The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Fat Lesbians vs. the ‘Heteronormative Gaze’

Posted on | May 31, 2015 | 138 Comments

Does the “fat acceptance” movement “destabilize the heteronormative gaze”? Can women overcome “gender inequality” by a “radical rejection of beauty as feminine aspiration”? Those possibilities are suggested by two Canadian sociologists in an article, included in a leading Women’s Studies textbook, that compared Dove’s “Real Beauty” advertising campaign to a protest by lesbian activists in Toronto.

Feminist Frontiers is a Women’s Studies textbook described by its publisher, McGraw-Hill, as the “most widely used anthology of feminist writings.,” Now in its ninth edition, Feminist Frontiers is edited by three lesbians: Professor Verta Taylor and Professor Leila Rupp, on the faculty of the University of California-Santa Barbara (where they are known as “the professors of lesbian love”), and Smith College Professor Nancy Whittier (whose wife Kate Weigand is the author of Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation).

Because this textbook is so influential in academia, I obtained a copy of Feminist Frontiers via Amazon.com for my research in the “Sex Trouble” series on radical feminism. As I explain in the introduction to the first edition of Sex Trouble:

Those who would attempt to separate “mainstream” feminism from the more radical aspects of its ideology cannot avoid the problem that the faculty and curricula of university Women’s Studies programs — where feminism wields the authority of an official philosophy — are disproportionately dominated by radical lesbians. This hegemonic influence is not merely manifested in the fact that outspoken lesbian activists are employed as directors and professors in Women’s Studies programs everywhere, but also plainly evident in the textbooks and readings assigned in their classrooms.

It should be noted that, according to federal research, 2.3% of the U.S. population (about 1-in-40 American adults) is either gay or bisexual. Yet lesbianism is vastly overrepresented in the faculty and curricula of Women’s Studies programs to such an extent that Carmen Rios, communications director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, jocularly described these departments as “Lesbo Recruitment 101.” This anti-heterosexual bias is reflected in the contents of Feminist Frontiers, which includes selections with titles like “Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films” (p. 153), “Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: ‘Gender Normals,’ Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality” (p. 309) and “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” (p. 536). Among the lesbian feminist authors cited as references by the contributors are Mary Daly, Sheila Jeffreys, Andrea Dworkin, Celia Kitzinger, Adrienne Rich, Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray, Marilyn Frye, Gayle Rubin, Audre Lorde and Arlene Stein.

The anti-heterosexual bias of Feminist Frontiers is also apparent in “Feminist Consumerism and Fat Activists: A Comparative Study of Grassroots Activism and the Dove Real Beauty Campaign,” by University of Toronto professors Josée Johnston and Judith Taylor (p. 115). This article, first presented at a 2006 meeting of the American Sociological Association and later published in the feminist journal Signs, invokes the theories of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci as the basis of its analysis:

Building on neo-Gramscian theories of hegemony, we argue that ideologies express degrees of hegemony depending on their ability to reinforce and naturalize power hierarchies and material inequality.

Feminists have frequently used Marxist theory to analyze the “male supremacy” they depict as an “ideology” that oppresses women in capitalist societies. In their article, Johnston and Taylor compare the “transformative possibilities” of Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign to a protest movement by the Toronto lesbian group Pretty, Porky and Pissed Off (PPPO). Co-founded by in 1996 by Allyson Mitchell (who is now an assistant professor in the School of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Toronto’s York University), PPPO staged protests promoting the message that “being fat can mean being healthy, sexy and socially productive” and counteracting “fat phobia,” as a 2004 article described the group. According to Johnston and Taylor, PPO’s objectives were to “challenge hegemonic beauty standards” and “challenge misogynist attitudes about fat women and sexuality,” in protests that offered “a counter-hegemonic critique of beauty and its relationship to capitalist consumerism” (pp. 116-117). They compare these protests to Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign:

Billboard, television, and magazine ads depicted women who were wrinkled, freckled, pregnant, had stretch marks, or might be seen as fat (at least compared with the average media representation of women). . . . The campaign . . .is now a major feature of Dove’s global marketing. (p. 116)

Because the “Real Beauty” ad campaign “promotes itself as a progressive force for women,” Johnston and Taylor interpret Dove’s marketing as “feminist consumerism,” a phenomenon with “the potential to partially disrupt gender norms” (p. 116). Johnston and Taylor contrast this to the “grassroots models for social change . . . at the heart of feminist consciousness-raising,” as exemplified by the PPPO protests:

The idea arose from a 1996 conversation between Allyson Mitchell and Ruby Rowan, both of whom were artists and women’s studies students. While attending a conference on subcultures, they lamented the absence of attention to lesbian feminists active in the queer arts scene. . . . The conversation turned to mundane matters; not being able to find cool pants that fit. . . .
Characterizing participants as a “dyke network” of artists, performers, feminists, friends, and exes, Mitchell says the event solidified their identities as fat activists . . . (pp. 118-119)
In addition, PPPO’s radical disruption of hegemonic beauty ideology worked to destabilize the heteronormative gaze. Strongly linked to a lesbian arts community, PPPO activists did not prioritize the approval of men socially or performatively, and this may have allowed a more radical rejection of beauty as feminine aspiration. (p. 123)

Comparing these protests to the “corporate strategy” behind “Dove’s appropriation of feminist themes,” Johnston and Taylor write that Pretty, Porky and Pissed Off “waged war with hegemonic beauty standards — actions far removed from Dove’s reformist peacemaking” (p. 123). Although the Dove campaign “partially disrupts the narrowness of Western contemporary beauty codes,” Johnston and Taylor conclude, “at the same time it systematically reproduces and legitimizes the hegemony of beauty ideology in women’s personal lives” (p. 125).

Hostility to “beauty ideology” has been a core theme of feminism since the emergence of the Women’s Liberation movement in the 1960s. Its first major protest occurred in September 1968, when about 100 feminists staged a demonstration at the Miss American pageant, condemning how the contestants “epitomize the roles we are all forced to play as women.” The protesters claimed “women in our society [are] forced daily to compete for male approval, enslaved by ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards we ourselves are conditioned to take seriously.”

Lesbianism also emerged early as a core theme of the Women’s Liberation movement. In 1971, prominent feminist Charlotte Bunch was co-founder of a D.C.-based lesbian collective known as The Furies. In the collective’s first publication (January 1972), Ginny Berson declared:

We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women. . . .
Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.

Radical lesbians played key roles in founding Women’s Studies programs at many universities. Professor Bonnie Zimmerman, for example, was a founding member of the Women’s Studies College at SUNY Buffalo in 1970, and later helped begin the Women’s Studies program at San Diego State University. In a 1997 essay, Professor Zimmerman wrote: “I believe it can be shown that, historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena.”

So-called “fat-positive feminism” is a movement that “addresses how misogyny and sexism intersect with sizism and anti-fat bias.” While feminists blame “anti-fat bias” on male supremacy, the health risks of obesity are serious, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): “Obesity is a national epidemic and a major contributor to some of the leading causes of death in the U.S., including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some types of cancer.”

Obesity is such a serious problem among lesbians that the National Institutes for Health funded a $3 million study to determine why “nearly three-quarters of lesbians are overweight or obese.”

When that study made headlines in September 2014, Mari Brighe wrote at the lesbian blog Autostraddle that lesbians “tend to be less critical of their bodies than straight women,” because they don’t “suffer the incessant, unreasonable pressure of the male gaze.”

This would suggest that “the male gaze” is actually beneficial to heterosexual women, whose “feminine aspiration” to be attractive to men by meeting “hegemonic beauty standards” (as the Johnston/Taylor article put it) leads women to stay thin and thereby avoid heart disease, diabetes and other health complications of obesity. But the way women benefit from heterosexuality isn’t something college students are likely to learn from Women’s Studies classes, where the textbooks are edited by lesbians who never have anything good to say about men.

<br />

Category: Education, Feminism, Sex Trouble

Comments

138 Responses to “The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Fat Lesbians vs. the ‘Heteronormative Gaze’”

NewClassTraitor
May 31st, 2015 @ 6:46 am

I bought your book. I still think there are saner varieties of feminism that I find common ground with — “equity feminism” a la Christine Hoff Sommers, or the work of the Independent Women’s Forum — and that the extreme form of feminism that you portray in the book should properly be called gynosupremacism.
But Holy. Mother. Of. Pork. The authors you are quoting at length in your book do read like a study in psychopathology. No wonder one gets attacked for merely quoting them accurately: their worst enemy is their own words.
NewClassTraitor
May 31st, 2015 @ 6:54 am

On second thought: if I’d have to give a subtitle for your book, I’d go with “Seasons in the Abyss”. Some of the drivel you are quoting is the sort of stuff that has psychiatrists making appointments with other shrinks.
robertstacymccain
May 31st, 2015 @ 7:05 am

The point you make is, of course, one that I address directly in the introduction: “What do we mean by the word ‘feminism’?” And, carrying that question forward through the book’s examination of feminism as a political philosophy — founded on a theory of women’s oppression under “male supremacy” — I show how feminism, especially as it is taught in university Women’s Studies programs, is engaged in a War Against Human Nature.

The idea of a “feminism” that is compatible with capitalism, democracy and human happiness — which is what Christina Hoff Sommers and other Republican-aligned “feminists” have attempted to promote — suffers from two basic problems:

1. It is not recognized as “feminism” by actual feminists, i.e., the leaders and spokesmen of the feminist movement, who are and always have been politically aligned with the Left, especially with the Democrat Party in the United States.
2. Trying to call a pro-capitalist, pro-freedom agenda “feminist” lends itself to confusion and accusations of dishonesty.

Republican “feminists” are actually opposed to the radical agenda of the organized (left-wing) feminist movement, so that they are for all practical purposes anti-feminists. Why not simply state this in the most direct terms? If we believe that the best interests of women are served by a free-market economic system and a preservation of constitutional liberty, and if we know that the radical agenda of feminism is hostile to those aims, conservatives should simply state the truth: “Feminism is bad for women, and therefore conservatives oppose it.”
DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Fat Lesbians vs. the ‘Heteronormative Gaze’
May 31st, 2015 @ 7:26 am

[…] The Other McCain continues peering under the rock. […]
PeterP
May 31st, 2015 @ 7:28 am

These women must hate Michelle Obama for trying to combat obesity.
robertstacymccain
May 31st, 2015 @ 7:28 am

In fewer words:

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/604433878372257792
Steve Skubinna
May 31st, 2015 @ 7:39 am

Careful – you’re expecting to find intellectual consistency and it is not there.

Feminism, as studied and described by our host, is an anti-intellectual movement. None of its claims are verifiable, but as they have not been reached through examination, study, and analysis they cannot be. It is really a protracted scream of primal rage against the universe, and at least they do us men the honor of appointing us Masters of the Universe. Their war is against more than human nature, it is against reality. Take a look at attempts to develop “feminist math” and “feminist physics.”
Scarlett_156
May 31st, 2015 @ 7:54 am

This used to be such an interesting blog. I would say “what happened?” but it’s pretty obvious. 🙁
trangbang68
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:06 am

It stopped being interesting for a minute about eleven minutes ago when you posted your comment.
Daniel Freeman
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:27 am

Some of the drivel you are quoting is the sort of stuff that has psychiatrists making appointments with other shrinks.

Or drinks. Called ahead.
Daniel Freeman
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:30 am

It would be nice if feminists would at least appreciate that men appreciate women the most when they’re at their healthiest, but no.
Rad Fem Take Away | Zipline Conservative
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:31 am

[…] Fat Feminism […]
JadedByPolitics
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:33 am

No matter what they say or do, no matter the amount of advertising buy in they get, they will always be ugly. They haven’t figured out that beyond their bull dykish ways the ugly is deep within and radiates out!
Daniel Freeman
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:37 am

What is the point of your comment? Our host is writing a book on feminism for reasons, and the regular commenters appreciate the articles that arise out of that work. What is your purpose?

Don’t get me wrong: I can make a good guess. I’m just giving you a chance to define yourself.
Jim R
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:38 am

Rush hit it years ago:

Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.

Certainly it seems to allow the access to academia and the media: how else would hate-filled people with such a reflexive, bitter, and above all unthinking worldview get jobs there?

I also credit Steve Skubinna below:

It is really a protracted scream of primal rage against the universe.

I wonder if most women have any idea just how much the word “feminism” has been hijecked by these lunatics.
JadedByPolitics
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:38 am

Do let the door hit you on the way out!
Daniel Freeman
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:46 am

I wonder if most women have any idea just how much the word “feminism” has been hijecked by these lunatics.

I’m contemplating the possibility that it doesn’t matter. As per Dalrock, they have a majority of the votes, so they will never let go of no-fault divorce (for example), regardless of party affiliation.

It’s a bit late to undo the 19th Amendment, but there is a good argument to be made for restricting the franchise to those who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, which I think would be fair as long as a marriage is properly considered a team.
Fail Burton
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:48 am

More from this nuttery based on bizarre European intellectualism about how normal sexuality is nothing more than a socially constructed ideology created and used by men to oppress women for millennia because men hate women.

Am I really supposed to take that seriously? It sounds more like Invasion of the Body Snatchers than human nature. The French Queer Theory notion that the “performativity of gender”[Butler] consists of “an expectation that ends up producing the very phenomenon that it anticipates” reads like the Monty Python sketch where a high-rise building created by a magician/architect only remains standing as long as its residents believe in it.

What more amazing coincidence than lesbian ideologues concluding heterosexuals only believe they’re straight because they’ve been told that over and over again. The gender feminist idea that “I anticipate, therefore I am” in conjunction with Butler’s idea that may produce “an hallucinatory effect” has more to do with Butler’s own hallucinations brought on by anticipation than thousands of years of human history. Butler is in effect stating her lesbianism is real and fixed while my heterosexuality is not only fluid and possibly my imagination but oppressive to all women. The tie-breaker of course goes to success and that is defined by that which can reproduce and then protect itself, not evolutionary cul-de-sacs.

Gender feminism is an ideology of low self esteem and history is written by winners. Ironically, these women don’t get that in civilizational terms, they have been “allowed” and enabled to create this by the very power they hate. Take the straight white Western male away and all the Judith Butler’s get flung off a building as a less than useless appendage that destroys normality and peace.

I have some news for this cult: the reason women didn’t invent a-bombs and armies to protect America isn’t cuz 5,000 years of male Svengali’s hypnotized them they couldn’t. Working yourself up into a hysteria of imagined equality hasn’t produced squat in 50 years no matter how fiercely you believe in it. We didn’t wish away the Japanese using Jacque Derrida camouflage on ships but pounded them with superior male know-how and muscle. Hate Western men? You should build statues to them. I’d like to see Butler apply her intellect and theories to a history of the Pacific War or lesbianism in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Here’s a hint: they weren’t fat.
Fail Burton
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:50 am

For anyone interested those Butler quotes come from a 1999 preface to a re-issue of her 1990 Gender Trouble.
Jim R
May 31st, 2015 @ 8:56 am

Within limits, I get the criticism of our mainstream standards of “beauty”. We, through the media, Hollywood, magazines in checkout aisles, &c., tell women that they really MUST be something less than a size 2*, tanned, perfect hair, blah-blah-blah, some of which is patently UNhealthy, physically and mentally. Further, they must do this even when they are into their forties – even fifties – despite having jobs, children, and other demands on their time such that they (unlike, say, Jennifer Lopez) can’t spend four hours each day in the gym followed by an hour in the tanning booth followed by an hour of fixing their hair and makeup. Consider just how huge the cosmetics and hair care aisles tend to be in stores. What does this tell women?

Clearly, however, there’s a line between criticizing unrealistic standards of beauty and being plain nuts. These feminists have not only crossed that border, they’ve staged a full-scale invasion complete with tanks, airborne divisions and nuclear strikes.

=====

(*) My wife often grumbles that, while the average dress size for American women is about a 14, the dress size for the average model used to sell womens clothing (and establish what an “aatractive” woman looks like) is size 6 or less.
Fail Burton
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:01 am

We drag in context to create a more accurate complete picture. You drag it out so as to prop up unrealistic fantasies. Here’s context: when are you occupying a draft office? Boom! Consider feminism weaponized and flung back at you.
Why Does Feminist-Industrial Complex Fear Heteronormative Gaze? | Batshit Crazy News
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:01 am

[…] TOM is there to explain […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:04 am

here is a better image for this post http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b4Il_Pw4Xfc/VWsTJ8sIYRI/AAAAAAAAvYY/89ctVdrNRoc/s1600/sendak-3-650.jpg
Fail Burton
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:10 am

I think the point is equity feminists won almost all their battles and faded back into society. Gender feminism is the new pet ideology of the Left and has no goals per se. It is based on a biological resentment and pretends that’s not so by constructing fake oppression narratives about heterosexuality and maleness themselves being fake. It won’t fade back into society unless society stops accepting its mad dictums at face value.
M. Simon
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:11 am

This is just a mopping up operation. The real damage was done with no fault divorce. Which conservatives conspicuously (with their focus on the family) fail to notice.
Adobe_Walls
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:32 am

Feminism is mere leftism, making the solution obvious.
John Rose
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:55 am

Well, here’s a thought from an old lefty friend…

She was annoyed at the very thing you note, the size differential, and also that modern fashion seemed to be tailored to the fashion model: tall, thin, not too many curves, etc. Her thought on this? The preponderance of gay men in the fashion industry.

Her theory was that the designers were doing exactly what ANY designer would do: making what they thought was attractive. In this case, they were making clothes for androgynous figures (if not explicitly for teenaged boys). Curves and (hetero)sexual appeal did not enter the equation. So, you get female attire that fits best on the body of a person without obvious female characteristics. No curves.

It seems as good an explanation as any, although I would toss in a pet peeve of my own, the “modern art” aesthetic, wherein ugly is beautiful, and vice versa. That is, a “modern” designer cannot simply design beautiful clothing, they MUST make an ‘artistic’ statement, usually by making the outfit ugly or asymmetrical or whatever.

Now, the REAL question is, since she is SUCH a leftist… has she Evolved Her Position? This was back around 2000, so it’s been a decade. At that time, Barack and Hillary! still believed in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Perhaps she considers her old thoughts (validity aside) as BadThink according to the party, and therefore no longer valid…
marcus tullius cicero
May 31st, 2015 @ 9:57 am

…If obesity is such a killer, how come there are SO many fat Lesbians still around? Science is full of contradictions and as proof, just take a look at the faculty and students in Sociology,Psychology, Nursing and specially Early Education…You will surprised on the many fat wymen -not necessarily Lesbians- around!
PS. I was an adjunct professor at 2 Community Colleges.
Phil_McG
May 31st, 2015 @ 10:07 am

Fat seems to be a killer of men more than women. You don’t see many fat old men, a heart attack usually catches them in their 50’s or 60’s.

For women, obesity is less likely to prove fatal but still a serious quality-of-life-threatening condition, putting them at elevated risk of diabetes, sleep disorders, and lesbianism.
marcus tullius cicero
May 31st, 2015 @ 10:25 am

…You are correct, obesity kills men at a 4:1 rate…
And as I was made aware, those disciplines that
I mentioned are overwhelming female by 8:1…
Nevertheless, fat women are not “jolly” as the
fabulists make us believe, usually they have low
self-esteem, depression and much sarcasm!
R_of_the_H
May 31st, 2015 @ 10:56 am

I’ve noticed how depressed they seem. Chip on the shoulder, all the time.
Matt_SE
May 31st, 2015 @ 11:20 am

(whose wife Kate Weigand is the author of Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation).
You forgot to put “wife” in quotes. You’re buying into the SJW agenda by not explicitly mocking this.
Prime Director
May 31st, 2015 @ 11:34 am

Srsly, average troll comment quality is beginning to suffer. I’m starting to hate your trolls. Your trolls sre weak. They suck :^(

Q: is there any connection between marginal tip jar revenue and troll quality? Can we PAY for better trolls?

Ooh let’s run a regression to gauge the marginal revenue impact of troll comments on the tip jar
M. Simon
May 31st, 2015 @ 11:37 am

Brewing Sex Scandal – you guys need to get on this ASAP.

http://classicalvalues.com/2015/05/brewing-sex-scandal/
Matt_SE
May 31st, 2015 @ 11:41 am

It’s not obvious to me, though maybe I’m just slow. Perhaps you’d care to explain it to us?
Matt_SE
May 31st, 2015 @ 11:46 am

And that’s the thing: if these people were a lunatic fringe, WE would be guilty of cherry-picking (no pun intended).
Instead, they seem to be vastly overrepresented in the field, making them the mainstream.
The original Mr. X
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:01 pm

I suspect it’s largely because, for a lot of people who don’t bother looking into these things too closely, “feminism” just means “not being a misogynist”, so any attempt to say “feminism is bad” just sounds to them like support for misogyny. So, I can see why someone might just say “I’m a pro-freedom feminist” when the alternative seems to be getting bogged down in disputes about nomenclature and having a lot of the country dismiss you as a woman-hater.

That said, I do wish that people would challenge the terminology more often, since one of the main reasons why the RadFems get away with so much is precisely the fact that they can just hide behind the “feminist = someone who doesn’t hate women”. “Oh, so you think I’m a radical feminist, do you? What, is not hating women such a ‘radical’ idea in your world then…?”
robertstacymccain
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:10 pm

Social conservatives do notice no-fault divorce, as well as the influence of welfare, pornography, contraception, abortion, public education and popular media on the culture. To focus on one aspect of the Culture War is not to say that other aspects are unimportant.

Furthermore, the key to success in combat is not to sit around wishing that circumstances were other than they are, but rather to fight the battle you are in. Would I like to go back in the past and argue against the changes to divorce law? Maybe, but right now we find ourselves confronted with a very powerful and aggressive enemy, which I have called the Feminist-Industrial Complex, and I am attacking it every day, determined to die here or conquer. As Teddy Roosevelt Jr. said at Utah Beach, upon learning that his troops had been landed more than a mile away from their planned point of attack, “Gentlemen, we start the war from here!”
robertstacymccain
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:24 pm

Notice that this post was written in a straightforward Joe Friday “just-the-facts-ma’am” voice? Only at the end did I permit myself to step out of the role of Neutral Objective Journalist.

Re-read the article and ask yourself why I was so scrupulous.

There are no accidents.
Finrod Felagund
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:35 pm

Heh. My roommate’s girlfriend who had moved in with us (he was both sane and cool, she was neither) once told me, the mathematics major: “Sure, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … = 1 in some mathematical sense, but us liberal arts majors know better.”

She didn’t like it when I told her that the only sense that mattered was the mathematical one.
M. Simon
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:37 pm

Ah. But you are attacking them head on in a place where they are strong. Never a wise move if you can attack them where they are weak.

Where are they weak? Well Prohibition is one place – in fact they will help you reduce State power there. Don’t you love the irony?

Where else? Divorce law and paternity. And you know you can play paternity just like a SJW, “it is so unfair to make a man pay for children that aren’t his”.

And divorce law. Marriage is a contract (the Jews have been doing that for millennia – ketubah) it should be upheld. It is only fair.

Well you can fight the GLBT axis on grounds of sex if you want. But even if you win it will not return to even a semblance of the old order. Fixing divorce and Paternity will. And joining with the left to end Prohibition will confound them.

Resistance depends on opposition. Don’t resist them where you don’t HAVE to. B.H.L.Hart in “The Strategy of The Indirect Approach” discussed how it might apply to politics in the later chapters. Te first 3/4s of the book is about WAR. You – being a warrior – will enjoy it.

And don’t forget to have a look at this: http://classicalvalues.com/2015/05/brewing-sex-scandal/ – assuming you want to go after some pedophiles. Always good for traffic if nothing else.
Jeanette Victoria
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:40 pm

One only gets tolerance and fat acceptance if one is a leftistts. Fat conservatives still get ridiculed. The irony is even fat conservatives are better looking and attract the interest of the opposite sex way morre than their fat progressive counterparts!
M. Simon
May 31st, 2015 @ 12:58 pm

Let me point out again that the LGBT stuff is just a mopping up operation. If you really want to hurt the left restore marriage. That is where the real hurt lies. Because that is what they intended to do from the beginning to destroy your cohesiveness. And they accomplished that. All the rest follows from that victory.

Divorce and paternity are the heart of the matter. And they have got you fighting optical illusions. Clever boys.

You are not on Omaha Beach. You have landed on some obscure tiny island in the Caribbean and put the bulk of your forces there. Out of the war. Even if you win the fight you will not change the outcome of the war.
Prime Director
May 31st, 2015 @ 1:41 pm

Sigh… I read some representative comments on scarlett’s discus profile

Untroll-like

Hmmm… I regret checking her profile. I was pretty pleased with myself, like, 5 minutes ago.

Pppbbttt…

Iphone down.
Mimi Mayes
May 31st, 2015 @ 1:51 pm

That would be Rush’s Undeniable Truth Of Life #24.
The Daley Gator | Sunday questions Link-A-Round
May 31st, 2015 @ 2:48 pm

[…] The Other McCain: Is it my fault for not ogling fat lesbians? […]
John Kerry Wounded in Action | Regular Right Guy
May 31st, 2015 @ 3:00 pm

[…] The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Fat Lesbians vs. the ‘Heteronormative Gaze’ […]
Matt_SE
May 31st, 2015 @ 3:05 pm

Sorry, I guess I didn’t pick up on that.
Matt_SE
May 31st, 2015 @ 3:07 pm

The girl in the last picture misspelled “sammich.”
FUNKy-sentFromMyReaganPhone
May 31st, 2015 @ 3:08 pm

Go make me a sammich boy