so it had to be created.

    Really, I doubt this was their primary goal. They just anticipated that it might be a nice side benefit.

  16. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 1:12 pm

    Plenty of “utes” got into trouble despite a decent moral upbringing, but that is like starting the fire with an oxygen feed going to it.

    Mark Twain on the Carnival of Crime in Connecticut http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3183/3183-h/3183-h.htm

  17. Mike G.
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

    Do you think maybe the dog wasn’t there by choice, thereby making him/her the smartest one of the lot?

  18. Fail Burton
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 4:22 pm

    In general terms the fem side spews lies and skewed statistics which ignore any larger context. They generally attack the entire male, heterosexual and white demographic as a whole, even globally and reaching far back into history.

    The other side uses facts and drags in as much context as possible which makes it clear they are opposing a specific ideology promoted by people with actual names. In return they are accused of attacking an entire female, homosexual and non-white demographic as a whole, even globally and reaching far back into history. We default to wingnuts, Limbaugh fans, Fox News watchers, misogynists, Islamophobes, reactionaries, homophobes and generally pining for the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

    Forget the fact that many of us are far more liberal (in real terms) than these intolerant, censoring, hectoring, boycotting, conformist, redneck, mentally ill people whose days consist of nothing but gripe and hokum.

    The tie-breaker is quotes and accurate statistics. Social justice warriors have no quotes and lie about statistics. The gender feminist movement is as adept as promoting itself daily as it is in pretending it doesn’t even exist when we press them. They routinely portray their fringe lunatic ideology as representing all gays, non-whites and women the same way the KKK claims to speak for whites.

    If this ideology isn’t lying, they aren’t awake, because that’s all they do. You take any subject and feminists will ruthlessly bend and break it to their insane world view until it is unrecognizable, whether it’s rape, slavery, colonialism, media demographics, whatever. It’s one distorted and even paranoid lie after the other.

  19. Fail Burton
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 4:26 pm

    That dog is a traitor to the animal kingdom. Like humans, if all dogs dressed like hockey goalies, we couldn’t oppress each other, would default to androgyny and eff each other at random. To combat that, we’d have to put cockatoo-like hairpieces on our masks to identify us. The bigger and more scarlet the piece, etc., etc.

  20. Finrod Felagund
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

    If you want to send your son to a private college, let me recommend my alma mater: Wabash College, established in 1832 and still all-male to this day. Several years ago Wabash came in #1 on a US News survey of small college education for the dollar.

  21. concern00
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 4:40 pm

    #rapehoaxculture

  22. sanjoaquinsam
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 9:37 pm

    My advice to my college aged bros is don’t date your classmates; there are plenty of girls in town. It allows you focus on your studies while on campus rather than looking for chicks and significantly reduces unnecessary drama in your life (drama aside from being wrongfully accused of sexual harassment).

    Campus life is a strange bubble and meeting girls from nearby leads to making new friends reducing this detachment from the real world. I did it in high school and college and highly recommend the strategy.

  23. DeadMessenger
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 11:58 pm

    “…even secular and promiscuous women still generally have psychological issues that prevent them from fully enjoying sex, per se, outside the context of a loving and committed relationship.”

    As a formerly secular and…I don’t know if I’d necessarily use the word promiscuous, but more like a young woman with a healthy interest in PIV, let’s say, I could testify after the first couple of times that sex without love and commitment sucks.

    Without love, you may as well have VIV (vibrator in …), where a girl has a markedly reduced chance of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, and no demand for post-coital sammiches.

    Yeah, love and commitment is the real deal. And I find it hard to believe that sex under those conditions is not also substantially more fulfilling for guys as well. I mean, Rosie Palm isn’t going to nag about why you haven’t called her. Nor will she file complaints against you at your college. (And if she does, that guy has bigger issues than his sex life.)

  24. DeadMessenger
    May 24th, 2015 @ 12:09 am

    That’s a nice story, about your son. A lot more romantic than a booze-fueled hookup, that’s for sure.

  25. DeadMessenger
    May 24th, 2015 @ 12:10 am

    I think he means that some of the 35 were dogs. 😀

  26. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 12:48 am

    Why in hell would a healthy well adjusted person want to be a victim? Why would a normal person seek out and jealously defend that status?

    Guess I just answered my own question, huh?

  27. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 12:57 am

    We have been lied to by pron. Not just in the sexual opportunities available to pool men, package delivery drivers, and major appliance repairmen, but in what people want.

    Women do not enjoy fellatio and anal sex. If they do it, it’s for for a reason other than having fun in bed. In a supposedly free and open relationship it should be obvious that such an offer will have strings attached, that it has a tactical purpose.

    Like the old joke that ends “No sweetie, that’s where jewelry comes from,” there is an ulterior motive. In a committed relationship it may very well be to please the male partner. In an uncommitted one, it’s is a bargaining chip. A man might not recognize this, or he may but decide to take advantage of it with no intent to provide the implicit quid pro quo.

    We can debate into which category Paul Nungessor falls, but that’s not relevant. He accepted an offer and did not uphold his end of the deal, whether he knew there was one or not. Hence the vendetta carried on against him with the explicit consent and encouragement of Columbia.

  28. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 1:01 am

    We could wear codpieces. They could also be useful in determining a male’s relative status in the group.

    As for the women, I don’t know… taco shells maybe?

  29. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 1:04 am

    I have spent the majority of my adult life at sea, both in the regular Navy and in Military Sealift Command. I give youngsters one bit of advice: no sex with shipmates. A ship is too small to share with a lover, and definitely too small to share with an ex-lover.

  30. Fail Burton
    May 24th, 2015 @ 1:51 am

    Mother Nature and 35 animals.

  31. Fail Burton
    May 24th, 2015 @ 1:58 am

    For some reason Discus won’t load sometimes. It just spins and spins so I couldn’t read the comments. But I don’t get people who have this thing for Jews. Don’t they have any other hobbies? Model airplane building is fun and requires zero hatred.

  32. Fail Burton
    May 24th, 2015 @ 2:02 am

    Lot’s of people are emotionally unstable without being sociopathic. Lot’s of people are clear-headed pirates, thieves and liars. I think empathy, compassion and kindness is the deal-breaker, not eccentricities. It’s human nature to have issues. American’s are natural eccentrics. They’re not all pricks.

  33. Daniel Freeman
    May 24th, 2015 @ 2:25 am

    Power. A victim narrative is the flip side of a threat narrative that justifies aggression.

  34. Fail Burton
    May 24th, 2015 @ 5:24 am

    The fundamental core of radical feminism was created by lesbians for lesbians. The issues you see most talked about in the social justice movement all derive from that core and not from equal rights feminism: rape culture, gender abolition, white privilege, male gaze, patriarchy, misogyny, intersectionalism, toxic masculinity, heterosexuality as oppression, trigger warnings, The Bechdel Test (Dykes to Watch Out For), heteronormativity, gender as “performance.”

    Like neo-Nazis, the KKK, the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party, radical feminism is a supremacist ideology whose main business is group defamation.

  35. Mike G.
    May 24th, 2015 @ 5:25 am

    Well, that was a given. I’m also sure the actual dog was the preetiest one of the lot.

  36. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 5:36 am

    I really don’t get anti-Semitism. Maybe if you don’t understand Judaism and think it’s odd, so have a little discomfort or uneasiness. But the sheer flat out hatred?

    That’s what I don’t get. How can you really believe that these people are the root of all evil? How can you accept the bizarre claims made about them and their plans? It’s impossible to study history and not conclude that the Jews consistently punch above their weight. The Scots and Irish might argue (well, no “might” about it, they will, and do), but I don’t think there has a been a population that has contributed so much to humanity far beyond their numbers.

    And maybe that’s it. Maybe there’s some shame that people achieve so much despite having so little, and it turns to resentment and hatred. We see similar hatred expressed towards Asians by blacks in inner cities, largely due to the conspicuous difference in accomplishment between the two populations.

    Why wouldn’t that encourage you to get up and take charge of your life, though?

  37. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 5:42 am

    Gack! I can’t see debasing myself to gain such a silly advantage… perhaps because I would not acknowledge that as a basis for power and superiority.

    No, I’d prefer to think, however deluded I may be, that what I have achieved has been by my effort. Yeah, an SJW would chalk it up to white privilege, but I did not see any of them working alongside me at the three jobs I had to pay my way through school. None of them appeared while I was at Basic Training or later at OCS, they were not sitting alongside me whenever I accomplished anything that I sought.

    Not that I am a paragon, but I do flatter myself that my life has been under my own direction, that my goals have been achieved through application. The thought of pretending weakness and incapacity in order to bully others revolts me.

  38. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 5:48 am

    Just as progressives insist that the proper solution to every problem is increased government power and decreased personal autonomy, the radical feminists won’t shut up about sex. It is both the source and cure for all of society’s ills.

    I think Dennis Miller once had a routine about that, where he used the line “Nothing is of less interest to me than your orgasms.”

    All progressive ideologies are dedicated to blurring the boundaries between public and private, or personal and political. I can’t escape the conclusion that progressives hate themselves and cannot conceive anyone else not mired in self loathing. It’s either that or they insist upon making the rest of us responsible for their pathologies.

  39. Daniel Freeman
    May 24th, 2015 @ 5:56 am

    Why wouldn’t that encourage you to get up and take charge of your life, though?

    To ask the question is to answer it. They must not feel in control of their own lives. They lack a sense of personal agency.

  40. Daniel Freeman
    May 24th, 2015 @ 6:04 am

    The thought of pretending weakness and incapacity in order to bully others revolts me.

    And that is exactly why it is so hard for us to comprehend the SJWs, but we must in order to defeat them.

  41. Those hazy crazy days of college | Law of Markets
    May 24th, 2015 @ 7:19 am

    […] McCain’s boy-girl advice if you are heading off to college in the US. It’s like going into a war zone. No one can be […]

  42. RS
    May 24th, 2015 @ 7:29 am
  43. dustbury.com » A sort of hands-off policy
    May 24th, 2015 @ 7:38 am

    […] Robert Stacy McCain, who was once a college-age lad himself, offers advice to the present-day generation: […]

  44. texlovera
    May 24th, 2015 @ 7:45 am

    So true…

  45. texlovera
    May 24th, 2015 @ 7:47 am

    Those who hate the Jews do so because if they didn’t hate the “success” of the Jews, all they would have left is to hate their own failure.

  46. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2015 @ 10:03 am

    Well, we at least need to know how to draw their fangs. It’s as simple as refusing the play by their rules, never grant them the power they crave.

  47. From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.
    May 24th, 2015 @ 10:41 am

    […] Robert Stacey Stacy McCain on The Other McCain: Credit Where Credit Is Due […]

  48. Fail Burton
    May 24th, 2015 @ 4:26 pm

    It was certainly the most accurate presentation of gender.

  49. Daniel Freeman
    May 24th, 2015 @ 4:52 pm

    Wow. That was twenty years ago, and what has changed?

  50. richard mcenroe
    May 24th, 2015 @ 6:50 pm

    Jesus was a Jew, born of a Jewish woman, in accordance with God’s plan. That alone should be enough to endow any Christian with at least a sense of filial affection for the Jewish race.