Posted on | October 24, 2016 | No Comments
In case you haven’t noticed, the world has gone crazy. We now live in some kind of alternative universe dreamed up by a science-fiction writer, and it’s comforting to know we’re not alone in feeling this way:
Studies have produced little evidence that “gender reassignment” surgery yields mental health benefits for those who receive it. In what other field of medicine would it be considered acceptable to perform massive, transformative surgery without any clear evidence of a therapeutic benefit? . . .
Perhaps that is the ultimate point: to eliminate the very distinction between a normal psychology and a disordered psychology, even between sanity and outright insanity. And that’s precisely where we are headed. . . .
[I]t feels like we’re being asked to participate in some kind of mass delusion where we’re all supposed to affirm that something is perfectly normal and healthy when it obviously isn’t.
Thank you, Robert Tracinski, for explaining the obvious truth. Sane people find ourselves accused of “hate” for daring to say things like that.
Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) is a Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & AIDS Project. Chase’s work includes impact litigation, as well as legislative and administrative advocacy, on behalf of LGBTQ people and people living with HIV across the United States. Chase has particular expertise on the treatment of transgender and gender non-conforming people in police custody, jails, prisons and other forms of detention.
Oh, of course, the ACLU has staff lawyers who are trying to convince us that the categories “male” and “female” are an illusion, telling us it is “hate” to believe that these categories are real and meaningful. Only bigots believe such things, and it is only your ignorant prejudice that makes you believe chromosomes and hormones and genitalia are socially significant factors that deserve recognition in real life. How long until the phrases “real life” and “common sense” are forbidden as hate speech?
So I encountered “Chase Strangio,” the pseudo-male ACLU lawyer, playing the role of heroic martyr/victim in an emotional appeal to pity:
[W]e have spent years in dark places wrestling with our truth, feeling ashamed and plagued with self-loathing. And when we manage to come through that and survive, and thrive and even love ourselves, we are confronted with this kind of insidious insistence that we should have just not existed after all.
Too many of us die because that belief takes hold of us or of others. With attempted suicide rates in the community close to 50% and murders of transwomen and femmes of color reaching epidemic proportions, these questions truly are life or death.
Oh, cry me a river, you dishonest weirdo:
Are some people so weak that they’ll commit suicide if we don’t talk to them exactly as they want to be talked to? You want to blame other people because you’re “in dark places . . . plagued with self-loathing,” and then think you can guilt-trip the world by threatening to kill yourself if we criticize you?
One of the most toxic aspects of this Victimhood Derby competition is how some people invite the world to their pity party, and then accuse the rest of us of “hate” if we don’t accept the invitation. . . .
You’re a bully. Stop pretending to be a victim. You don’t fool me.
If you’re “plagued with self-loathing,” maybe it’s because you’re so loathsome.
Posted on | October 23, 2016 | 4 Comments
Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and nowhere is this more evident than in the youth indoctrination centers known as university campuses. The more elite the university, the more complete control is exercised by the totalitarians. Annual tuition at Columbia University is $55,056, and for that price, parents of Columbia students are guaranteed that their children will never be exposed to any fact or opinion that feminism’s campus commissars dislike:
On Thursday, students hosting an upcoming talk by scholar Christina Hoff Sommers put up roughly 50 flyers promoting the event on four different campus buildings at Columbia University and Barnard College. Within 24 hours, most had been torn down.
The flyers advertised Sommers’ scheduled appearance at Columbia University on Nov. 1 titled “Victims, Victims Everywhere: Trigger Warnings, Liberty, and the Academy.” Flyers advertising Columbia and Barnard’s politically liberal and neutral events were left unharmed.
Sommers is known for her critique of contemporary feminism, arguing it can be faulted for its “irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and statistics, and its inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal—but different.”
Barnard College student Toni Airaksinen, who is co-hosting Sommers’ talk as part of the Columbia American Enterprise Executive Council, told The College Fix that “some Columbia students are so committed to speech regulation that they don’t even believe alternative viewpoints should be brought to campus.”
“I have already seen students write Facebook statuses talking about how they want to rally or protests at the lecture,” she said. “Tearing down flyers is just an easier and quicker way to protest.”
More at Legal Insurrection and Reason magazine. Among the totalitarians leading the crusade against Dr. Sommers’ speech is Columbia senior Roya Hegdahl, who attacked the AEI scholar as a “rape culture denier.”
The irony of this hateful intolerance toward Dr. Sommers is that her planned speech is actually about the climate of hateful intolerance.
Intolerant protesters at Columbia U have torn down posters announcing my lecture on guess what? Campus intolerance. https://t.co/08zBCBc3UX
— Christina H. Sommers (@CHSommers) October 22, 2016
Liars always hate the truth, which is why feminists at Columbia University will not allow students there to hear a single word spoken in favor of men, marriage, motherhood, capitalism or Christianity.
Feminist intolerance is pervasive throughout 21st-century academia. Parents who send their children to a wretched hive of scum and villainy like Columbia are promoting this totalitarianism by paying for it.
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 23, 2016
- Oct. 21: The Queering of Feminism at Vanderbilt
- Oct. 13: High-Priced Humiliation
- Oct. 4: It’s Come to This: Male Students Trained to ‘Be Accountable to Feminism’
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 23, 2016
Posted on | October 22, 2016 | 1 Comment
— compiled by Wombat-socho
Thanks to everyone for all the linkagery!
Posted on | October 21, 2016 | 3 Comments
“Heterosexuality . . . is a highly unstable system, subject to various slippages, reliant upon carefully constructed individual performances of identity, and dependent upon the exclusion of homosexuality for its very identity. One could say that queer theory normalizes homosexuality by making heterosexuality deviant. Homosexuality ceases to be the exclusive site of sexual difference.”
— Arlene Stein and Ken Plummer, “‘I Can’t Even Think Straight’: ‘Queer’ Theory and the Missing Sexual Revolution in Sociology,” in Queer Theory/Sociology, edited by Steven Seidman (1996)
“Welcome to WGS 160: Sex and Society. In this course we’ll work to develop a critical awareness of the historical, cultural, and social contexts of sexual diversity, discrimination, and sexual violence, while paying close attention to the centrality of sexuality to identity. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, we’ll also explore how systems of oppression such as heterosexism, racism, classism, and nationalism/Westernism mutually construct one another.”
— Professor Rebecca Chapman, Vanderbilt University
“Society has dictated to women that we must act in accordance to its rules to maintain the heteronormative world in which we inhabit and by doing so, has placed limitations on the livelihood of women. . . .
“As Dr. Chapman stated in class, bodies who are read as female are more susceptible to being raped. In my opinion . . . sexual objectification, sexual socialization, heteronormativity, and sexual subjectivity, play a part in exacerbating this newfound rape culture. . . .
“Many times, rapes are justified using heteronormative logic.”
— Takeydra Jones, Vanderbilt University, “Heterocentric Perpetuation of Rape Culture,” Oct. 15, 2014
A major difficulty faced by critics of radical feminism is demonstrating the connection between (a) the theories propounded by feminist intellectuals, and (b) the way these theories influence the beliefs and behaviors of students subjected to feminist indoctrination on college and university campuses. Quoting examples of the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology that defines 21st-century feminism, I have explained this in “The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity“:
According to feminist theory, male sexuality is inherently oppressive to women. . . . Feminists condemn any expectation that women naturally desire heterosexual relationships, and therefore might wish to make themselves appealing to males. Heterosexuality is “an institution of male domination,” as Sheila Jeffreys and her colleagues declared in 1981, and it is an “illusion that heterosexuality is the norm,” as Professor[Susan] Shaw and Professor [Janet] Lee more recently declared in their popular Women’s Studies textbook. The penis is a “weapon against women,” as Professor [Dee] Graham explained, women are victimized by “the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality,” according to Professor [Stevi] Jackson, and masculinity causes “sexual violence . . . a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power,” according to [Sara Carrigan] Wooten.
By demonizing men as oppressors, and stigmatizing normal male sexual behavior, feminist theory treats the male heterosexual perspective as fundamentally invalid, so that any man who objects to feminism’s insulting anti-male rhetoric can be disregarded. Indeed, any argument in defense of male heterosexuality is apt to be condemned as hate speech — “misogyny,” “rape culture,” etc. — on the 21st-century campus.
Feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology has given rise to the “campus rape epidemic” myth, fostering a climate of sexual paranoia among young women that Wendy McElroy rightly calls “hysteria.” Of course, the typical college boy is not a rapist, but because feminism treats normal male behavior and attitudes as inherently wrong (“sexist”), college girls are taught to regard the mere presence of males as a menace. Anything a man says or does could be a “triggering” experience, so she needs the shelter of “safe spaces” to protect her from emotional trauma.
Documenting the connection between what professors teach in the classroom and the attitudes of their students is difficult, because university Women’s Studies is a field generally shrouded in secrecy. Feminist ideologues who preside over these academic indoctrination programs learned long ago that their radical anti-male beliefs could not withstand external scrutiny. Professor Mary Daly banned male students from her classes at Boston College until a federal lawsuit over this discriminatory policy forced her retirement. Because controversy often erupts when the content of Women’s Studies classes is made public, even the syllabi for these courses are seldom available except to students enrolled in the courses, who are forbidden from recording the lectures.
One way to document the influence of feminist ideology is by tracing the use of specific terms from the academic jargon taught in university Women’s Studies programs, which was why I was doing a Google search for a combination of terms — “rape + objectification + heteronormative” — that yielded as the top result a page from a blog created by students in “Sex and Society” (WGS 160), as taught by Professor Rebecca Chapman during the Fall 2014 semester. Posting to this blog was a mandatory requirement for students in Professor Chapman’s class:
Over the course of the semester you are required to complete a series of posts involving our course blog category: “What’s Sex Got to do with…_____?” This category is for posting images, memes, links, news items, Buzzfeed quizzes, or anything else that you feel speaks to issues related to the politics of sex, sexuality, discrimination, and/or our readings and class discussion. It could also include anything that you believe especially deserves a feminist, Marxist, social constructivist and/or queer analysis.
This requirement produced an extensive online record of what students were learning in this freshman-level course at Vanderbilt University (annual tuition $45,610), and the category of “objectification” on this student blog was what turned up as the top result in my Google search.
Any intelligent person who studies feminist theory must realize that “objectification” is simply a pejorative epithet used by feminists to stigmatize men’s normal attraction to women. This anti-male propaganda rhetoric can be traced back to the 1968 protest against the Miss America pageant, when feminists condemned pageant contestants who “epitomize the roles we are all forced to play as women,” proclaiming that “women in our society [are] forced daily to compete for male approval, enslaved by ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards we ourselves are conditioned to take seriously.” Insofar as any man admires a woman’s beauty, or otherwise feels erotic interest toward her, feminists pronounce him guilty of “objectification.” If there is any way for a heterosexual man to escape this condemnation — to find a woman attractive without “objectifying” her — no feminist has ever described it. Every way a man might express sexual interest in women is always wrong (“sexist”), according to feminism, and no woman should ever “compete for male approval.”
Professor Chapman’s success in promoting this prejudice was evident in her students’ contributions to the course blog, which reflected the assigned readings for this Women and Gender Studies class. Three textbooks were required: Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus by Kathleen A. Bogle (2008); Introducing the New Sexualities Studies, edited by Steven Seidman, Nancy Fischer, and Chet Meeks (2011); and The Social Construction of Sexuality by Steven Seidman. The prominence of Professor Seidman on this list is significant, because he is a leading proponent of Queer Theory, who has written and edited such books as Queer Theory/Sociology (1996), Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics (1997), Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies (2002, with Diane Richardson) and Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life (2004).
Queer theory “normalizes homosexuality by making heterosexuality deviant,” as Professor Arlene Stein (Rutgers University) and Professor Ken Plummer (University of Essex) explain in their contribution to the 1996 anthology Queer Theory/Sociology, edited by Professor Seidman (SUNY-Albany). This hostile view of heterosexuality as “deviant” — a social problem to be discouraged — has been enthusiastically endorsed by Women Studies professors like Mimi Marinucci (Eastern Washington University), author of Feminism Is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory (2010). Given the prominence of Professor Seidman in the field of Queer Theory, therefore, the fact that two of his books appeared on Professor Chapman’s syllabus could be considered an endorsement of this anti-heterosexual agenda, even without the testimony of her students to confirm this.
The Social Construction of Sexuality denies that there is anything natural about sexual behavior. Human beings have no biological impulses, no innate reproductive urge, no physical, psychological or emotional need for sexual intimacy, according to this theory, so that it is wrong to speak of any sexual instinct or “sex drive” in humans. All our behaviors, attitudes and preferences are “socially constructed,” according to Professor Seidman, which means that it wrong to believe men are naturally attracted to women, or vice-versa. In his book, Professor Seidman condemns any belief in heterosexual marriage as “the model or ideal of intimacy,” because this “devalues” and “stigmatizes” other “intimate choices.” Furthermore, Professor Seidman explains in Chapter 12, “privileging heterosexuality means enforcing a gender order that sustains dichotomous gender roles that constrain men . . . while systematically disadvantaging women.” So while arguing that all sexual behavior is “social constructed” (i.e., there is no natural form of sexuality), Professor Seidman insists that heterosexuality is inherently harmful because it requires “gender roles” that oppress women.
By assigning this book as required reading for her freshman-level course on “Sex and Society” at Vanderbilt, Professor Rebecca Chapman thereby offered this as the university’s official view of human sexuality. If students in WGS 160 were provided with any alternative theory — perhaps one involving chromosomes, hormones, hereditary traits, and sexual dimorphism — there is no indication of this on the syllabus. Instead, what we find is students like Takeydra Jones blaming “heteronormative logic” for rape. In support of this, Ms. Jones cites two assigned readings from Introducing the New Sexuality Studies, one by Professor Deborah Tolman (Hunter College/CUNY) and another by Professor Kristen Barber (Southern Illinois University). Ms. Jones asserts that “women are sexually objectified as props for men and their desires” and that “sex is about male dominance and female subordination.” This is very radical feminism and, considering that Ms. Jones based her argument on assigned textbook readings, we must conclude that this view is endorsed by Professor Chapman, representing ex officio the institutional authority of Vanderbilt University.
The chancellor of Vanderbilt University is Nicholas Zeppos, who is married to Lydia Howarth, with whom he has two sons. Does Chancellor Zeppos objectify his wife as a prop for his desires? Does the Vanderbilt chancellor dominate his wife, imposing “subordination” on her? Would we be “privileging heterosexuality” to speak of Nicholas Zeppos’s marriage as a “model or ideal of intimacy”? Is the chancellor of Vanderbilt, whose annual salary exceeds $2 million, “enforcing a gender order” that is “systematically disadvantaging” his wife Lydia?
Probably the chancellor and his wife would object to anyone who described their marriage this way, and yet this is what is being taught to Vanderbilt freshmen in the Women and Gender Studies program. These teenage students, whose parents are paying $45,610 a year in tuition for them to attend Vanderbilt, are being indoctrinated in an extreme version of feminist ideology that blames “heteronormativity” and “gender roles” for every evil in human society, especially including rape.
We have talked about many concepts, but the idea of heteronormativity seems to come to mind in every one of them. Our society is extremely heteronormative . . . It comes down to something so simple as stating that heterosexuality is privileged in our society. . . . [I]t is going to take a lot of time and hard work to make our society completely equal in sexual orientations.
In addition, the idea of heteronormativity completely enforces gender stereotypes in our society. Males are the dominant gender, and females are left behind them. Heterosexuality enforces this because in the relationship, males are the bread winners and are supposed to have traits like dominance, physical strength, toughness, and being emotionless. Females, on the other hand, are supposed to stay at home and take care of children, cook, and clean and have traits like care, love, emotion, and less physical strength than men. Heteronormativity enforces these stereotypes because in a heteronormative relationship, these traits and ways of life are how it’s “supposed” to be.
Here’s a simple question: Why?
It is crucial to ask why are men or women “supposed” to be certain ways? Who “enforces gender stereotypes in our society”? How and why are these stereotypical “traits” enforced by heteronormativity? Isn’t it true that men with certain traits, such as high incomes and physical strength, are considered more attractive by women? Isn’t it possible that Chancellor Zeppos’s $2 million salary might have something to do with his wife’s willingness to provide him “care, love, emotion,” etc.? While I doubt whether his physical strength or toughness has anything to do with his job at Vanderbilt, probably his wife doesn’t think of Chancellor Zeppos as a weakling. My point — in case it was not obvious — is that “heteronormativity” confers advantages on men and women who possess traits generally considered desirable by the opposite sex, so that men normally strive to be what women want men to be, and vice-versa.
This takes us back to the 1968 Miss America protest and the feminist complaint that women were “forced . . . to compete for male approval,” that women are “enslaved by ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards.” Again, why?
Why is “male approval” so necessary to women that they consider themselves “forced” to compete for it? And how do “standards” of beauty, as epitomized by Miss America contestants, “enslave” women? Oh, that’s right — “heteronormativity,” a word feminists had yet to invent in 1968, but which explains what the Miss America protest was really about: Feminists dislike the normal behavior of normal men, including the normal man’s admiration of beauty. Of course, feminists don’t complain that women have their own normal behavioral patterns of typical traits and attitudes, likes and dislikes. It never occurred to any feminist that men may consider ourselves “forced” to compete for female approval. Are men “enslaved” by the “standards” women expect us to uphold?
In fact, men devote enormous effort to winning female approval, and no feminist would ever waste time listening to any man complain that the standards by which women judge men are “ludicrous.” Why? Because women don’t care about men’s feelings. Period. End of sentence.
The student who says it is a “gender stereotype” of “heteronormativity” for men to be “emotionless” fails to ask the crucial question: Why?
It is not a “stereotype,” but quite rational, to expect that men will strive to affect a pose of imperturbable calm — cheerful, sanguine confidence — if these are traits which women generally admire in men.
One notices, for example, how feminists viciously mock advocates of “men’s rights.” Why? Because they regard these men as whiny losers, which is how all women view any man who complains about his life.
Women only admire men who succeed — winners — and if a man loses, he is expected to accept defeat with stoic silence. Women have zero sympathy for any man who loses a competition, and certainly no woman respects a man who complains that the competition was unfair.
Anyone who carefully observes human behavior understands this, and if men seem “emotionless,” we should not be surprised. Therefore, no matter how badly a man might get screwed over in a divorce settlement, he is expected to laugh this off — c’est la vie! c’est l’amour! — rather than to complain that the judge was biased against him. However cruel, selfish and vindictive his ex-wife might be, the divorced man is expected to accept his fate placidly, to “take it like a man” and never complain.
Life is simply not fair. Adults have a responsibility not only to accept the inevitable unfairness of life, but also to teach young people how to cope with the harsh realities of human existence in an unfair world.
Complaining about “heteronormativity” is the ultimate in useless whining, because (a) heterosexuality is and must always be normal, and (b) anyone who doesn’t understand this needs to re-take Biology 101.
It is only the extraordinary affluence that industrial capitalism produces, and the taxpayer-supported welfare programs that our astonishing prosperity makes possible, that permit anyone to imagine that our society could survive without “gender roles,” “heteronormativity,” etc. And we find that such fanciful beliefs are associated with cultural decadence — declines in religious belief and patriotism, rising rates of divorce, crime, suicide, and drug addiction. Birth rates in the United States are at an all-time low, and sexually transmitted diseases are at an all-time high. Prostitution and pornography are rampant. Heroin overdoses are a more common cause of death in many states than automobile accidents. Our borders are being overrun by an endless invasion of illegal immigrants. We have seen a surge of race riots from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore to Charlotte. Police are targeted for assassination, and we have been repeatedly attacked by Islamic terrorists. American civilization is collapsing into anarchy, and what are students paying $45,610 a year to learn at Vanderbilt University? The evils of “heteronormativity” and “gender roles,” in classrooms where the textbooks are written by advocates of Queer Theory.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Life at Vanderbilt University is a cultural center and a place of affirmation for individuals of all identities, and a resource for information and support about gender and sexuality. LGBTQI Life serves all members of the Vanderbilt community — students, faculty, staff, and alumni — by creating educational, cultural, and social opportunities. The office also supports and advises LGBTQI-related campus groups and activities.
How many LGBTQI students are there at Vanderbilt? There are fewer than 7,000 undergraduates at Vandy and, while they might enroll an unusually large number of sexual deviants, do they really need an office with four staffers to provide “information and support” to these weirdos? How much money does Vanderbilt spend on its LGBTQI support program? How much does the university spend on the Women’s and Gender Studies department? And what do they spend on football? In case you haven’t noticed, the Commodores are one of the worst teams in the Southeastern Conference, and are currently fifth place in the SEC East. Are Vanderbilt football players enrolled in WGS 160? Are they being taught not to exhibit “traits like dominance, physical strength, toughness,” and is that why they’ve only won three games this season?
Pardon me for suggesting that Vanderbilt might win more games if they started enforcing heteronormative gender roles, but when Vandy students talk about “reclaiming the F word,” it’s obviously not football.
Posted on | October 21, 2016 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Ben Stein Laments The Decline And Fall Of America
Twitchy: Is James O’Keefe Suggesting His Life’s In Danger?
Louder With Crowder: Episode #96 – The Election Is RIGGED With Colion Noir And Ben Shapiro
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #23 – The Frame Episode
American Power: Great Robert Costa Piece On The Crumbling Of The GOP
American Thinker: The Elites And Open Borders
Animal Magnetism: Rule 5 Electoral Map Friday
Da Tech Guy: Liberal Cause And Effect, Austin Edition
Don Surber: Forecast That Got Every Election Since 1912 Right Says Trump Wins Big
Dustbury: Deck Chairs Unmoved
Jammie Wearing Fools: Huma Was Concerned About Hillary’s $12 Million Solicitation From Morocco – “She Created This Mess And She Knows It”
Joe For America: Chelsea Clinton’s Black Half-Brother Files Lawsuit For Paternity Test
JustOneMinute: WTF? The Times Engages With Reality On Guns
Pamela Geller: Wikileaks – Hillary Took Algeria Off Terror Watch List After Donation To Clinton Foundation
Power Line: Clinton Security Detail Also Considered Hillary A Nasty Woman
Shark Tank: Trump’s “Bad Hombres” Remark Allows ESOL Hacks To Beclown Themselves
Shot In The Dark: The Self-Trolling Minority
The Jawa Report: This. Is. Sharia. Malaysia Bans Hot Dogs
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Gets Something Right – Obamacare Is Like Those Samsung Phones That Catch Fire
The Political Hat: The Country Where Offensive #Hashtags Are Considered Worse Than The Sexualization of Children
This Ain’t Hell: The Ongoing Legal Battles With Dan Bernath
Weasel Zippers: Woman Mistakes Town Hall For Trump Rally, Smears Thirty Cars With Peanut Butter, also, MSNBC Points Out That Democrats Have Been Saying elections Are Rigged For Years
Mark Steyn: Laws Are For The Little People
Posted on | October 20, 2016 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Who Won Debate Number Three?
Twitchy: There’s More? Wikileaks Teases “Surprise” For Tim Kaine And Donna Brazile
Louder With Crowder: Guilty Much? Hillary Ditches Interview When Asked About Voter Fraud Videos
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: You Import Africans, You’ll Get Africa
American Power: Book Review – Nancy Isenberg’s White Trash
American Thinker: Hillary Clinton, America’s Most Dangerous Enemy Within
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Rule Five Debate Recap News
Da Tech Guy: JD Rucker – On Issues, This Was Trump’s Debate, But You Won’t Hear Much About Those
Don Surber: What Comes After Newspapers Is Worse
Dustbury: Poor, Poor Pitiful She
Fred On Everything: Ronald McDonald Or Lucretia Borgia? In The End, We’re All Dead
Jammie Wearing Fools: Megyn Kelly Absolutely Destroys Laothsome DNC Hack Donna Brazile In Post-Debate Interview
Joe For America: Student Takes Shocking Hidden Video Of Teacher Lecturing “All Whites Are Racist”
JustOneMinute: Trump Won’t Accept Election Result, Yet
Pamela Geller: Minneapolis Muslims Riot, Stone Police In Rage Over HBO Series On Jihad Recruitment
Power Line: Republicans Should Not “Accept” Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court Nominees
Shark Tank: Trump Tells Clinton To Return Money To Arab Countries That Abuse Women
Shot In The Dark: If You Have Ice Cream, I Shall Give You More; If You Have None, I Shall Take It Away
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – This Isn’t The Rigged Election We’re Looking For
The Lonely Conservative: It Is What It Is
The Political Hat:
The Quinton Report:
This Ain’t Hell: Hippies Try To Bomb Colorado Police Station, also, Noose Tightens On ISIS In Mosul
Weasel Zippers: Wikileaks Releases First Batch Of Obama E-Mails From Secret Address, also, Elections Expert Says There’s Four Million Dead, Ineligible Voters On American Voter Rolls
Megan McArdle: How The Right Changed Its Mind On Prison
Mark Steyn: Complications And Curating
Posted on | October 20, 2016 | 2 Comments
Third-Wave feminism’s rhetoric of sexual “empowerment,” and the feminist crusade against “slut-shaming,” have incited reckless promiscuity, the results of which could have been easily predicted:
More cases of sexually transmitted diseases were reported last year than ever before, federal officials said Wednesday — just as state and local health departments that could help fight them lose funding.
More than 1.5 million people were reported with chlamydia, the most common sexually transmitted disease (STD), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
The CDC recorded nearly 400,000 cases of gonorrhea and nearly 24,000 cases of syphilis.
“The STD epidemic is getting worse in the United States and, in fact, is at its highest levels yet,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. . . .
The new numbers translate to a 19 percent increase in syphilis cases, a 13 percent rise in gonorrhea and a 6 percent increase in chlamydia, Mermin said. . . .
Gay and bisexual men account for many of the new cases, and the biggest numbers are among young adults, especially those in their late teens and early 20s. “Half of all STDs occur in youth under age 20,” Mermin said.
Young people, members of racial minorities and men who have sex with other men are at most risk of getting an S.T.D.
Chlamydia rates are highest among 15-to 24-year-olds, who accounted for nearly two-thirds of diagnoses last year, and among blacks. While chlamydia disproportionately affects women, the rate of reported cases among men grew more sharply last year. Over all, the rate of reported cases grew by 5.9 percent. . . .
Most of the new gonorrhea and syphilis cases were among gay men, although rates are climbing for women, too. Public health officials are worried that gonorrhea is becoming resistant to the some of the last antibiotics capable of treating it. Although gonorrhea rates are highest among blacks, they have jumped over the last few years among whites and other ethnic groups.
Syphilis rates increased among men and women in every region of the country. Most cases were among men who have sex with men. But the rate of syphilis diagnosis among women grew by 27 percent, and the rate of congenital syphilis, passed from pregnant women to their babies, by 6 percent.
— Dr. Jono Mermin (@DrMerminCDC) October 20, 2016
— Dr. Jono Mermin (@DrMerminCDC) October 20, 2016
The differentials in STD infection rates between groups is astonishing. For example, the chlamydia infection rate for women (645.5 per 100,000) is 111% higher than for men (305.2). Black women have a rate of 1,384.8, which is 439% higher than white women (256.7), while the rate among black men (782.0) is 578% higher than among white men (115.4).
Why do I blame feminism for this? Well, (a) because feminists are pro-promiscuity and anti-morality, but also (b) why not? Feminists blame the patriarchy for everything, so I’ll gladly return the favor. However, there are very real connections between feminism’s “success” and this raging epidemic of disease. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, which involves attacking Christianity and the marriage-based traditional family. By deliberately sabotaging morality, feminism corrupts the values of young people, thus promoting every imaginable kind of godless decadence. Feminists like Ella Dawson want to end the “stigma” of herpes, while doing nothing to prevent herpes, because it’s “empowering” to get infected with an incurable virus.
— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 20, 2016
No amount of money that taxpayers spend for “public health” efforts can reduce this epidemic if the privilege elite of society — like Ella Dawson, who majored in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at prestigious Wesleyan University (annual tuition $50,612) — are corrupt degenerates who encourage young people to imitate their vile perversions.
Posted on | October 20, 2016 | No Comments
“She had been subjected to brutal, inhumane sexual abuse. The girl was impaled and this was the cause of her death.”
— Maria Isabel Sanchez, prosecutor
This headline at Memeorandum caught my eye Wednesday:
A brief summary from New York magazine:
The so-called “women’s strike” — also known as Black Wednesday — is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of women in Argentina . . . “In your office, school, hospital, law court, newsroom, shop, factory, or wherever you are working, stop for an hour to demand ‘no more machista violence,’” the strike’s organizers wrote.
The strike was organized after Lucía Pérez was drugged, raped, and tortured earlier in October in Mar del Plata, Argentina. . . . Three people have already been arrested in the case, and Pérez’s family has been receiving death threats.
Crimes against women in Argentina have increased 78 percent since 2008, according to government statistics. The attack against Pérez was just one of the latest instances of “femicide” in the country.
From the progressive site Common Dreams:
Since 2008, according to NGOs, 1,808 women have been violently killed in the country. Indeed, an additional three Argentinian women were killed just last week.
Wednesday’s action . . . is in response to that violence and what one author described as “a boundless abandonment” of Argentinian women by the state.
The adjective machista is obviously derived from macho, and in this context could be considered synonymous with “sexist” or “misogynist.” You might conclude, from this rhetoric, that the increasing violence against women in Argentina is some sort of anti-feminist backlash, and that Lucia Perez’s death was typical of this social problem.
Well, facts matter.
We have seen how “Black Lives Matter” protesters here in America have reacted to incidents like the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, fomenting racial violence on the basis of distorted accounts, exploiting hatred and ignorance to promote a divisive political agenda. And so I am concerned by how this crime — the murder of a 16-year-old girl — apparently is being exploited by feminists in Argentina.
Facts matter, and the facts about the death of Lucia Perez may contain valuable lessons, but an indictment of machismo is not one of them.
The story of Lucia Perez is the tale of a teenage girl who wanted drugs, and met a drug dealer who was — surprise! — a dangerous monster. Piecing together the full story of Lucia Perez’s death required me to read multiple stories in the Argentine press, read with Google Translate, which made for some difficulties, but what happened is this:
Lucia wanted marijuana, and a friend from school — a girl a year older — introduced her to Gabriel Matias Farias, 23, alias “Scar.” Farias is a small package of pure evil — 5-foot-3 and 130 pounds, with a criminal record that includes robbery, illegal weapons and drug possession. Four years ago, Faria was accused of being involved in “the rape of a child under 9 years,” but for some reason was released by police. Faria’s Facebook page featured multiple photos of drugs and weapons, and a photo of a tattoo on his back of Santa Muerte (“Saint Death”), an occult symbol.
This was the dangerous criminal to whom Lucia Perez was introduced by her 17-year-old friend, a school classmate named Bethlehem whom some Argentine press accounts have called the entregadora (“delivery girl”) in Perez’s death. After meeting with Faria and getting one joint on Friday, Oct. 7, Perez then evidently arranged another meeting the next day. Her mother is a nurse, who was at work that Saturday, and her father, a mechanic, left for his job about 10 a.m. When Lucia’s mother came home about 3 p.m., she found Lucia gone, but her laptop computer was sitting open, as if the girl had intended to return shortly. What had happened, however, was that when Lucia went to meet Farias again, he had a friend with him — Juan Pablo Offidani, 43, known as “Chinchilla.”
Offidani is a cocaine addict who has been in and out of rehab over the years. His father Eduardo is an escribania (“scribe” or “clerk”), which is sort of like a notary public. Being a successful escribania, the elder Offidani had apparently been supporting his drug-addict son for many years, buying him a house where he lived with his Brazilian girlfriend. However, the Offidani family had recently stopped giving money to Juan Pablo, who was dealing drugs with Faria. On that Saturday, Oct. 8, when Lucia Perez went to meet Faria again, Offidani was with him.
The two drug dealers were driving a van, Lucia got in their vehicle to make the drug transaction, and was kidnapped. A few hours later, she was dropped off at a local health clinic, where at first it was believed she was suffering a drug overdose. Instead, it turned out Lucia had suffered fatal internal injuries as a result of a brutal gang rape during which prosecutors say she was “impaled” with an unknown foreign object.
What does this crime tell us about machismo? Nothing.
Instead, what this story suggests is that law enforcement agencies in Argentina need to get serious about the drug problem in their country. It suggests that parents of teenagers — not just in Argentina, but everywhere — need to warn their kids not to be deceived by the glamorous “Bad Boy” image that drug dealers cultivate.
Evil exists in the world, and so does death — “the Cult of Santa Muerte has found particular popularity among fringe groups: the LGBT community, sex workers, the drug cartels, even young millennials.” Was it just a coincidence that Lucia Perez’s killer celebrated this death cult?
We are living in an evil age, and no one is safe from this evil. Turning the death of Lucia Perez into a political cause — “Basta de violencia machista” — is not merely misleading, it is dishonest. Facts matter. Truth is powerful, and you cannot defeat evil until you start telling the truth.
« go back — keep looking »