The Other McCain

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

‘People Who Are Joined in Collective Hate’

Posted on | April 21, 2015 | 31 Comments

Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) has a smart take on Ron Jonson’s book about social-media shaming:

If I have one complaint about the book, it’s that he doesn’t dive deep enough into what shaming is good for and why we like it so much. . . .
Shame is, after all, a force for good as well as evil. . . .
Shame is one way we enforced good behavior in small groups before there were laws or trading networks. It is a very powerful motivator, and it helps us to come together in large cooperative groups with high degrees of trust and sharing. A hatred of being shamed ourselves and a love of shaming others who have transgressed both literally helped to make us human. . . .

Interrupting here (because I’m a mansplaining misogynist and that’s what we do) to point out that McArdle has correctly situated this in the context of mankind’s tribal nature. It cannot be emphasized enough that our need to feel membership in a larger group is a powerful psychological motivator. Even highly intelligent and well-educated people seldom stop to think why they identify so passionately as a sports fan (“Roll Tide!”) or in any other chosen tribal identity. Our social behavior — in everything from trivial things like online fanfic groups to international terrorist organizations — reflects our instinctive tribalism. And now, having exercised my patriarchal privilege, I yield the floor to Megan McArdle:

But . . . shame doesn’t just punish wrongdoers; it also turns us into our own moral enforcers. Once we’ve been shamed, we are strongly motivated to avoid doing the things that brought it on. Or at least, most of us are — one of the hallmarks of sociopaths is that they don’t feel shame or remorse. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, shame is good. Shame is right. Shame works.

Interrupting again, because she’s wrong: Sociopaths do feel shame. They feel it very intensely. The problem is that their damaged ego has erected psychological defense mechanisms that involve the evasion of responsibility through the externalization of blame. Sociopaths rationalize their feelings of shame, lash out at anyone who makes them feel bad about their guilty secrets, and try to play the victim. (“DARVO — Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.”) Understanding this aspect of sociopathic behavior was what enabled me to unlock the riddle of Brett Kimberlin. One you understood Kimberlin’s shameful motive, everything else about his hideous behavior made a lot more sense. And, yes: Shame is good. Shame is right. Shame works. We return to Megan McArdle:

In the small groups we evolved to live in, shame is tempered by love and forgiveness. People are shamed for some transgression, then they are restored to the group. Ultimately, the shamed person is not an enemy; he or she is someone you need and want to get along with. This is how you make up with your spouse after one or both of you has done or said something terrible. . . .

Except, of course, (a) tribal societies shun or murder those who offend their basic code or honor, and (b) many marriages end because people cannot forgive their spouse’s transgressions. Folks, I apologize for my repeated interruptions. I agree with Megan McArdle. I like Megan McArdle. I want her to like me. So why do I keep interrupting her to make all these niggling little points? But never mind. This is not about my glaring personality defects. Megan McArdle continues:

On the Internet, when all the social context is stripped away and you don’t even have to look at the face of the person you’re being mean to, shame loses its social, restorative function. Shame-storming isn’t punishment. It’s a weapon. . . .
Outrages are identified using the least charitable, most literal possible reading of what someone wrote or did, rather than trying . . . to think of what they could have meant by it, giving them the benefit of the doubt where two readings are possible. Things that were stupid and thoughtless are turned into deliberate outrages that could only be the work of hardened psychopaths. . .
But forget whether the shaming is excessive. Does it even work?
To be sure, a lot of folks certainly seem terrified by the possibility of being attacked by roving bands of verbal vigilantes. Yet I notice two things about these fears that raise some questions about the tactic’s usefulness. First of all, the fears are strongest among people who are politically allied with the shame-stormers. And second, the people who are afraid don’t fear being found out for their dark transgressions; they fear being unjustly attacked.
Twitter makes it absurdly easy to shame someone. You barely have to take 30 seconds out of your day to make an outraged comment that will please your friends and hurt the person you’ve targeted. . . .
This sort of tactic may buy silence, though it is likely to be the most effective on people who already agree with you and simply said something infelicitous. What it cannot buy is community, beyond the bonds that build between people who are joined in collective hate.

You can and should read the whole thing. It was that phrase — “people who are joined in collective hate” — which caught my eye in McArdle’s piece, for this reason: Most conservatives cannot comprehend the intensity of hatred that motivates and unites the Left. Any attempt to out-hate them is futile. For example: No matter how much you hate Amanda Marcotte, you can never hate her as much as she hates you.

Amanda Marcotte exudes an all-encompassing hatred from every evil cell of her wicked anatomy. She is also compulsively dishonest, because a vile sadist like Marcotte fears nothing so much as she fears the exposure of her despicable hatefulness. Once you understand that, once you have unlocked the hidden shameful motive of Marcotte’s otherwise mystifying madness, everything else makes sense.

Like I say, “Scratch a feminist and a kook bleeds.”

Also, “Bad causes attract bad people.”

So I am grateful to Megan McArdle for her essay on shame-storming, and apologize again for my repeated interruptions. Nobody’s fault but mine.


Late Night With Rule 5 Monday

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 10 Comments

– compiled by Wombat-socho

Better late than never…apologies for the lateness, but it was a busy weekend. As an appetizer, veteran and former Playboy Playmate Michelle Manhart, who made the news this week when she interrupted some flag-desecrating morons by stealing their flag, and got arrested for her pains.

Ms. Manhart in PG-13 attire.

As usual, readers are warned that many of the following links lead to pictures of young women (un)dressed to show off their charms, which may be considered NSFW unless you have a really good job. If you don’t, be discreet in your clicking.

Goodstuff leads off this week with the super hot Molly Quinn, followed by Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress,  and Girls with Guns. Average Bubba is up next with Rule 5 Saturday, Animal Magnetism has Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal has military women Enlisting.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Jeannette Rubio, Heidi Cruz, Lisa McElroy’s Bad Day, speculation over which team Hillary bats for, Metro Rule 5, and The Britt McHenry Meltdown. Also, Feminists With Anger Issues!

Wine Women and Politics returns with Babe of the Day, Asstastic, Those Are Nice, Fishnet Friday, Good Gawd, Nice Ass, and Hot Damn!

A View from the Beach offers Afrikaner Beauty – Genevieve MortonMiss PiggyAnchorwoman Goes Off On Parking Lot AttendantJust Found a Couple of Easter Eggs . . .“It’s a Man’s Man’s World”A Pint of Guinness for Your HeartThe Zombie Kiss CamHave Another Donut for Your Brain’s SakeWhen Manatees Attack, and Chesapeake Clean Up Not Obvious.

Soylent Siberia serves up the first class coffee creamer this week, followed by Monday Motivationer Fire in the Hole, That’s Just How I Reacted Too, Tuesday Titillation Smoke on the Water, Humpday Hawtness Charms, Falconsword Fursday Peek A Boo, 3 Million Siberians Can’t Be Wrong, Corset Considerations, T-GIF Friday Here Kitty Kitty, Weekender Awesome, and Bath Night: You Scream I Scream.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Ronda Rousey, his Vintage Babe is Frances Langford, and Sex in Advertising is by Guess this week. At Dustbury, it’s Da Brat and Jessica Jung.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, April 25.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

On Another Plane, George S. Patton Is Swearing Out A Year’s Supply Of Napalm

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 21 Comments

by Smitty

Old George was famously reprimanded for striking soldiers. I can see him going for a full-on pistol whip of the godless Commies behind this travesty:

In the “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” event, cadets were required to wear high heels and march to “raise awareness of sexual assault against women.”

Part of the recovery of this country is going to involve a general purge of all of these anti-American abject morons from positions of authority. I support and defend their Constitutional right to be craven colostomy bags. They should not hold leadership positions unopposed, though.

via Instapundit

There’s Always a Backstory

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 65 Comments

Jess Zimmerman (@j_zimms) had come to my attention before, although I couldn’t remember why her Twitter profile seemed familiar when I saw it Sunday. @SeverEnergia on Twitter sent me a link to Zimmerman’s blog post with this (deliberately) infuriating headline:

Men, Get On Board With Misandry
Believe it or not, the man-hating movement
loves you and needs your help. Here’s why.

Before we get to the content of that specimen of feminist idiocy, let’s pause first to examine it in terms of genre. It is first and foremost an example of the Ironic Surrealism School of Punditry: “Let me make an argument so obviously far-fetched as to be impossible, call it ‘counterintuitive,’ and then bask in the applause from my peers in the intelligentsia.”

It is the cleverness of the argument — the show-off strut — that is the point of all such punditry. This is the stock-in-trade of writers at Salon and Slate. When you see a headline like, “ISIS Victory in Syria Would Be the Best Thing for Israel,” or “The Biblical Argument for Gay Marriage,” you know you’re dealing with the Ironic Surrealism School of Punditry. Anyone who has read Hayek’s “The Intellectuals and Socialism” understands what this is really about. Behold, the elite mind in action: Figure out what side of the argument represents ordinary common sense, then exert your superior skills of verbal articulation to “prove” that common sense is wrong. Find an eternal verity, some belief that our culture has traditionally held dear, and write 5,000 words demonstrating that it is a “myth.” With a little luck, a clever essay like that will get published in The Nation and land you a six-figure contract to turn your Ironic Surrealist argument into a book, and never mind the disastrous consequences if your cleverness should actually be implemented as public policy. In a culture dominated by liberalism, consequences are for the Little People. John Kenneth Galbraith’s entire career consisted of making Clever Arguments for Bad Policy, yet his influence was never diminished by his wrongness.

With this in mind, we return to Jess Zimmerman’s Ironic Surrealist argument for Why Man-Hating Is Good for Men:

I drink from a coffee mug that says “Male Tears.” Female friends sign off emails to me with “ban men” or “kill all men.” In at least three people’s phone contacts, my name is followed by an emoji depicting a man with a big red slash through him. When I have the loathsome task of submitting an author bio, I frequently describe myself as a professional misandrist.
And yet the boys love it. My Twitter bio — “cool and nice internet misandrist of note” — is a quote from a man. A male friend once called me “misandrist Jesus,” which I am not sure what that means but it’s the best. Another said I was “the Temple Grandin of misandry” for the gentle, understanding way in which I lead men to the slaughter. I am not just a misandrist; I am a Man Whisperer.
How’s that work? How can I hate men and still like men, and even more, have the men (mostly) LIKE that I hate men? How can men not just find my misandry jokes funny, but take them to be genuinely good news? Well, listen up while I whisper you, boys: Misandry is on your side. . . .

Zimmerman’s basic theme — “Men love me because I hate men” — is the classic counterintuitive gesture of the Ironic Surrealist. Her claim falls apart the minute you examine her biography, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, eh? Here’s some more Zimmerman:

You may have read my friend Amanda [Hess]’s terrific piece about ironic misandry at Slate, in which I am obscenely proud to be heavily quoted. . . . In it, I say that men who have a problem with misandry jokes are “universally brittle, insecure, humorless weenies with victim complexes.” However, in the weeks since Amanda interviewed me, I had a male friend — not a humorless weenie but a person I cherish even though he sometimes says things like this — complain that the “misandry thing” gets to be “a bit much.” (I did say they MOSTLY like it.) Also, since the article came out, several people have half-jokingly asked me “wait, your misandry is IRONIC?”  . . .

Note the attitude of narcissistic self-congratulation: “My humor is so cleverly nuanced, and men are so incredibly stupid, they don’t get the point of my humor, namely that I am vastly superior to men.”

Once you see that Zimmerman’s only purpose is to demonstrate her personal superiority, everything else she writes becomes predictable. Because the basic premise of her arguments is always the same, her conclusion is never really surprising: “I Am Smarter Than You, and Therefore [Whatever].” Evidence is irrelevant. Logic is unnecessary. As for common sense, did any feminist ever let common sense get in her way?

You cannot accuse Jess Zimmerman of common sense:

I mean, even leaving aside the legality of it, and issues like weapons acquisition and storage space for bodies, who has the TIME? Feminists got sh*t to do.
Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too.
Fear not, men: even if feminists genuinely, fiercely desired to permanently banish you all to Dude Island, we simply do not have the resources. Even supposing we had a line on an island that could fit half the human population (I guess Australia could handle it, at sufficient density) there’s no way we could afford it — especially not after all this time being underpaid, passed over, glass ceilinged, or sidelined onto the mommy track. Ironically, the very oppression that would make us want to banish you to the Island makes us incapable of purchasing one that can fit you jerks. That’s what this has all been about, right? Well, pat yourself on the back, you won.

You can read the rest of Jess Zimmerman’s column which was published in August 2014. That is to say, Zimmerman’s “ironic” har-dee-har-har defense of anti-male rhetoric hit the Internet just about the time Sabrina Rubin Erdely arrived in Charlottesville, Virginia, prepared to manufacture the journalistic “proof” that America’s elite university campuses are in the grip of a rape epidemic. And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?

Oppressors, Victims and the Larger Truth

Feminism is a totalitarian doctrine of hatred, and the movement’s incessant drumbeat of anti-male propaganda is intended to encourage anti-male attitudes and anti-male policies. It is dishonest for Jess Zimmerman (or Amanda Hess or any other feminist) to suggest otherwise. Perceiving the world through the warped lens of an ideology that divides humanity into Male Oppressors and Female Victims, feminists therefore consider any harm inflicted on any male to be Social Justice.

No harm that befalls a male is wrong or unfair, because no member of the Oppressor class can ever claim to be a Victim. Whatever lies feminists must tell in order to destroy Male Supremacy are always justified, because the Larger Truth (i.e., the universal victimhood of women under patriarchy) is more important than any mundane fact.

Cruelty toward men is thus the ordinary policy of feminism, just as dishonesty is the ordinary mode of feminist discourse. And if any man dares to point this out — to call feminism what it actually is, to describe what feminists actually do — well, this just proves that he is an ignorant bigot or one of those men whom Jess Zimmerman insults as “universally brittle, insecure, humorless weenies with victim complexes.”

Har dee har har.

Tell it to Phi Kappa Psi, ma’am. I’m sure their lawyers can take time away from working on their defamation lawsuit to answer your insult.

Jess Zimmerman plays a familiar feminist Three-Card Monte game, seeking to convince us that her anti-male ideology is not anti-male. She isn’t against men, you see, she’s against “the concept of masculinity.”

You guys weren’t paying attention in Women’s Studies class: It’s the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix!

What does that feminist jargon mean? It means that everything you believe is normal is actually wrong. Men being masculine? Wrong. Women being feminine? Wrong. Heterosexuality? “PIV is always rape, OK?”

While Ms. Zimmerman would have us believe that men are trembling in fear at the prospect that feminism may “permanently banish you all to Dude Island,” it is not men’s banishment, but rather women’s self-imposed exile, which is the inexorable conclusion of the feminist syllogism. Oh, yes, it does indeed involve an island — a Greek island near the coast of Asia Minor — and feminism is a sort of navigational chart to help women in their metaphorical journey across the Mytilini Srait.

Those who have read my book Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature know how swiftly the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s gave rise to “The Lavender Menace.” By 1970, radical lesbians like Rita Mae Brown and Karla Jay were disrupting feminist conferences to declare the self-evident truth that the movement’s revolutionary goal of equality — i.e., “liberation” from the tyrannical yoke of male supremacy — was incompatible with heterosexuality.

What may perhaps surprise the reader of Sex Trouble is that, rather than trying to prove radical feminists are wrong, I begin with the premise that they are correct: “Sexual equality,” in the radical sense, is incompatible with the normal lives of normal people.

This is why feminists like Susan Faludi spent the 1990s fuming about “backlash,” blaming the failures of the feminist movement on right-wing opposition. What actually happened was that feminism, an ideological witch’s brew that emerged from the Marxist cauldrons of the 1960s New Left, simply proved to be incompatible with the kind of life most women prefer, a life that involves men, marriage and motherhood. If what a woman wants out of life is abortion, divorce and lesbianism, she will find no trouble justifying her choices by feminist ideology. Charlotte Bunch, Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Monique Wittig, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Joyce Trebilcot, Sheila Jeffreys, Janice Raymond — there is a vast syllabus of radical feminist literature explaining why, as I say, “Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism.”

What else can we conclude when we know, for example, that the editor of The Essential Feminist Reader is a lesbian activist, Professor Estelle B. Freedman, and that the three editors of the most widely assigned college-level Women’s Studies anthology, Feminist Frontiers —  Verta Taylor, Leila Rupp and Nancy Whittier — are also lesbians? It could not be otherwise. No one could put together a Women’s Studies curriculum based entirely on the writing of heterosexual women.

The ‘Consciousness of Victimization’

Feminist theory as taught in our universities is a hostile indictment of the social conditions necessary to normal human sexuality. Insofar as the feminist is not merely anti-male, she must always be anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-procreation, for otherwise she is cooperating in her own oppression and collaborating with the enemy, as explained variously by “The Woman-Identified Woman” (1970), “Lesbians in Revolt” (1972) and the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group (1981). The fact that there are still ostensibly heterosexual women who call themselves “feminist” does not negate the lesbian logic of feminism, as was proven in 1992, when the editors of the academic journal Feminism and Psychology made a seemingly innocuous inquiry:

“How does your heterosexuality contribute to your feminist politics (and/or your feminist psychology)?” We sent a letter asking for 1,000 words in response to this question to feminists (including feminist psychologists), none of whom had ever, so far as we knew, made public statements identifying themselves as anything other than heterosexual. Two replied saying they were lesbian and had written publicly as such (we apologized). One wrote back saying she was lesbian but we weren’t to tell anyone. And many women wrote wanting to know how we knew they were heterosexual, and, indeed, how they could tell whether they were heterosexual or not, and just what is a “heterosexual” anyway? . . .
Only when we started to compile a list of heterosexual feminists as potential recipients of our letter did we realize how rare such a public identification is. It would have been much easier to compile a list of self-identified lesbian feminists. “Heterosexual” is not a popular label, and many feminists express their concern about it.

Game. Set. Match.

Reading through the compiled results of that inquiry, Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader (edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, 1993), you perceive that by the early 1990s, heterosexual women could no longer defend themselves in terms of feminist theory. This was noted by Professor Daphne Patai in her 1998 book, Heterophobia. In reading the Wilkinson-Kitzinger volume, Professor Patai observed, “most striking is the tone of self-criticism adopted by the heterosexual women”:

While the heterosexuals (with rare exceptions) apologized, most of the lesbian contributors took no pains to conceal their sense of superiority at living perfectly coherent feminist lives.

Recall what Advanced Feminist Logic™ teaches us:

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

Once a woman attains Feminist Consciousness, you see, there can be no reason she should ever love a man, because there is no reason why any woman can ever trust, respect or admire a man. Because the victimization of females is universal, Advanced Feminist Logic™ teaches that every female must expect to be victimized in every interaction with any male. Every word he says is a sexist lie. Every male action is undertaken to exploit and oppress women. Everything that might make a man attractive to a normal woman, the feminist recognizes as an illusion, a patriarchal deception, the socially constructed result of sexual victimhood imposed on her by the gender hierarchy of male supremacy.

While drinking from her cup of “Male Tears,” Jess Zimmerman doesn’t want her readers to take her anti-male rhetoric at face value, however, because it is important to pretend Men Can Be Feminists, Too.

This is why she finds it necessary to insist that the object of her wrath is not males, per se, but rather “the concept of masculinity.” Women are not oppressed by males, according to Ms. Zimmerman. Instead they are oppressed by a concept, and she wants you, the enlightened male, to believe that you are also a victim of this conceptual oppression.

The sadistic Jess Zimmerman expects the masochistic male to be grateful for this intellectual flogging and, if he should refuse her insulting offer, his refusal is proof of how much he hates women. The logic of her argument divides men into two categories:

  1. Men who agree with Jess Zimmerman;
  2. Ignorant sexist oppressors.

Perhaps by now the reader has become curious: Exactly who is this Jess Zimmerman? What are her qualifications to make these judgments and render these verdicts? You may not be surprised to learn that this 30-something feminist writer who wants to “kill the concept of masculinity” is also “interested in making men irrelevant to my self-concept as a woman.” She has claimed that the problem with Twitter is that “white men unconsciously build products for white men — products that subtly discourage anyone else from using them.” You have probably noticed how women and minorities so seldom use electrical power, telephones, the internal combustion engine, television, polio vaccine, etc.

“Yes, she’s a ridiculous self-parody of feminist absurdity,” says the reader, “but how did she get that way? Why is Jess Zimmerman the particular kind of fool she is?”

It may be helpful to peruse Ms. Zimmerman’s archive at and learn, for example, that she was an adolescent “cutter” (“At cool camp I traded self-injury stories and tips with the other cutters”) or that she has a sister who is both more attractive and more successful.

Feminism is, among other things, a rationalization of personal failure and a political substitute for therapy. It is therefore utterly predictable that in 2011, the year Jess Zimmerman turned 30, she denounced “Hot Girls” who embrace patriarchal beauty standards:

Until the woman who doesn’t want to be seen as sexually available can go out with certainty that she won’t be harassed or ogled, your choice to turn heads and revel in attention is a privileged one. Until the woman who doesn’t prioritize appearance gets taken just as seriously in just the same contexts, it’s a privileged choice to achieve certain standards of beauty. . . . Feminists who want to fight for your ability to reject patriarchal standards of beauty or behavior or availability or occupation aren’t trying to constrain your choices. . . . They’re trying to give you more genuine, valid, supported options.

So, I guess somebody didn’t have a date for the prom in 1998 and we’re never going to hear the end of it. However, the most revealing example of Ms. Zimmerman’s therapeutic deployment of feminist ideology — the “Rosebud” scene in her Citizen Kane, as it were — was a 2011 column with this grabber headline:

It Happened to Me: I Had an Affair with my Professor

She “had a perilous crush on the professor” in her senior-year philosophy class, and was surprised that he reciprocated her interest, considering:

What could he have wanted from me? Manic Panic hair, a fat belly and a lousy attitude are not exactly the classic accoutrements of the professor-seducing Lolita coed. But maybe he liked my outsider looks and posturing; they signaled that I wasn’t like the others, or else they just advertised my prickly vulnerability, how easy I was to take advantage of. Maybe he just responded to the habitual cut of my necklines (low).

If you anticipate a Happily Ever After ending to this story, you’re a bigger fool than Jess Zimmerman, who is by all evidence a World-Class Fool. Nothing is ever her fault, you see. Bad things just happen to her because the world is a vast patriarchal conspiracy to make pudgy girls feel sad. She deserves to be loved. She is entitled to admiration (as “the woman who doesn’t prioritize appearance” and exercises her “ability to reject patriarchal standards”) so the failure of others to provide Jess Zimmerman with love and admiration is a social injustice. If you don’t love Jess Zimmerman, you have violated her civil rights. Naturally, the fact that her affair with her professor was unhappy becomes Another Lesson in Male Evil:

I’d like this to have the sort of ending where I reconsider my priorities, rediscover my self-worth, and walk away. I did try to break it off a few times, but he always convinced me that the real problem was me: my lack of control, my ingratitude, my generally warped understanding of the world and him and myself. I believed in his authority, and he’d convinced me I couldn’t be trusted, so who was I to say it wasn’t true? . . .
In the end, I didn’t have to figure out how to walk away. He took a job at another university in another country on the other side of the world, and once he was gone he shut me out. Part of me desperately wanted him to talk to me again, but in his absence, I started studying other lessons too: about feminism, about surviving abuse, about what a certain kind of man can do when he has a little power.
Because what he’d been doing to me wasn’t a new trick. Powerful men — and not just the men, but the society they’re somehow still in charge of — have been on to this bad-teacher jam for a while. After all, if you can talk people into oppressing themselves, it saves you all the work of doing the subjugation for them.

While I disapprove of professors who sleep with their students, it’s hard to disagree with his conclusion that Jess Zimmerman’s problem was, and still is, her “generally warped understanding of the world.” And we know that somewhere, “at another university in another country on the other side of the world,” a professor of philosophy is grateful to have made his escape.



In The Mailbox: 04.20.15

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 10 Comments

– compiled by Wombat-socho

Now that tax season is over, I’ll be taking the time I used to spend in the tax mines and splitting it between blogging and getting ready for the move to Las Vegas. So Live at Five will be back tomorrow, a book post that’s been stewing for a while will be served up later this week, and who knows what else might happen?

Proof Positive: The Plant Whisperer
Doug Powers: There Is No “H” In Spontaneity
Twitchy: “Prove Him Wrong” Instapundit Challenges Press To Counter Ailes’ Hillary-Loving MSM Claim
Shark Tank: Gov. Scott Ready To Sue The Feds Over Obamacare

American Power: Former Playboy Model Michelle Manhart Fights To Protect Flag From Hateful Lefties
American Thinker: Why Hillary Can’t Be In The Moment
BLACKFIVE: Stock Photos – Sometimes Not So Cool
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: What Trigger Warnings Hath Wrought
Conservatives4Palin: 2015 New Hampshire Republican Leadership Summit
Don Surber: No To Transgender “Rights”
Jammie Wearing Fools: Jon Stewart – “I Live In A Constant State Of Depression”
Joe For America: Children Forced To Scream Vulgarities In NH Elementary School
JustOneMinute: Occupy McDonalds
Pamela Geller: Terror Group CAIR Demands Protection For Muslim Students If Geller Speaks
Protein Wisdom: College Apologizes For Serving Mexican Food During SF Event
Shot In The Dark: Silva Lining
STUMP: Obamacare Tax Watch – The NYT Notices And I Spike The Ball
The Gateway Pundit: BBC Busted! Far Left Media Caught Fixing Political Debate
The Jawa Report: Allen West Responds To Military Memo Telling Soldiers To Hide From Islamic Terrorists
The Lonely Conservative: Prosecutor Gave Lois Lerner A Pass On His Last Day On The Job
This Ain’t Hell: Sharansky Asks “When Did America Forget It’s America?”
Weasel Zippers: Hollywood Moonbat Cher Blames California Drought On Fracking
Megan McArdle: Doc Fix May Hit A Wall – Doctors
Mark Steyn: A Contemptible Man Punches Down

Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Gifts

FMJRA 2.0: Come On Back Now,
Do It Again

Posted on | April 19, 2015 | 7 Comments

– compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Not Long Before The End
Batshit Crazy News
Animal Magnetism
Average Bubba
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Ninety Miles from Tyranny

Crazy People Are Dangerous
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News
Political Rift
A View from the Beach

A Brief Primer On Titles Due Her Majesty For You Peasant Scum #Hillary2016
Regular Right Guy

Ethics in Doxxing?
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Advanced Feminist Logic™
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

Her Fakeness, Hillary Clinton
Batshit Crazy News
Da Tech Guy
Liberty News

It Seems As Though @KurtSchlichter Doesn’t Hold Her Majesty In High Regard
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

Her Majesty Worries About The Dermatological Condition Of Her Serfs
Batshit Crazy News

Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

The ‘Mechanism of Social Control’
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America

Yes, But It’s France
Batshit Crazy News

The Crazy Is Always There
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
Diary of Daedalus

What’s Causing the ‘Acid Jihad’?
Batshit Crazy News

The Law Was Made For Her Majesty, Not Her Majesty For The Law, Ye Peasants
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism as Rationalization or, Hating Men Because Men Don’t Like You Enough
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

In Which @BrittMcHenry Destroys Her Career ‘In the News, Sweetheart’
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Canadian Feminism
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (18)
  2.  A View from the Beach (7)
  3.  Regular Right Guy (6)
  4.  Living In Anglo-America (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially those bloggers who made Rule Five Sunday the top post this week!


Christians Branded ‘Hate Group’ for Opposing LGBT Agenda in Schools

Posted on | April 19, 2015 | 191 Comments

Friday was the national “Day of Silence” promoted by GLSEN, the radical homosexual teachers organization founded in 1990 to promote the gay agenda in public schools. GLSEN has been controversial because the group’s director, Kevin Jennings, was implicated in the infamous 2000 “Fistgate” incident in Massachusetts. Yet it is now opposition to GLSEN that is considered controversial in Colorado:

Jefferson County school board member Julie Williams said late Friday that she was “sincerely sorry” and that she would remove a link on her personal Facebook page that she shared that encouraged families to keep their students home Friday and “away from perverse indoctrination” of the“homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda.”
“To be honest with you, I didn’t read the article,” Williams said. “I just saw it and thought I was sharing information with parents.”
The link, like most on Williams’ wall, was posted without comment. It directs Facebook users to a newsletter published by, but neither overtly endorses nor condemns the group and its message.
Friday is the national “Day of Silence.” It is organized by GLSEN, an organization that supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender students and teachers in schools. The aim of the protest is to raise awareness about LGBT bullying. Students who participate in the protest attend school but remain silent. Some put tape over their mouths. describes itself as a “frontline pro-family leader standing strong for moral virtues for the common good.” But the Southern Poverty Law Center considers the organization a hate group, akin to the white supremacy political party American Freedom Party and Westboro Baptist Church.

That’s right: The SPLC now considers it “hate” for Christians to oppose gay activism aimed at school children. What do we know about

Thanks to generous support from everyday people who care, our Campaign for Children and Families is:
– Leading for parental rights by empowering fathers and mothers
– Fighting for the protection of children’s innocence everywhere
– Challenging liberal lies with God’s timeless moral truths
– Boldly speaking out for your values in the culture war
– Teaching and activating pro-family citizens to stand for what’s right
Founded in 1999 by veteran pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, is dedicated to defending and representing the values of parents, grandparents and concerned citizens who want what’s best for this generation and future generations.
We’re an articulate voice in the media. We expose what’s wrong or right with our government. We urge lawmakers to respect and support family values. And we empower citizens to speak out for their values.

Does this 501(c)3 organization sound like a “hate group” to you? Well, what about their “Day of Silence” message? Thanks to California Catholic Daily, we have the full text of the group’s April 2 email:

If you have children in K-12 government schools, in California or another state, please keep them home and away from perverse indoctrination on Friday, April 19.
That’s the day of the so-called “Day of Silence,” where sexually confused students and teachers refuse to speak during the entire academic day. They’ll indoctrinate everybody else through handouts and chalkboard writings and videos and other propaganda tools. They’ll tell children to support and embrace the unnatural and unhealthy homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda and will say that anyone who’s against it is a “bigot.” is leading the West Coast effort to urge parents to remove their children from government schools on Friday, April 19, the nationwide date of the “Day of Silence.”
Yet because the pro-homosexual-bisexual-transsexual “silence” could be permitted anytime April 15-19, is advising you to contact the school to ask if “silence” will be allowed on any date. No matter what, please keep your children home on April 19, to express your strong disapproval of the pro-perversity state school bureaucracy.
On Friday April 19, 2013 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network is once again exploiting public schools to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative through the political protest called the Day of Silence.
A coalition of pro-family groups is urging parents to keep their children home from school on the “Day of Silence,” if your school is allowing students to refuse to speak in class.

Is it “hate” to say that in 2015? Read it again. Do you suddenly feel inspired to go out and bully homosexuals?

The Speech Police are also the Thought Police. What we are witnessing is an effort to tell people what to think by controlling what they are allowed to say. Whether or not you agree with, is it incorrect to say that GLSEN’s agenda is “to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative”? Are those who consider this to be immoral and abnormal not permitted to express their opposition? Is Romans 1:18-32 now to be forbidden as “hate” speech?

No responsible parent would send their children to American public schools, which have become a menace to our nation’s liberty.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

Public schools are Ignorance Factories, operated by corrupt government bureaucrats who cannot be trusted to teach children facts or useful skills. The K-12 Implosion approaches, as does the Apocalypse.


Just Like Buckley Said

Posted on | April 18, 2015 | 48 Comments

Women’s Liberation, as modern feminism was called when it erupted from the New Left in the late 1960s, was still rather a new phenomenon in 1970 when William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate Germaine Greer at England’s Cambridge Union. Buckley later recalled the problem:

She insisted that I formulate the resolution, which I attempted to do from this side of the Atlantic, using what was then known as Western Union. The trouble was that she rejected my first three proposals on the grounds that they were, if I remember stupid, asinine, something similar for the third. The ‘telephone call from the president of the union was now desperate. The BBC, which was filming the encounter needed to know the resolution before noon the next day, when their guide went out to print. I sat down at the typewriter and typed out “Resolved: Give Them an Inch and They’ll Take a Mile.”

In that, Buckley was exactly right, and was prescient in discerning the essential problem with feminism, namely that it has no logical stopping point. Give them every demand they ask today, and feminists will return tomorrow with a new list of demands.

Feminists originally claimed to seek “equality” and yet, once this was achieved, it was not enough. An absolute majority of U.S. college students (57%) are female, and women are 33% more likely than men to earn a college degree. As college education is widely considered a chief socioeconomic indicator of middle-class status, one might suppose such statistical evidence would suffice to satisfy feminist demands.

Alas, there is no limit to their totalitarian ambition, and feminists have lately begun demanding that male students be stripped of due process rights on campus. “Last year California passed a law that defined nearly all sex on college campuses as rape unless proven otherwise,” as Ashe Schow has observed. The anti-male climate in higher education has become so intense that one college student in Oregon found himself banned from parts of campus because a female student said “he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away.” Of course, if there aren’t enough actual rapes to justify this kind of hysterical paranoia, feminists have proven they are willing to exploit fictional rapes in order to justify their anti-male jihad. The wholly imaginary “Haven Monahan” was used to frame Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia and, in response to this highly publicized lie, the university’s president shut down all fraternity parties on campus.

Feminism’s implacable hostility toward males is by no means limited to university campuses, however. BuzzFeed recently offered “23 Writers With Messages For Straight White Male Publishing.” These messages, from attendees at the annual Association of Writers & Writing Programs conference, suggested that the employment of heterosexual males in the publishing industry is a social injustice:

In fact, the book publishing industry is overwhelmingly dominated by females. A 2010 survey by Publisher’s Weekly found that “85% of publishing employees with less than three years of experience are women.” In other words, women are 5 out of every 6 recent hires in the industry. Yet women writers seem to believe that this is not enough. Apparently, feminists won’t be happy until all editors are females and all published books are written by women authors. And after they ban male students from college campuses, we suppose, feminists will then make it illegal to teach boys to read. Because . . . EQUALITY!

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)


« go backkeep looking »