Posted on | August 29, 2015 | 4 Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
War Against Human Nature: Radical Feminism’s Anti-Maternal Rage
The Right Planet
Watcher of Weasels
The Camp of the Saints
Viewpoints of a Sagittarian
Batshit Crazy News
Gunman Blames Racism After He Kills Two Young Journalists on Live TV
UPDATE: Charleston Church Shooting ‘Sent Me Over the Top,’ Killer Claims
Constantinople Not Istanbul
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach
Top linkers this week:
- Batshit Crazy News (15)
- Constantinople Not Istanbul (6)
- A View from the Beach (5)
Special thanks to the Watchers’ Council, who voted War Against Human Nature: Radical Feminism’s Anti-Maternal Rage into fifth place among non-Council posts for the week, and to Nice Deb, who nominated it. Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!
Posted on | August 29, 2015 | 75 Comments
Not everything has meaning. Not everything requires critical analysis. Not everything is in need of a theory to explain it.
Some things are really simple. They are what they are, and the temptation to intellectualize everything should be resisted. Consider, for example, a New York Times column by Emily Witt:
Who could be cynical about the rise of friendship? In recent movies, female friends have banded together to shoot guns from trucks (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and sing a cappella (“Pitch Perfect”). On TV, they have spooned in Greenpoint (“Girls”) and found common ground in prison (“Orange Is the New Black”). Their stoner antics (“Broad City”) have liberated us from the slob dads of sitcoms. Once limited to sassy supporting roles, female friends are now the primary source of romantic tension themselves: making passive-aggressive phone calls, taking baths together, serving as sugar daddies, lying to each other, busting ghosts. Unlike traditional romance, friendship doesn’t force us into archaic gender roles or complicate our professional or sexual independence. It’s now the boyfriends who are vestigial, appearing only in bit parts like “timid suitor” or “obnoxious co-worker.”
(This is because feminist bloggers now instantly attack any movie that doesn’t pass the lesbian-approved “Bechdel Test,” and everybody in Hollywood is scared to death of feminist bloggers. In order to satisfy blogger demands, males can never be heroic in movies, nor can any woman be cast in the role of “hero’s girlfriend,” let alone “damsel in distress.” Third-wave feminism requires that males be “vestigial,” because women must be so “empowered” that men are either peripheral characters — clowns and tagalongs — or else sinister villains representing the Oppressive Patriarchy.)
Running parallel to this artistic phenomenon, however, is an anthropological one. Lately, we’ve been inundated with images of real-life best friends, triumphantly displayed. It’s difficult to get through a day on the Internet without looking at photos of women flaunting the depth of their intimacy by posing over dinner or watching television together in matching pajamas. We now flick through images not of celebrity couples but of celebrity friends: Beyoncé and Nicki Minaj eating hamburgers in matching varsity jackets; Taylor Swift with Karlie Kloss, Lorde, Selena Gomez, Ellie Goulding, Lena Dunham, her cat Olivia, the entire runway lineup of a Victoria’s Secret show; the U.S. women’s soccer team. The meme factories have responded to the popularity of pictures of best friends with maximum output, harvesting groups of women posing on beaches and in limos from celebrity Instagram feeds and presenting them in slide shows . . . and labeling these images as “#friendspiration” and “#squadgoals.”
(Note the use of the authorial “we” here. Who is “we”? Why does Emily Witt presume that everyone is plugged into the same Internet feeds, so that they are “inundated with images” and it is “difficult to get through a day” without seeing the phenomenon she describes?)
Picture-perfect groups of friends on Instagram make me wonder whether Bridget Jones’s idea of “smug marrieds” could also apply to “squads” and why “The Stepford Wives” hasn’t been re-envisioned with a friendship plot. The portraits seem to be asking a lot of impolite questions: Do you have as many friends as we do? How did you celebrate your birthday? Do you regularly drink prosecco over plates of fruit at Ralph Lauren’s Polo Bar? Have you betrayed your gender by preferring the company of men? You don’t have a friend with whom you publicly exchange photographs of your manicures? What’s wrong with you? If female friendship is so uplifting, then why do these photos make us feel the opposite — unbalanced and unsure?
(Again with the authorial first-person plural. Emily Witt presumes to know how “these photos make us feel,” when she’s actually describing how they make her feel, i.e., envious of the lives of the celebrities whose photos she sees while obsessively checking the online feed that inundates her with these images. Clearly, “we” need to log off Instagram, get outside more often and, perhaps, ask “our” therapist to adjust the Prozac dosage.)
I used to think that friendship as performed for an audience would end with middle school, but the past 10 years of technology have changed that expectation.
(Obviously, she’s one of those unhappy-childhood types who are forever reliving their middle-school identity crises.)
In social media, friendship gets fixed and mounted. It loses its dramatic tension. It becomes a presentation of happiness, an advertisement for friendship rather than an actual portrayal of it. Sometimes, scrolling through photos of women I know looking carefully hungover in front of a perfectly composed brunch, or lying on a blanket in a park in crop tops, or posting screenshots of their exuberant text messages, I’m reminded of something Marnie once said on “Girls”: “I thought that this would be a good opportunity to have fun together and prove to everyone via Instagram that we can still have fun as a group.”
(If you ever find yourself thinking about life in terms of lines from a Lena Dunham HBO series, it’s time to have that talk with your therapist about the appropriate Prozac dosage.)
Mimicking the advertiser’s strategy, these pictures of delightful fun inevitably provoke a feeling of lack or longing in the consumer of the image.
When I think of depictions of friendships that have moved me, I find myself thinking mostly of books — of those passages in novels that illuminate friendship by its moments of thorniness, by the heartbreak it can cause.
(Of course! It’s about characters in novels. People who read too much fiction think everything is about characters in novels, in the same way people who spend too much time on Instagram think everything is about people on Instagram.)
Real friendship is complex. It’s the sadness of Elizabeth Bennet when her friend Charlotte Lucas marries the odious Mr. Collins in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” It’s Leah and Natalie’s complicated dance of haughtiness and need in Zadie Smith’s “NW.” It’s the once-a-week limit Vivian Gornick has with her friend Leonard in “The Odd Woman and the City” (because men can be friends too). The best works of art about friendship resonate by showing how our closest friends have a way of ruining our attempts to present ourselves as perfect; how those picturesque moments are belied by other truths.
(My friendships have never been “complex.” Never once in my life have I engaged in a “complicated dance of haughtiness and need,” probably because I don’t sit around reading novels, filled with a bittersweet nostalgia for middle school or obsessively staring at pictures of Taylor Swift on Instagram. Seriously, lady, you need to have that discussion with your therapist about your Prozac dosage.)
Friendship stories might have replaced tales of romantic love, but the best ones stop themselves from purveying easy clichés of their own — whether clichés about feminist solidarity or about mean girls (sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between the two). Close friendships are worth celebrating — but it is how they look at their least photogenic moments that proves their veracity.
And so concludes this New York Times mini-essay. Emily Witt is to Instagram selfies what Hannah Arendt was to Adolf Eichmann.
Curious as to who wrote this bizarre column, I found her online bio:
Emily Witt . . . has degrees from Brown, Columbia, and Cambridge, and was a Fulbright scholar in Mozambique.
Oh, that explains it. Those of us who went to state universities didn’t sit around reading novels or having “complex” friendships that were a “complicated dance of haughtiness and need.” Nor do our daily lives as adults consist of scrolling through celebrity Instagram photos, wishing we could hang out with Lena Dunham and her friends.
Only if your Daddy can afford to send you to elite universities (annual tuition at Brown, $46,408), followed by several more years of postgraduate education, can you indulge in that kind of stuff and then get paid by the New York Times to share your thoughts about it using first-person plural pronouns so that you presume to speak for a “we” who share your peculiar obsessions. Speaking of peculiar obsessions, Emily Witt (who got her bachelor’s degree at Brown in 2003, majoring in Portuguese and Brazilian Studies and Art Semiotics) wrote an 800-word article for the New York Times with the headline, “In Praise of Sensible Panties,” which included sentences like these:
“Good design is as little design as possible” is one of the famed German industrial designer Dieter Rams’s Ten Principles for Good Design, and in the underwear from Swiss brands like Zimmerli and Hanro, as in a Braun appliance from the 1960s, Rams’s mandate for elegant minimalism finds fulfillment. . . . .
A country’s underwear preferences say a lot about its ideas of the erotic. . . .
Ultimately, what intrigued me about the underwear I saw in Germany had something to do with its directness — the way it resisted gendered ornamentation of the body.
You see? Even your underwear must be subjected to critical theory, if you’re an intellectual with degrees from three elite universities.
You really have to feel sorry for her Dad. Just imagine Mr. Witt’s conversations with his golf buddies.
“How’s your daughter?”
“Fluent in Portugese and resisting gendered ornamentation.”
This is why you should keep your kids as far away from the Ivy League as possible. Even if you could afford the tuition, you’ll still have to pay for a lifetime of therapy and Prozac.
Posted on | August 28, 2015 | 20 Comments
Via Instapundit, it sounds like some people at his university may be smoking mother nature:
What’s blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer is that a certain “gay rights official at the university” needs to stop being such a conservative reactionary, like the author of this post.
A truly “new language regime” that “will make the university ‘welcoming and inclusive'” should scuttle the archaic alphabet that has “people feeling ‘marginalized'”. Why not replace it with alternating sequences of LOLcats, LOLdogs, and other equal vivacious creatures? Such an alphabet could be rotated weekly, and impossible to compose via traditional scribing instruments, to be more even-handed toward those who are not even handed.
This blog doubles down on its strident call for pushing technology and societal communications right off the cliff, in order to save both from the millennia of testosterone-driven oppression. Let us enable the logic-free future we deserve. Or, to quote Andrew Klavan:
Update: once again, trigger warnings start with the character set.
Posted on | August 28, 2015 | 1 Comment
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Guess I’ll Hang My Tears Out To Dry
Louder With Crowder: Buzzfeed Caught Blatantly Lying While Trying To Defend Planned Parenthood
Proof Positive: Return With Us Now To Those Thrilling Days Of Yesteryear…
Michelle Malkin: What Is Obama’s Top Population Control Freak Hiding?
Twitchy: FBI “A-Team” Investigating Hillary For Possible Violation Of The Espionage Act
Shark Tank: Border Patrol Sued For Hitting Illegal Aliens’ Boat
According To Hoyt: Fauxtrage
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Ronda Rousey For Cinnamon Swirl French Toast Breakfast Sandwich From Carl’s Jr.
American Thinker: The Left Always Tells Us Who They Fear – Carly Fiorina
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – “Lamestream Media! Stay Out Of My Bible!”
Don Surber: Thank You, Jorge Ramos, For Pointing Out Why We Need A Closed Border
Jammie Wearing Fools: Insane David Brock Group Blames Koch Brothers For Flooding New Orleans After Katrina
Joe For America: Taking Back America And Europe – Anti-Islam Pushback Ratchets Up
JustOneMinute: Hillary Time
Pamela Geller: Canadian “Hate Speech” Proposal Threatens Free Speech
Protein Wisdom: Virginia Shooting – Time To Ban The Rainbow Flag
Shot In The Dark: Scope Creep
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – California, There Ya Go
The Gateway Pundit: Donald Trump Can Absolutely Win The GOP Nomination, And Here’s How
The Jawa Report: Ann And Trump
The Lonely Conservative: Judge Blocks EPA Water Rule, EPA Imposes It Anyway
This Ain’t Hell: DNC Mistakes Polish Vets For American Vets
Weasel Zippers: When Will ABC Release The Whole Vester Flanagan Manifesto?
Megan McArdle: Micromanaging Cops? #blacklivesmatter Can Try
Mark Steyn: Anchor Baby, Slip A Passport Under The Tree For Me
Don’t forget! The deadline to submit links for inclusion in the FMJRA is tomorrow at noon, and the deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for Rule 5 Sunday is midnight tomorrow. Thanks in advance for your contributions!
Posted on | August 28, 2015 | 13 Comments
Rape suspect Sakhone Phianemanh.
The new school year has barely begun and there are already reports of sexual assault on campus. A 20-year-old Chico State University student said she was abducted while walking home from a party:
An Olivehurst man who allegedly drugged and raped a college student who became separated from her friends after a Chico party faces 30 years to life in prison.
Sakhone Phienemanh, 28, pleaded not guilty Tuesday in Yuba County Superior Court to four felony counts for two separate acts of sexual assault, including rape and oral copulation by force and of a person too intoxicated to consent.
Judge Julia Scrogin set bail at $500,000 and issued a criminal protective order for the suspect to stay out of Chico and to not contact the woman.
A second suspect remained at large and a multi-agency investigation is underway.
On Saturday, a 20-year-old Chico State University student told deputies she did not consent to getting into a vehicle and traveling to Olivehurst, and she was forced into sexual acts after refusing to participate, according to a declaration for probable cause for arrest filed with the court.
She had become separated from her friends on Friday night after they all left a party to get something to eat, Yuba County Undersheriff Jerry Read said. She remembered being very drunk and recalled some details of fading in and out of consciousness as two men sexually assaulted her in an abandoned home. Deputy District Attorney Shiloh Sorbello said there is evidence that the suspects forced her to ingest cocaine while she was in their control.
She told suspects several times she wanted to leave and eventually fled the house and found a nearby civilian between Second and Third avenues around 6:30 a.m., at which point she called 9-1-1.
Have any feminist bloggers commented on this crime? No, because this is not the kind of rape feminists care about. Sakhone Phienemanh is not himself a university student. He is not white, he is not “privileged,” and his arrest therefore does not merit attention from feminists, because Sakhone Phienemanh does not symbolize the “phallocentric social order” of “male power” that feminist theory identifies as “rape culture.”
Feminist ideology requires that privileged white males be punished for their privilege, which is why a non-existent “campus rape epidemic” has been manufactured by activists, politicians and media. Female students are being encouraged to accuse male students of sexual assault, and university administrators are under pressure to expel male students after disciplinary hearings where the accused student is denied the due-process rights that any ordinary criminal could have in a court trial.
Using federal law (Title IX) as a weapon against male students, campus activists are indoctrinating female students to believe that they are victims of rape if they have any sexual encounter they later regret. This “regret equals rape” formula was exposed in a lawsuit against Washington and Lee University:
Judge Norman K. Moon denied W&L’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing John Doe — as he is referred to in the claim — to continue to seek damages resulting from his expulsion from the university. John believes he was wrongly accused of sexual misconduct, and Moon appears to agree.
On Feb. 8, 2014, John and his eventual accuser, Jane Doe, met at an off-campus party. The two danced, talked and kissed.
The two eventually went back to John’s residence and talked for awhile. Jane then walked over to John and allegedly told him, “I usually don’t have sex with someone I meet on the first night, but you are a really interesting guy.” Jane then began kissing John and the two had sex.
The next morning, John drove Jane home and the two exchanged cellphone numbers. Shortly after the encounter, the two became friends on Facebook. The two exchanged friendly messages.
During the summer of 2014, Jane worked at a women’s clinic that handled sexual assault issues. After speaking to people there about her encounter with John, she began reclassifying the encounter as sexual assault.
When she returned to campus in the fall, Jane claimed on a study abroad application that she had been sexually assaulted. She also attended a presentation by W&L’s Title IX officer Lauren Kozak. Kozak claimed that “regret equals rape,” and introduced the concept as a new idea people were now supporting.
Once Jane learned that John had been accepted into the study abroad program, she filed a sexual assault claim, now eight months after the encounter.
What seemed to be an ordinary hook-up in February was thus reinterpreted as rape in October, and John Doe discovered that male students have no rights on the 21st-century campus:
Kozak conducted the investigation. John alleges in his lawsuit that he was given six hours notice to meet with the investigators but was not told why. When John met with Kozak and learned of the allegations against him, he was not shown a copy of Jane’s complaint.
John was denied legal representation, and when he tried to postpone a meeting with Kozak, she allegedly told him: “That’s fine. We’ll just submit the investigation report without your side of the story.”
With this, John was forced to give his side of the story and provide Kozak with a list of potential witnesses. Only two of the four names given were interviewed because, as Kozak would later tell him, she had enough facts.
Even though multiple witnesses contradicted Jane Doe’s account of events, John Doe was expelled from the university, and his lawsuit alleges that he was a victim of illegal gender bias.
A similar dynamic of regret-equals-rape was apparent in another John Doe case, this one involving students at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). Two students engaged in consensual sexual activity in February 2014, but the female student later felt “personal regret for engaging in sexual activity beyond her boundaries,” according to a ruling by Judge Joel Pressman. This led to the typical Title IX process, in which the accused male student was the victim of “fundamental unfairness,” Judge Pressman ruled, because of an inaccurate investigation report presented at a disciplinary hearing where the accused student was prohibited from challenging the the contents of the report. When the student subsequently appealed his suspension, UCSD officials retaliated by increasing the length of his suspension. Mark Hathaway, an attorney for the student, issued a statement after Judge Pressman ruled against UCSD in July:
Feminists deride any concern for “fundamental fairness” to male students facing such accusations, claiming that false accusations are rare and that most rapists go unpunished. Basing their logic on the “1-in-5” statistic — survey data suggesting 19% of female college students are victims of sexual assault — feminists promote the belief that male students are routinely getting away with rape. Therefore, according to the logic of this feminist argument, whatever the risk that any particular male student could be falsely accused, this is outweighed by the risk that a guilty student will never be accused because his victim is intimidated by a “rape culture” that feminists claim protects “male power” on campus. An increase in the number of rape accusations thus becomes a goal unto itself in a feminist crusade which seeks to ensure that an accusation alone is sufficient to guarantee the expulsion of the accused male student.
This is why feminists ignore cases like the reported abduction and rape of the Chico State student. Random criminals can prey on college girls without lending credence to the feminist claims of a “campus rape epidemic,” which is exclusively concerned with punishing male students for engaging in heterosexual activity. Feminists never accuse gay students of “rape culture,” nor can any female student ever be punished for her sexual activity. The punitive force of Title IX is aimed entirely at heterosexual males, who are treated as a suspect class whose mere presence in the university environment poses a menace to women.
By fomenting anti-male paranoia — Fear and Loathing of the Penis! — feminists inspire college girls to resent any expression of sexual interest from their male classmates. Lectures about sexual assault are now mandatory in freshman orientation, and students are also warned against “harassment,” a category of offense so broadly defined that any male student could be at risk of an accusation if he so much as speaks to a female on campus. A pervasive climate of hostility and suspicion between the sexes seems to be the goal of feminist activism on the 21st-century campus, where policies increasingly convey the message that men are unwelcome intruders in the higher education system. Males are already a minority (43%) of U.S. undergraduate enrollment, but this number is apparently still too high to satisfy feminists who are certain that college boys, protected by “male privilege,” routinely perpetrate sexual assault on campus and go unpunished for their crimes.
This punitive attitude toward male students, who are presumed guilty as soon as they are accused, explains why the campus rape cases that make headlines are so often doubtful in nature. In June, Radley Balko asked the obvious question, “Why do high-profile campus rape stories keep falling apart?” Citing several of the most prominent cases — including the rape hoax that Rolling Stone perpetrated at the University of Virginia — Balko wrote:
Each time a new high-profile story falls apart, a larger portion of the public becomes less likely to believe the next one. . . . The anti-campus rape activists often claim that false accusations of sexual assault are practically nonexistent. . . . But that so many of the accusations that they themselves have chosen as emblems of the cause have been proved false or debatable suggests that they’re either wrong about the frequency of false accusations or that the movement itself has had some extraordinarily bad luck.
It is not bad luck that explains this, however, but rather the feminist insistence that accusation should always result in punishment. Activists keep highlighting cases like Emma Sulkowicz’s (the Columbia University student whose protests earned her the derisive nickname “Mattress Girl”) because these were cases in which the accusation did not lead to punishment. Exploiting sympathy for rape victims, and claiming that female students are re-victimized when their accusations are not believed, feminists seized on the Sulkowicz case as proof that “male privilege” protects rapists at elite schools like Columbia. However, when the accused student, Paul Nungesser, made his case in a lawsuit against the university, it was obvious why Nungesser had not been punished. There was exculpatory evidence, in the form of Sulkowicz’s online communications with Nungesser, supporting his claim that Sulkowicz was “a woman scorned” who accused him of rape in an act of revenge for his failing to reciprocate her desire for a continuing romantic relationship. Of course, it is ultimately impossible to know for a fact what transpired privately between Nungesser and Sulkowicz on the night of August 27, 2012, but there was certainly not enough evidence to judge him guilty of rape, and the argument presented in his lawsuit convinced many people that Sulkowicz was simply a vindictive liar.
Feminists continued to celebrate Sulkowicz as a victim even after Nungesser filed his lawsuit, however, because this is practically a religious requirement for the feminist faith: Always believe the victim, no matter how much evidence may indicate she is not a victim at all. In the feminist ideological scheme, all women (collectively) are victims of injustice and oppression for which all men (collectively) share blame. When feminists are pursuing “social justice,” no man is ever completely innocent, and yet some men are more guilty than others. Because abolishing “male power” is feminism’s revolutionary goal, destroying the reputation and career prospects of an Ivy League university student like Paul Nungesser is obvously more important than prosecuting a two-bit street hoodlum who rapes a college girl.
Feminists ignore stories about rape when the perpetrators are common criminals, no matter how horrific their crimes against women may be, because the purpose of feminist rhetoric about rape is not to increase women’s safety, but rather to attack the prestige of successful men. Rape accusations against male students at elite universities serve that feminist purpose in a way that the prosecution of a common criminal does not. Some rape victims therefore don’t really matter to feminists, which is why you have probably never heard of Monika Korra.
In December 2009, Korra was a 20-year-old sophomore at Southern Methodist University. A native of Norway and a member of the SMU women’s cross-country team, Korra attended a party hosted by the school’s soccer team. She and three friends were walking to their car about 1:30 a.m. when three men in an SUV abducted Korra at gunpoint. “Before I knew it, I just had someone grabbing me from behind and I had a gun to my head,” Korra said in an interview with WFAA-TV. “They raped me one at a time, two at a time, three at a time.”
Korra was stripped naked, blindfolded with duct tape and, after being brutally assaulted for more than a hour, was dumped by the side of the road. Korra survived to write a book about her ordeal, but you have never heard of her until now. Why?
Left to right: Arturo Arevalo, Alfonso Zuniga, Luis Zuniga.
The three men who kidnapped and raped Monika Korra — Arturo Arevalo, 29, Alfonso Armendariz Zuniga, 29, and Luis Fernando Zuniga, 27 — were not college students. All three are Mexican citizens, and all of them were believed to be in the U.S. illegally. Arevalo had been deported to Mexico after being arrested on a theft charge in 2001. Arevelo is related by marriage to the other two perpetrators, who are cousins. All three men were arrested within days of their crime (one of them was caught with Korra’s stolen cellphone) and Korra testified at the trials of both Arturo Arevalo and Alfonso Zuniga, who received life sentences, while Luis Zuniga pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Unless you live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, you probably never heard of this crime, and no feminist will ever mention it, because feminists do not care about college girls who are gang-raped at gunpoint by illegal immigrants. No, the only reason feminists pretend to care about female students being raped is because the phony “campus rape epidemic” provides a pretext for demonizing male college students, a justification for “activism” that (not coincidentally) gives feminists more money and political influence. Whatever else feminism is, it is always a cynical hustle, a scam perpetrated by selfish women who will tell whatever lies are necessary to enhance their own lucrative careers, and who will ignore any facts that do not serve their purpose.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 30, 2015
Posted on | August 28, 2015 | 33 Comments
They hate you, too:
That 31-word post got more than 25,000 notes on Tumblr in the past year, and the same Tumblr feminist had this to say:
leftist men are just as horrifyingly and violently misogynist as all other men, including old conservative christian dudes, but they get away with so much because they dress up their misogyny in a specific “social justice” language and call themselves feminists rather than just straight up saying that they hate women, and they think women are only good for sex, having babies, and domestic labor like right wing men do, but they both hate women the same.
Insofar as “lefist men” and self-proclaimed “male feminists” describe the same group of men, the question arises whether any man can escape feminism’s general condemnation of males. Obviously, some men still believe that feminism is something other than mere man-hating, and some feminists may also encourage men to believe this. What we never see, however, is feminists who condemn the man-haters among them. It would seem that the first commandment of feminism is, “Thou shalt not speak praise of a male, nor defend any man against thy feminist sister.”
Feminism’s discourse about men is relentlessly negative, and no feminist ever criticizes these anti-male sermons, because to do so would result in her ex-communication from the cult. Therefore, if any man dares to object to a movement that seems to contemplate the annihilation of males as its ultimate goal, he can be sure that feminists will unite to denounce him for doing so: “How dare this despicable man quote our words as evidence against us? This is misogynistic harassment!”
Men must never call attention to feminism’s deliberate hatefulness, because no man has any right to defend himself against women who wish him dead. The mere fact that a man notices how feminists express malice toward him — merely because he is male — is considered proof that he is a particularly egregious oppressor. Not even the most sympathetic “progressive” man can ever be exempt from feminism’s all-encompassing hatred of males. Yet left-wing men are so eager to appease these spiteful women (whose votes are necessary to electing progressive politicians) that their allegiance requires them to absorb a constant barrage of insults from their feminist “allies” without complaint
We can only conclude that progressive men think they deserve to be hated by women, and who am I to say that they don’t?
Posted on | August 28, 2015 | 2 Comments
The yellow crane stunned him. Now? That color here at the weekly update meant what it meant. Shaking, he sent the text.
* * *
He hoped she came today, the smoldering redhead at the arboretum the last couple of weeks. She’d sit at noon and launch a white paper crane. She was such a beauty, the gardeners said nothing. He’d point out his yellow one and start a conversation.
* * *
Parking delayed her. She seethed, arriving five minutes late. Two men gaped as she released it, one in horror; the other, lust. They heard a distant *BOOM*.
Posted on | August 27, 2015 | 59 Comments
Susan Cox (@Blasfemmey) writes for Feminist Current:
More male violence against women; reporter
Alison Parker killed during live broadcast
Virginia TV reporter, Alison Parker, was shot dead during a live broadcast by a man who formerly worked at the same news station. Also killed was camera man Adam Ward. There are no words for this ever-increasing death toll of women killed by men who felt entitled to take their lives.
Previously, Ms. Cox wrote on Twitter:
Is feminism just blind prejudice? Do facts mean nothing to these idiots?
Here is an interesting fact: On Nov. 9, 2012, the Roanoke shooter Vester Flanagan received a warning from his supervisor at WDBJ-TV for wearing an Obama sticker on Election Day. a violation of company policy that stated news employees “must refrain from participatting in active partisan politic.” Flanagan was clearly a personnel problem at the station and, after he was fired in 2013, he sued WDBJ-TV for wrongful termination, claiming he was a victim of discrimination because he was black and gay — the same grievances Flanagan cited in the 23-page manifesto he faxed to ABC News on Wednesday.
Yet here is feminist Susan Cox declaring she had “no doubt” that Flanagan’s crime was “linked to the misogyny for female reporters of men trying to silence them” — an imaginative claim that had nothing to do with Flanagan’s actual motive, which was a personal grievance:
A memo from WDBJ regarding Flanagan’s termination is included in court records obtained by CBS News. The memo says that when Flanagan was told he was being fired, he responded by saying, “You better call police because I’m going to make a big stink. This is not right.”
According to the memo, Flanagan went on to berate staff members — including Adam Ward — who was present and recording the incident. When Flanagan was ultimately escorted from the newsroom by police, he handed another staff member a wooden cross that was on his desk and said, “You’ll need this,” the memo says.
Another WBDJ memo in the court filing says all employees at the station were informed Flanagan was terminated and that “anyone seeing him on company property should call 911 immediately.”
It appears that Adam Ward was more of a target than Alison Parker, who was only an intern at WDBJ-TV when Flanagan was fired:
Flanagan’s contentious 10-month reporting stint at Southwestern Virginia’s CBS affiliate, WDBJ (Channel 7), ended in much the same way several jobs had since 2000: with a trail of colleagues with whom he did not get along, poor job-performance evaluations citing his volatile behavior and at least two lawsuits alleging racial discrimination and unfair treatment. . . .
Ward had been at the station when Flanagan was fired and aimed a camera at him as he flipped off the newsroom during his forced exit. The station manager, Jeff Marks, said Parker was an intern when Flanagan worked at the station. He could not recall a specific run-in with her but said, “He had conflicts with so many people here, I don’t remember all the specific ones.”
Marks said Flanagan . . . was “a man with a lot of anger.” He added: “It came out in his relationships. He had trouble working with fellow employees and he had a short fuse.” . . .
Flanagan’s first job was as an intern at KPIX in San Francisco for five months in 1993. . . .
Dawn Baker, who anchors the newscast at WTOC in Savannah, Ga., said she remembers Flanagan as a nice, if goofy and at-times aloof reporter during his two years with the station in the late 1990s. But even then, she said, he had a habit of bucking his bosses while practicing questionable journalism.
During his time in Savannah, Flanagan used his legal name professionally, but Baker said eventually his colleagues found out he was using the name “Bryce Williams” socially. . . .
It appears that Flanagan’s problems began at WTWC in Tallahassee, Fla., in 1999. He worked there 13 months, and he alleged in a lawsuit that he filed after he was fired that a producer had called him a “monkey” and said that “blacks are lazy.” . . .
The station denied the allegations and said he never reported any racist behavior. Managers said in response to the suit, which the station settled, that Flanagan was fired for poor performance, misbehavior toward colleagues and the use of profanity.
Don Shafer, news director at XETV in San Diego, said on the air Wednesday that he had hired Flanagan at WTWC and later fired him for chronic “bizarre behavior.”
“We brought him in, he was a good on-air performer, a pretty good reporter,” he told viewers, “and then things started getting a little strange with him.”
Was this “misogyny toward female reporters trying to silence them”? Or was this just another a “grievance collector”?
A grievance collector will move from the passive assumption of deprivation and low expectancy common to most paranoid personalities to a more aggressive mode. He will not endure passively his deprived state; he will occupy himself with accumulating evidence of his misfortunes and locating the sources. . . .
Grievance collectors are distrustful and provocative, convinced they are always taken advantage of and given less than their fair share.
Oh, “convinced they are always taken advantage of” — like feminists.
« go back — keep looking »