Posted on | February 23, 2015 | 100 Comments
Here is some wisdom worth capturing (emphasis mine):
Battered by the religious wars of the Reformation, making adjustments to a global economy and multi-cultured nations, the West has slowly become diffident in defense of its central faith. And there is some wisdom in that. Christianity is a religion, to paraphrase St. Paul, that frees us for freedom, and faith in Christ must be chosen freely to be fully realized. But to move from that position — which calls for intellectual rigor, unfettered debate and honest proselytism — to indiscriminate acceptance of all creeds as equally worthwhile is an error that does the world more harm than good.
Whenever I hear someone announce that “All religions are a path to God!” I wonder how it would work if you applied such “tolerance” to, say, medicine or science. “All medicines are a path to health! You take antibiotics, I cut the head off a chicken and dance under the full moon, really what’s the difference as long as we both believe it will make us well?” Or “All science is a path to progress! You invent an iPhone, I invent a weaponized disease, it’s all science, man, it’s all great!”
When you put it this way, it becomes clear that the idea that all religions are equally worthwhile is essentially an atheist creed. To say All religions are a path to God is really saying, No religion is a path to God. There is no God, so what difference does your religion make? When something is true, when it is factual, when it is real, it excludes other options. The world can’t be both flat and round. When you accept the roundness of it, you can no longer entertain its flatness. It’s one or the other.
If God is the Christian God of love, he is not the Allah of Isis.
Indeed, there is one true North, and doing rudderless doughnuts, while passing occasionally through the only valid course, is foolishness.
Posted on | February 23, 2015 | 64 Comments
Laura Bates is a childless 28-year-old feminist who bemoans the “gender-based assumptions about girls” in society:
We must protect young girls
from sexism in primary school
. . . How often do we heedlessly shower little girls with platitudes about prettiness and looks, or comment on how “big and strong” their brothers are growing? We hear comments about the sweetness and politeness of daughters, while sons are proudly described as boisterous, instead.
It is always interesting to me when feminists demand that we must emulate their failure. Nobody wants to marry Laura Bates and she has no children of her own, yet she considers herself qualified to tell the rest of us how to raise our children. Like all feminists, she assumes that normal gender roles are incompatible with women’s success or happiness. In order for women to be “equal,” feminists tell us, our society and culture must promote androgyny, so we are condemned for encouraging “sexism” if we praise girls for being pretty or describe boys as boisterous.
“Feminists have declared war on human nature,” and wish to destroy the marriage-based family, which is the basis of human civilization. Therefore, normal parents must be condemned as “sexist” if they try to raise normal children who will be successful in attracting a spouse, maintaining a marriage and raising a family. Normal parents are “sexist” for understanding that normal sex traits — the femininity of women and the masculinity of men — are attractive to normal people. Insofar as we wish our children to be normal and happy, we do encourage them in these “gender-based assumptions,” which are both natural and necessary to success in normal life.
We have met Laura Bates before, when she claimed “Women are being assaulted, abused and murdered in a sea of misogyny.” She is a failed actress, who graduated from elite Cambridge University in 2007 and launched her site Everyday Sexism in 2012. Unhappy women embrace feminism because it tells them that their unhappiness is not their own fault. Instead, feminists believe they are victims of male supremacy — externalizing responsibility by scapegoating men — and they wage war on human nature in order to destroy the system of “patriarchy” that these unhappy women blame for their own misfortunes.
“If you would be loved, love, and be lovable.”
— Benjamin Franklin
This is the problem that feminism can never solve, because feminists refuse to accept responsibility for their own unhappiness. Bitterness and envy are not attractive qualities. Feminists are not loved because they are not lovable. They make their own selfishness the basis of a political movement and, when this produces a negative reaction, they claim that this confirms that their analysis is correct: “Men hate me because I’m a feminist, and therefore more feminism is necessary!”
The circularity of this solipsistic theory never seems apparent to them. Nor do they ever seem to notice that other women succeed and achieve happiness within the “gender-based assumptions” that feminists blame for their own failure and unhappiness. These failed women presume their superiority qualifies them to tell the rest of us how to raise our children, and they want to teach this in schools:
Dreams of Feminist Education
Tadashi Dozono, Ileana Jiménez, Cheyenne Tobias
Two teachers of color, both feminist and queer, will share their dreams for feminist education in schools. Moving from theory to action, Ileana and Tadashi work alongside their students using various feminisms such as women of color feminism, global feminism, trans-feminism and queer theory. Their pedagogical practices incorporate restorative and social justice, inspiring innovative curricula that are intersectional and interdisciplinary. In collaboration with Cheyenne Tobias, feminist artist and Ileana’s former student, Tadashi and Ileana will bring us on a visual journey through two different school contexts via the successes they’ve had and the challenges they face in bringing a feminist vision to their respective classrooms. Calling us to action through their own personal storytelling, Ileana and Tadashi will urge us to consider the role of feminism in schools and the role that schools play in feminism.
Lesbians earn 20% more than heterosexual women in the U.S., which proves women are oppressed by heteronormative patriarchy!
Of course, if you’re a feminist, everything proves that women are oppressed by heteronormative patriarchy.
Posted on | February 21, 2015 | 2 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Top linkers this week:
- That Mr. G Guy (16)
- Batshit Crazy News (15)
- Regular Right Guy (6)
Thanks to the Watchers’ Council for voting Smitty’s “Tea Party & GOP Elite Walk Into A Bar…” into a tie for fourth with former Ambassador Khalilzad and Zenpundit among non-council nominated posts this week! Also, thanks to everyone for their linkagery!
Posted on | February 21, 2015 | 27 Comments
Supporters of the Islamic State have taken to Twitter to mock claims the terrorist organisation is luring women into its fold using kittens and Nutella.
The original claim was made by CNN’s Newsroom anchor Carol Costello on Wednesday during a piece on how ISIS twists and manipulates its image to present living in the vast swathes of Syria and Iraq currently under the group’s control as being a pleasant experience.
The accusation was that women are falling for ISIS’ use of images and videos of cute cats to make the Sunni extremists appear less intimidating, and have been duped into thinking life under the terror is similar to the West thanks to references to eating Nutella in emoji-strewn Twitter posts.
“ISIS is talking online about jars of Nutella, pictures of kittens and emojis. These three images are, in part, helping ISIS recruiters lure Westerners into their fight because they want people to believe their life on the battlefield isn’t so different than yours.”
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 21, 2015
Posted on | February 21, 2015 | 76 Comments
After years of struggle, the Rainbow Alphabet — LGBT — has been extended to maximum inclusivity at Wesleyan University:
Open House is a safe space for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Flexual, Asexual, Genderf–k, Polyamourous, Bondage/Disciple, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism (LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM) communities and for people of sexually or gender dissident communities. The goals of Open House include generating interest in a celebration of queer life from the social to the political to the academic. Open House works to create a Wesleyan community that appreciates the variety and vivacity of gender, sex and sexuality.
(Hat-tip: Ryan Anderson on Twitter.) Thus do we continue the descent down the slippery slope that William F. Buckley Jr. first noted in 1951’s God and Man at Yale. In case anyone has forgotten, Buckley’s main point was that Yale had been founded as an explicitly Christian institution and yet, by the middle of the 20th century, harbored many faculty who expounded explicitly anti-Christian doctrines. This lapse into religious heterodoxy, Buckley noted, was accompanied by a tendency to accept or promote philosophical collectivism and hostility toward capitalism. Here we are now, six decades later and Wesleyan University (deriving its name from a famous Christian evangelist) is promoting the very utmost in sexual perversity in all its “variety and vivacity.”
Annual tuition at Wesleyan is $47,972, which is certainly more than the rent of a cheap apartment in San Francisco’s Castro district, where a similar education in LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM might be gained.
Posted on | February 21, 2015 | 67 Comments
Caitlin Stasey, second from right, as a child star in ‘The Sleepover Club’
Caitlin Stasey (@caitlinstasey) is a former child star who has gotten widespread attention for her feminist website Herself.com.
In her own profile at the site, Ms. Stasey described having “vivid dreams about other women” as an adolescent, “masturbating in secret,” saying she has “known I was mostly gay ever since I can remember” and calls herself a lesbian, even though she currently has “a male partner,” another former child star named Lucas Neff.
Given the high-profile problems of so many former child performers — including Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes — it is certainly reasonable to wonder if these psychiatric disorders are actually caused by such abnormal childhood experiences of “growing up in the spotlight.” On the other hand, it might just be that we notice these meltdowns more than we do the struggles of other young people. If I had been a teenage celebrity? The tabloids would have had a field day with my adolescent “struggles” (although I don’t think diving headfirst into trouble could be considered “struggling”). A couple of weeks ago, I addressed the problems Ms. Stasey described:
Growing up in a sex-obsessed society seems to be a profoundly frightening experience for many girls nowadays. The decline of marriage and the destruction of moral norms are part of a cultural syndrome that produces what I have called “a sort of social epidemic of bipolar hysteria, in which minds unmoored from cultural tradition constantly shift between utter confusion and radical certainty.”
In terms of documenting this cultural syndrome, Ms. Casey’s website has continued (however accidentally) to do interesting work. Her declared purpose is to advance a feminist agenda, but if you have any knowledge of psychology, it’s just as easy to see feminism as part of the problem described by the women profiled at Herself.com. Here are quotes from two recent interviews at the site:
“I started masturbating at quite a young age but never really understood what was going on . . . Having issues with mental health, I’ve very much struggled with the importance of emotions and feelings. Having Borderline Personality Disorder often equates you with being ‘bad’ in the eyes of health professionals, and it is most commonly diagnosed in women, so understanding that my feelings are valid is a bit of a challenge. . . . Being sexually fluid and more interested in girls, I didn’t learn anything at all about that, and am still figuring it out.”
— LJ, Australia
“I suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder with Major Depression, suicidality, self harm and a fairly antisocial outlook. . . . My mother caught me masturbating when I was around seven years old . . . but I knew that I wasn’t going to stop, just be more clever about where and when I’d do it! . . . Sex used to literally run my life. I was insatiable, constantly seeking the ultimate in sexual experiences. Much of it was very cerebral in nature, involving role play and complex set ups with bondage and corporal punishment.”
— Laura, Canada
What are the odds that, of the first 12 women interviewed by Herself.com, two would be diagnosed with the same mental illness, and that both of them would describe early experiences with masturbation as formative in the development of their sexuality? Is this coincidental or has Caitlin Stasey accidentally stumbled onto a pattern, a psychological syndrome, which might be worth studying from a mental health perspective, if only we could get feminists to stop hectoring us with ideological rants about how women are being victimized by heteronormative patriarchy?
“The personal is political,” feminists have been telling us for decades, but politics is a poor substitute for psychiatric therapy.
Dear Crazy People: You have a right to be crazy. You do not have a right to force the rest of us to pretend that you're sane.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 19, 2015
UPDATE: Really, you need to read this interview with Caitlin Stasey:
In high school, when boys started to sleep with other girls, these girls’ burgeoning sexuality wasn’t an exciting thing to be explored. It was a shameful secret you lie to people about because people would make fun of you. They would verbally abuse you for it. The men you chose to share this thing with would tell all of their friends and then their friends would treat you like sh*t. It became a really toxic environment and I just didn’t like the way it was heading. I wish I’d had the tools by then to equip myself against those insults and arguments. I didn’t know what to do. It just really hurt.
So I became a feminist, really, out of a desire to not feel sh*tty about myself. Also because I’ve been sexually attracted to women for as long as I’ve known. Growing up in a Catholic education system and going to an all-girls Catholic school at one point, I felt like I was sick. Like there was something wrong with me. None of the girls in my circle reflected that back to me. It was always like, if someone came out as a lesbian, they became the object of ridicule. I hated it. . . .
I had no point of reference… nothing I was watching looked like anything I recognized within myself. There were never any young women or young boys falling in love with each other or anything other than heteronormative relationships, really.
You can read the whole thing, but what I see is a young woman who grew up extremely self-conscious, fearful of men and normal sexuality, trapped by feelings of shame about her female body. These are very common problems you see manifested in the rhetoric of feminists, but the problems they describe are not actually political. You can’t organize a political movement based on “Boys Were Mean to Me in High School” and expect to be taken seriously. Yet this is what feminists have done, and Ms. Stasey’s effort to stigmatize normal sexuality — because she was oppressed by the depiction of “heternormative relationships” in media — is exactly what you would expect when crazy people obtain an ideological platform from which to dictate their own agenda to the rest of us.
UPDATE II: Some things are predictable.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 21, 2015
Anyone could have predicted this endgame as early as 1970.
Posted on | February 20, 2015 | 66 Comments
The “rape culture” hysteria hyped by feminist fanatics keeps producing new atrocities at elite universities. I was frankly shocked when I learned the truth about Emma Sulkowicz’s vendetta against Paul Nungesser at Columbia. She accused him of rape six months after their last hook-up, without a scintilla of evidence, and when the university refused to expel Nungesser on her mere say-so, Sulkowicz then turned her accusation into a protest for which she received class credit.
This is part of a climate of fear fostered by feminists who have deliberately exaggerated the frequency of rape on campus using statistics derived from surveys of dubious methodology which, if taken at face value, would lead us to believe that male college students are more likely to commit rape than are other men. In other words, feminists are suggesting that the “best and brightest” males at elite schools are more dangerous than any common street thug.
Under pressure from the federal Department of Education, schools are moving to abolish due-process protections for accused students. The University of Pennsylvania’s new policy is under fire:
Law professors at the University of Pennsylvania are not happy about the university’s new sexual assault policies, which they say undermine due process.
Nearly one-third (16 out of 49 tenure or tenure-track professors) signed a letter to school administrators denouncing the new policy, which institutionalizes the low “preponderance of evidence” standard for sexual assault allegations and disallows cross-examination of the accuser.
“Due process of law is not window dressing; it is the distillation of centuries of experience, and we ignore the lessons of history at our own peril,” the faculty members wrote. “All too often, outrage at heinous crimes becomes a justification for shortcuts in our adjudicatory processes. These actions are unwise and contradict our principles.” . .
The new UPenn policy, unlike many universities across the country, does allow students to obtain legal counsel, although the lawyers cannot speak on their client’s behalf. The policy also prohibits cross-examination of accusers and their witnesses, one of the biggest biases against accused students.
The professors argue that threats from the federal government to curb funding if schools don’t adequately punish accused students provides quite an incentive for hearing panels to find students guilty. Recent findings from the Department of Education show an administration more concerned with looking tough on sexual assault than a fair hearing.
“Sexual assault is indeed an important problem, but the federal government has dictated a set of policies and twisted universities’ arms into compromising some of the safeguards that we teach our students are essential to fairness,” UPenn professor Stephanos Bibas, who signed the letter, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “There is a tremendous amount of money on the line. It is understandable that universities feel pressure to comply.”
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Will freshman orientation now include a Miranda warning? It should. The Sulkowicz Scenario — a vindictive ex-girlfriend making a rape accusation without evidence — is a nightmare that is likely to become more common before the current witch-hunt subsides. Accused students should remember they have the right to remain silent. Don’t try to talk your way out of it. Admit nothing. Deny nothing. Make no statement of any kind. Lawyer up immediately: “I have the right to have my attorney present during questioning.” And once you’ve vindicated yourself, sue the hell out of the university for violating your civil rights with their Stalinist “show trial” disciplinary procedures.
Posted on | February 20, 2015 | 77 Comments
Two afternoon shows on MSNBC — Joy Reid at 1 p.m. ET and Ronan Farrow at 2 p.m. — were cancelled yesterday, and it looks like Chris Hayes will be the network’s next “star” to get the ax:
In the relatively near term, two well-placed sources predicted to The Daily Beast, Chris Hayes will be relieved of his weak-performing 8 p.m. show All In, to be replaced by the current 9 p.m. host of The Rachel Maddow Show, while a talent search is underway to fill the prime-time slot to be vacated by Maddow.
That phrase “talent search” stuck out, like MSNBC president Phil Griffin is running a cable-news American Idol, with would-be anchors auditioning for their place in the lineup. In other words, Griffin seems to have the idea that on-air “talent” is the basic problem at his network, rather than the deliberate narrowness of its niche marketing strategy. If you’re a politics junkie who wants to see 24/7 TV coverage produced from the left-wing perspective of Daily Kos/Mother Jones/Talking Points Memo, then MSNBC is your network, regardless of the talking-head “talent” in front of the cameras. Unfortunately for Phil Griffin, that audience seems to max out at less than 800,000 (Rachel Maddow’s audience Wednesday was 774,000) and most of those viewers only watch a couple hours of programming daily.
No “talent search” can ever overcome that basic problem. Maybe you could bring back Keith Olbermann, but that’s it.
« go back — keep looking »