The Other McCain

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

“Open Up Your Hate And Let It Flow Into Me”

Posted on | March 25, 2016 | 12 Comments

— by Wombat-socho

Or, Not Long Before The End

With a little more than a week to go before MidAmericon II closes up nominations for the Hugo, both the Kindly Ones in charge of running Sad Puppies 4 and Our Supreme Dark Lord have prepared lists for your consideration. Predictably, there’s been a rush of authors and editors pleading to be removed from the Sad Puppies List, and these have been rewarded with assterisks for their pains; as for Vox, he has already promised to turn a deaf ear to such pleas. His press release regarding the Rabid Puppies list is here, for your amusement. Also, professional Grauniad wanker and P-List author Damien Walters horked up some nonsense about John Wright’s career being over after Sasquan peed itself and No Awarded all the categories Mr. Wright was nominated in last year. The International Lord of Hate deals with this in his inimitable manner.

You would think that dystopias featuring the Global Caliphate would be a dime a dozen these days, much like tales about the world after the Nazis won World War II, but I can literally count on one hand the number of books set in that future: Tom Kratman’s Caliphate, of course, and Robert Ferrigno’s Prayers For The Assassin, but Kerry Nietz’ A Star Curiously Singing didn’t attract my notice until fairly recently. In some ways, Nietz’ book shows a worse future than the others, because in this one, the Muslims have won, and extirpated all other religions while imposing a high-tech panopticon state supported by kaffir debuggers with brain implants that strongly discourage disobedience. Sandfly is one of the best debuggers, and when he’s called into orbit to troubleshoot the Caliphate’s returned starship, he has no clue that what he discovers may be the greatest threat the Caliphate has ever faced. This is a nice little high-tech mystery, and I liked it well enough that I’m looking at picking up the rest of the trilogy. The first book is free, and highly recommended.

As previously mentioned here, Castalia House is republishing Jerry Pournelle’s There Will Be War Cold War combat SF anthology series, and I recently picked up Volume IX, originally titled After Armageddon. Most of the stories are set in California, or at least what used to be California, except for a grim tale by the late John Brunner and Don Hawthorne’s “The Contract”, where a train full of renegade Soviet Army engineers tries to patch things back together in Russia after the Gas Bug has eaten our civilization. This, and Pournelle’s own “Kenyons To The Keep!” deserve sequels, but I suppose at this point we’re not likely to see them. Also, Macaulay’s “Horatius At The Bridge” and a tale by Leslie Fish that reads like something straight out of a Fallout game. Recommended.

I have been re-reading John Ringo’s “Paladin of Shadows” series, which begins with Ghost, and my opinion on it hasn’t changed. Aside from the occasional BDSM scene and the concentration on what happens at the sharp end, these are pretty decent technothrillers a la Clancy, but with a lot less infodumping and high-level political stuff. I especially like the subplots having to do with the culture of the Keldara, which is gradually being revealed from novel to novel like peeling an onion. Hopefully once John is done fooling around in other authors’ universes, he can come back and dash off another novel in this series, his muse permitting.

In The Mailbox: 03.24.16

Posted on | March 24, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 03.24.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Apologies for the lack of posts these last few days; have not been 100% but am better now.

EBL: Ted Cruz Has A Gift
Da Tech Guy: Geert Wilders On Trial in the Netherlands While Jihadis Attack Brussels
The Political Hat: The Economic Racket – Screwing Over Western Civilization, Its Citizens, and Foreigners All At Once!
Michelle Malkin: Flashback Video – Michelle and Mark Steyn Discuss Europe, Islam, andAmerica Alone
Twitchy: Ben Carson’s Call For “Civility” Rings Hollow
Shark Tank: Cruz Surging Nationwide, Trails Trump By Only Three Points

American Power: Trump Calls For Temporary Ban On Muslim Immigration
American Thinker: Why Trump Is Afraid Of “Crazy” Megyn Kelly
BLACKFIVE: Author Interview – Jennifer Robson
Conservatives4Palin: Tomi Lahren – Barack Obama Shrugs Off Another Terror Attack
Don Surber: Rush – “These Are Not Protests. These Are Provocations And Riots In Waiting.”
Jammie Wearing Fools: Terrorsymps From CAIR Brace For Nonexistent “Wave Of Islamophobia”
Joe For America: Islamic Mayor of Rotterdam Tells Refujihadis To “F*ck Off”
JustOneMinute: This Is Why We Have A Federal System
Pamela Geller: Muslima Rips Apart, Hides Israeli Flag At Brussels Memorial Site
Protein Wisdom: You Belong To The Government, And It Really Really Loves You
Shot In The Dark: Everything You Need To Know About Heather Martens, “Everytown”, And Moms Want Action
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – On Spiking
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Fire! It’s Hot!
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Says We’ll Defeat ISIS By Going To Baseball Games, Then Pushes Climate Change Agenda
This Ain’t Hell: Professor Heidi Czierwicz Calls 911 On ROTC Drills
Weasel Zippers: Pepsi, VISA, Chevron Exempt From HHS Contraception Mandate, But Not The Little Sisters Of The Poor
Megan McArdle: Free Markets Aren’t Free. Who Pays The Price?
Mark Steyn: The One-Stop Shop For All Your Terror-Sentimentalizing Needs

Shop Amazon – Prime members save 20% off pre-order and newly released games
Fallout 4 – Just $39.99

Gnostic Feminism

Posted on | March 24, 2016 | 15 Comments

In a post Sunday (“Feminist Tumblr: ‘Broken People’ and the Tragedy of the Darwinian Dead End”), I made reference to how “an evil idea has flourished in our time . . . latter-day gnosticism,” remarking: “When theologian Peter Jones wrote, ‘Gnosticism and feminism are a match made in heaven,’ he was only half-right — this ‘match’ was made in Hell.” People are free to scoff at such warnings, but even if you are not a Christian, it is impossible to ignore the similarities between feminism’s cult ideology and the gnostic heresy. Permit me to quote from Peter Jones’ 1997 book, Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America:

Do you want to capture a civilization? Change perceptions of sexuality. . . . Sexuality keeps a civilization functioning. . . .
“We are doomed as a species and a planet,” prophesies a religious feminist, “unless we have a radical change of consciousness.” . . .
It is little wonder that a leading voice in the contemporary deconstruction of Western Christendom was the French homosexual, Michel Foucault. Foucault sought to deconstruct the value system of heterosexuality by arguing that truth is only power and that heterosexual values are a power-play of the majority imposed upon the homosexual minority. . . .
In the Gnostic texts found at Nag Hammadi, the dominant theme is asceticism, the refusal of all sexuality. . . . This has the appearance of Christian holiness, and appealed to Christians living in the dissolute Greco-Roman pagan world.

Rather than to quote further (those excerpts are from Chapter 12 of Jones’ book), I will cut to the chase, and remind the reader that the Apostle Paul had warned against this dangerous heretical doctrine:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (I Timothy 4:1-3 KJV)

“Forbidding to marry” — this hostility toward an institution ordained by God is common in cults. And, quoting the second-century bishop Irenaeus, Jones notes (pp. 243, 322) why these hypocritical “seducing spirits” demanded their Gnostic followers be unmarried: “Some secretly defile those women who are being taught this doctrine by them,” Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies, while others “feigned to dwell chastely with them as with sister, [but] were exposed as time went on when the ‘sister’ became pregnant by the ‘brother.'” In other words, by prohibiting marriage, and proclaiming an ascetic ideal, Gnostics acquired vulnerable followers whom they could control and exploit sexually. There is much more in Professor Jones’ book worth studying, and I wholeheartedly recommend  Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America.


Everybody Hates @PennyRed (And Really, How Can You Blame Them?)

Posted on | March 22, 2016 | 107 Comments


“I have spent most of my twenties single, sometimes by choice, and sometimes because I was dating men and unable to locate one of those who didn’t try to hold me back or squash me down.”
Laurie Penny, Feb. 14, 2016

Last time we checked in with British “genderqueer” feminist Laurie Penny, the mentally ill Marxist was insisting we must “recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed.” In other words, because maladjusted weirdos like her are unhappy, the rest of us must be made to feel ashamed of ourselves for being normal, sane, happy people.

In the aftermath of last year’s Paris terrorist attacks, Laurie Penny quite predictably made a fool of herself by proclaiming: “I am infuriated by white men stirring up anti-Muslim prejudice to derail debate on western sexism.” And after Muslim men went on a rampage of sexual assaults against women in Germany on New Year’s Eve, she returned to the same theme in a column with the headline, “After Cologne, we can’t let the bigots steal feminism.” Laurie Penny is clearly a monomaniacal fanatic, who reacts to every atrocity perpetrated by Muslims as if it were a Rorschach test. To her, the inkblot is always Islamophobia, an excuse to heap more hatred on the heads of white men, those bigots whose “anti-Muslim prejudice” makes them the real villains of the story.

No matter how many girls are raped by ISIS or enslaved by Boko Haram, ideologues like Laurie Penny can never relent from blaming every problem in the world on white men whose “privilege” makes them designated villains in the feminist narrative of patriarchal oppression.

Laurie Penny is a hatemonger.

Let us cease mincing words about the kind of “feminism” that such monstrous creatures have popularized in the name of social justice.

Laurie Penny is to women’s equality what Richard III was to the British monarchy, a vile and loathsome stain. Her relentless vituperation of white males, like her celebration of “genderqueer” lunacy, expresses the infantile rage of a spoiled brat. Her antisocial personality traits are conveniently rationalized by a soi-disant “progressive” ideology that provides her warped mind with demonized scapegoats (white people, males, capitalists) whose alleged evils (racism, sexism, greed) she can congratulate herself for denouncing. And if anyone objects to her insulting and irresponsible rhetoric, the feminist hatemonger engages in the “Kafkatrapping” tactic of citing the objections of her targeted scapegoats as proof that they are guilty as charged.

Laurie Penny is tediously predictable, and after she tweeted about Tuesday’s terrorist attack in Brussels, someone sarcastically responded that he was “looking forward to her explaining how this is all the fault of the western patriarchy and white men.” Considering her recent history of twisting Islamic atrocities into an excuse for denouncing white men as “bigots,” this was a jab she had invited on herself. However, Laurie Penny cannot accept responsibility for her own bad reputation. To a feminist, patriarchy is an all-purpose excuse, which means that Laurie Penny never considers herself responsible for any of her problems. If her bad judgment and shameless immorality turn her love life into a pathetic catastrophe of loneliness and misery? Not her fault! Laurie Penny writes a Valentine’s Day column blaming her romantic woes on men who “try to hold me back or squash me down.” (More sensibly, she could blame the men who were wise enough to avoid her altogether.) So when she got jabbed Tuesday morning, how do you suppose she responded?

Would you guess (a) complaining she’s a victim of “misogynist abuse,” or (b) claiming that “misogynists and racists” were engaging in an “attack” on her? Congratulations, both (a) and (b) are correct!

And so is (c) boo-hooing that critics were “deliberately misinterpreting a tweet” to suggest she supports terrorism, as well as (d) whining about “hatespeech” directed at her, and (e) lamenting “these personal attacks” as “appalling and tasteless.” So utterly predictable.

Laurie Penny is not merely wrong about everything, but she is also obnoxiously self-important, imagining herself endowed with precocious wisdom that entitles her to lecture everyone about her favor subject, i.e., how much smarter she is than any other person on the planet.

Laurie Penny is an unusually bad person — selfish, dishonest and cruel — and it is no surprise that most people don’t like her. She is the sort of clever fool who is admired only by dimwitted fools. She only associates with fools for the same reason all her ex-boyfriends were jerks, namely that no wise person would ever associate with a fool like Laurie Penny.

Did I mention she’s a feminist? Yeah, pretty sure I did.


Feminism Is a Cult (and Feminists Who Say They Don’t Hate Men Are Lying)

Posted on | March 22, 2016 | 18 Comments

Three quick hits. Item Number One:

the idea that males are socialized to work hard to provide for women is so disingenuous. because like it has nothing to do with benevolence or ~female privilege~ and everything to do with making women dependent on males to perpetuate and uphold male dominance over women. like if it was anything other than that males wouldn’t feel affronted if a woman wanted to be independent or their gf/wife made more money than them or other things like
there’s literally nothing benevolent about what males do. males don’t do anything for women that doesn’t benefit them in some way.

So, says this 25-year-old Tumblr feminist, men are incapable of benevolence. No male has ever done anything for any woman, period.

Item Number Two is “Women Not Objects,” which is a campaign to “end the objectification of women in advertising,” per their Twitter profile, and which today apparently launched a hashtag campaign called #IStandUp. And do you know who produces this “objectification”? Gay men, who run the fashion industry. Gay men, who work as photographers and ad designers and magazine editors. Gay men, earning big money in media and advertising and other elements of the New York/Paris/Hollywood pop-culture cartel, and who evidently think that there is something elegant and alluring about skinny teenage girls staring blankly at the camera with the glazed indifference of a heroin addict. For decades, going back to when I was a college boy thumbing through the issues of Cosmopolitan and Vogue lying around my girlfriends’ dorm rooms, I’ve noticed this bizarre vibe in the fashion/advertising world. You know what I’m talking about. Full-page ad — torso of a nearly naked girl, black-and-white photo, shot in that arty Mapplethorpe style — where you have to ask, “What exactly is being advertised here?” It could be jewelry or a fragrance, but the ad isn’t really about the product, is it? No, the ad is about the model, or as much of her as you can see in the ad, anyway.

The fashion industry is all about selling women a gay man’s idea of “glamour.” As a heterosexual man, I don’t mind looking at naked women, but how can you tell me these ads are about selling fashion when the models are always at least half-naked? Here’s an idea: The Fashion Industry Is Decadent and Depraved, and the less you pay attention to it, the better off you’ll be. So, yeah, I got your hashtag, sweetheart.

And finally, Item Number Three:

Don’t be a male feminist. Nobody likes male feminists.



Posted on | March 22, 2016 | 31 Comments


Islamic terrorists struck early Tuesday morning in Europe, as bombs exploded in the Brussels airport. Early reports indicate at least two bombs were used in the attack, which came just days after authorities in Belgium arrested a fugitive sought in the 2015 massacre in Paris.

UPDATE 4:45 a.m. ET: The exact number of killed and wounded in the attack is unknown. CNN’s first online report:

Two explosions occurred at the airport in Brussels, Belgium on Tuesday.
Several people were killed, according to the country’s public broadcaster, RTBF. Initial reports say up to 10 people were killed and more than 30 people were injured.
Federal police at the airport at Zaventem told CNN that “there has been an explosion” and “something has happened.”
Dozens of people have been taken on stretchers out of the airport, according to eyewitnesses.

The New York Times reports:

Two explosions killed at least one person and forced the evacuation of Brussels Airport around 8 a.m. on Tuesday, according to the authorities and news reports, halting arrivals and departures.
The sources of the blasts were unclear, as was the number of wounded, though a witness told CNN that he had seen people being taken away on luggage carts, and photographs on social media showed people streaked with blood and soot, looking stunned but conscious.
Other images posted on social media showed smoke rising from the departure hall, where the windows had been blown out, and people running away from the building. Hundreds were herded outside.
“We are trying to know more about what is going on,” said Anke Fransen, a spokeswoman for the airport. “It is certain there are several victims in our departure hall.”

UPDATE 5 a.m. ET: There are also reports early Tuesday of possible attacks on the Metro commuter rail in Brussels. The attacks follow on the arrest Friday of a key suspect in the November attack in Paris:

The arrest of terror suspect Salah Abdeslam resulted in authorities finding a large number of weapons, Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said Sunday.
“He was ready to restart something in Brussels,” said Reynders, speaking at the German Marshall Fund’s Brussels Forum. “And it’s maybe the reality because we have found a lot of weapons, heavy weapons, in the first investigations and we have found a new network around him in Brussels.”
The investigation also showed more people were involved in the November 13 Paris attacks than first thought, he said. . . .
His comments were reiterated by Belgian State Security Chief Jaak Raes, who told CNN Belgian affiliate VTM News on Sunday that it was “of the utmost importance that Abdeslam was captured alive, because we can now try to reconstruct the entire scenario.”
That was crucial in order “to see to what extent the intelligence services can learn lessons from the information that is gleaned,” he said.
He warned that the threat posed by ISIS to Europe was far from over, saying: “We know that a number of people are possibly on their way to Western Europe, with the intention of conducting an attack — to, with the ‘jihad mentality,’ do damage to Western democracy. We need to stay very vigilant about that.”
Authorities have said nine terrorists killed 130 people with guns and bombs in Parisian restaurants, shops and a concert venue the night of November 13.

UPDATE 5:50 a.m. ET: The latest news from BBC:

The first set of explosions took place at around 08:00 (07:00 GMT) [3 a.m. EDT] at Zaventum airport.
Some time later, a blast was reported at Maalbeek metro station, close to the city’s EU buildings. . . .
The explosion at Maalbeek station, near the EU institutions in Brussels, at 09:11 (08:11 GMT) [4:11 a.m. EDT] this morning has prompted a shutdown of the entire metro system, and trams and buses are not running either. . . .

  • A French student has tweeted video of people being moved away from Maalbeek station along the metro track.
  • Belgian broadcaster VRT says at least 13 people were killed and 35 were wounded at the airport
  • Shots were heard before the explosions, which appear to have struck near the American Airlines and Brussels Airline check in desk

UPDATE 8:10 a.m. ET: The London Daily Express:

ISIS revenge: Terror group claims
responsibility for Brussels attacks

Reports from Kurdish media said the terror group had admitted being behind today’s strike. . . .
Spanish Foreign Secretary José Manuel García Margallo immediately laid the blame with ISIS — also known by its Arabic acronym Daesh.
He said: “Let’s stop pretending, let’s worry about Daesh, which is the enemy.”
Describing the group as a “terrorist cancer”, he said: “We must be aware that as they are hit in Syria and Iraq, they are going to go elsewhere.
“They have sleeper cells all over the world and Belgium has a very serious problem.”

As of 7:30 a.m. ET, reports indicate at least 15 killed and 55 injured in the Metro bombing. With the 13 reported killed at the airport, that brings the death toll to 28 in Brussels.

UPDATE 10:15 a.m. ET: CNN now reports that the death toll in Brussels is 34, with at least another 170 people injured.


Why Feminists Hate Beauty (And How Capitalism Makes Fairy Tales Come True)

Posted on | March 21, 2016 | 77 Comments


Grace Kelly is arguably the most beautiful actress in cinematic history, yet what if she had never gone to Hollywood? Keep that thought in mind the next time you read a Harvard feminist ranting against “the psychology of female objectification,” or denunciations of “the male gaze” in media.

“The male gaze, which refers to the lens through which mostly white, heterosexual men are viewing the world, is a lens of entitlement.”
Kelsey Lueptow, “4 Ways To Challenge The Male Gaze,” 2013

“Making all the Princesses beautiful, while all the villains are obese or ugly, the Disney Company reinforces the idea that one’s physical appearance is a manifestation of one’s personality. . . .
“The protagonists of these films fulfill unrealistic expectations of beauty, which are then perpetuated as the norm to mainstream society. Giving young girls the idea that they must be beautiful or they will not succeed is incredibly harmful.”

Melanie Greenblatt, “The Heteronormative Objectification of Women in the Disney Princess Films: A Study of Brand Advertising and Parents’ Perceptions,” 2013

“Western beauty practices not only arise from the subordination of women, but should perhaps be seen as the most publicly visible evidence of that subordination. . . . They are justified by tradition, as in the popular wisdom that women have always wanted to be beautiful and that it is natural for men to be attracted to ‘beautiful’ women.”
Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2005; second edition, 2015)

This kind of feminist rhetoric implies:

  1. Male admiration of female beauty is inherently wrong;
  2. Such “objectification” is not a natural expression of human biology, but is instead “socially constructed” and thus fundamentally political, a manifestation of “male supremacy”;
  3. There is no such thing as beauty, but rather only an artificial preference for certain types of female appearance based in male supremacy and reinforced through media messages.

Feminism’s attack on The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf, 1991) would have us believe that Hollywood producers, Paris fashion designers, Madison Avenue advertisers and other sinister forces of patriarchal capitalism have conspired to brainwash us into believing that some women are more beautiful than others. “All Bodies Are Beautiful” has become a popular feminist slogan, and skepticism is impermissible — a ThoughtCrime.

Any man who doubts this ideology — aesthetic egalitarianism, we might call it — will find himself denounced as a misogynist. Men are wrong to prefer Kate Upton to Lena Dunham, according to feminists who wish to silence male praise for beauty, because feminists believe that men’s enjoyment of beauty is harmful, oppressive, sexist. This anti-beauty message has been a core component of feminist rhetoric since 1968, when the Women’s Liberation movement emerged from the New Left and staged its first public protest against the Miss America pageant. Beauty pageants “epitomize the roles we are all forced to play as women,” the protesters declared, 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.”

Notice the words “forced,” “enslaved” and “conditioned,” used to imply that these “ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards” are imposed on women against their will. Are women “forced” to play these “roles”? Do women “compete for male approval” because they have been “conditioned” to do so? Before you answer, consider this: No one is offended if we say, for example, that Warren Buffett is rich, Stefan Curry is tall, or Vladimir Putin is powerful. The scale of values by which men are measured in terms of status and prestige is not controversial. There is no “social justice” movement of men complaining that women are attracted to millionaires, athletes and other high-status males, whereas feminism routinely stigmatizes the normal preferences of heterosexual males.

A radical egalitarian ideology derived from Marxism (many feminist leaders of the 1960s and ’70s were “Red Diaper babies,” i.e., children of Communist Party members), feminist theory assumes that every observable inequality between men and women is unjust and oppressive. The propaganda of such a movement requires that women’s lives be depicted as an endless nightmare of suffering, and that males be demonized as enemies who cruelly inflict this oppression on women.

Feminism is a cult and, like all other cults, seeks its recruits among vulnerable young people who are in some way alienated from society.


Feminism’s quasi-religious cult belief system explains to the young recruit that her antisocial resentments — toward her parents, her siblings, her classmates in school, her ex-boyfriend — are entirely justified. Her feelings of self-pity and anger are rationalized by feminist ideology, and she is encouraged to focus her anger on targets designated by the cult leaders. She is supplied with a vocabulary of jargon (“rape culture,” “heteronormativity,” “phallocentrism,” etc.) that makes her feel morally and intellectually superior to those outside the cult. Once she has learned to view life through the warped lenses of feminist theory, it is impossible for her to relate normally to others. She becomes disdainful of anyone who does not share her fanatical devotion to the feminist cause.

Eric Hoffer’s 1951 classic The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements shows how political cults like feminism operate. Yet our education system does not make Hoffer required reading for high school students, to inoculate them against the True Believer mentality. Nor do taxpayer-supported schools ever expose students to anything written by the most articulate critics of the feminist movement. No public high school in America would assign, for example, Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism? or Carrie Lukas’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism. There is a vast library of books by women authors — Danielle Crittenden, Carolyn Graglia, Helen Smith, Dana Mack, Daphne Patai, Mary Eberstadt, et al. — who in one way or another dissent from the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of radical feminism.

“The discourses which particularly oppress all of us, lesbians, women, and homosexual men, are those discourses which take for granted that what founds society, any society, is heterosexuality. . . . These discourses of heterosexuality oppress us in the sense that they prevent us from speaking unless we speak in their terms.”
Monique Wittig, “The Straight Mind,” 1978

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“In contrast to young women, whose empowerment can be seen as a process of resistance to male dominated heterosexuality, young, able-bodied, heterosexual men can access power through the language, structures and identities of hegemonic masculinity.”
Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson, The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power (1998)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”

Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”

Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist,” 2015

Feminism assumes as it premise that women constitute an oppressed class, “a sexual caste subordinated to the dominant ruling sex, man,” as Barbara Burris and her comrades asserted in their 1971 “Fourth World Manifesto.” Or, to cite a more recent source: “The sexual caste system privileges male heterosexuals over everyone else,” according to Professor JoAnne Myers, co-founder of Women’s Studies at Marist College.

This radical worldview is now widely accepted at elite schools like the University of Southern California, where the executive director of the USC Women’s Student Assembly calls for the “dismantling of our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy.”

Let us now return to the question: What if Grace Kelly had never gone to Hollywood? You must understand that it was only the modern technology of cinema (invented by Thomas Edison in the 1890s) which eventually made it possible for the entire world to admire the beauty of Grace Kelly. Born in 1929, the third of four children of a prosperous Irish Catholic family in Philadelphia, she was 23 when she signed her first Hollywood contract for $850 a week. Two years later, she won the Academy Award for Best Actress. Two year after that, the 26-year-old star retired from acting to marry Prince Rainier of Monaco, and Princess Grace became the mother of three royal offspring, Caroline, Albert and Stephanie.


Feminists who denounce the “heteronormative objectification” of Disney movies for promoting “unrealistic expectations of beauty” would have us ignore the implications of Princess Grace’s biography. We now take for granted the technology that took Grace Kelly from Philadelphia to Hollywood to the royal court of Monaco, just as we take for granted the technology that permits a blogger in his pajamas to critique the theories of Harvard students and tenured professors. This technology — produced by a system known as capitalism — is phenomenally powerful and innovative, and capitalism liberates human beings in amazing ways.

Capitalism pays our bills, capitalism feeds our children, capitalism funds the enterprises that provide us with the means of communication and transportation by which an Irish Catholic girl from Philadelphia can become European royalty. Capitalism makes fairy tales come true.


Well, why does Professor Jeffreys scoff at the idea that “women have always wanted to be beautiful and that it is natural for men to be attracted to ‘beautiful’ women”? Why does she put “beautiful” in quotation marks, as if the meaning of this word was somehow suspicious or misleading? Or why would other feminist professors speak of heterosexuality as “a highly artificial product of the patriarchy,” by which men “access power through . . . hegemonic masculinity” within “a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm”?

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
Pat Robertson, 1992

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, an ideology profoundly hostile to everything that brings hope and happiness to human life, including both capitalism and beauty.

Here at the desk in my home office, I am surrounded by stack of books about feminist theory: Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality by Peggy Reeves Sanday (1981), The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory by Marilyn Frye (1983), The Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner (1986), Toward a Feminist Theory of the State by Catharine MacKinnon (1989), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler (1990),  Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (2002), Theorizing Sexuality by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott (2010) and Modern Feminist Theory: An Introduction by Jennifer Rich (2014), to name but a few. None of these books, however, are actually helpful in understanding human nature. In fact, we have reason to suspect, confusion is a common result for the many thousands of young students who are indoctrinated in feminist theory in university Women’s Studies courses every year. Why do we need professors teaching theory, when the truth is so simple?

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

No student at Harvard (annual tuition $45,278) or Yale (annual tuition $47,600) is taught this truth. It is unlikely a student who believes the Bible would go anywhere near Harvard or Yale. The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and no Christian parent would send their children to such infernal institutions, where perverted professors teach satanic doctrines to corrupt the souls and poison the minds of youth.

Feminists reject any suggestion that there is anything natural about human sexual behavior, instead believing women are “coerced into heterosexuality” because of “the power men have in society.” Feminists believe “that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories,” and this denial of any natural basis for heterosexual attraction means that male admiration of beauty — and women’s pleasure in being admired by men — can only “arise from the subordination of women.”

Because feminists are “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31), they seek to destroy human happiness. Feminists hate love itself.



In The Mailbox: 03.21.16

Posted on | March 21, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 03.21.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho

EBL: Why Is John Kasich Even Running?
Da Tech Guy: I Think Mr. Spock Has Jack Pegged
Proof Positive: We All Know Why The Eagle Walks
The Political Hat: Affirmative Suicide For Whites
Michelle Malkin: Thank You, Hulk Hogan!
Twitchy: “Oh, It’s On!” Donald Trump Responds To Fauxcahontas
Shark Tank: Obama Lands In Cuba, Condones Decades Of Human Rights Violations

American Power: How David Brooks Created Donald Trump
American Thinker: Behold The Anti-Trump Disruptors
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Off The Grid by C.J. Box
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin Blasts The #NeverTrump Crowd
Don Surber: Arizona Trump Protesters Shut Down Highway, Creating 300,000 More Trump Voters
Jammie Wearing Fools: Grinning Imbecile Meets His Communist Heroes
Joe For America: Romney Throws Kasich Under The Bus: Vote For Cruz!
JustOneMinute: Science Trudges On
Pamela Geller: Muslim Community Helped Paris Terrorist Hide From Police
Shot In The Dark: Lie First, Lie Always – The Strib Marinates In The Bloomberg Kool-Aid
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Things You Might Delegate
The Lonely Conservative: The Ruling On Ted Cruz’ Eligibility The Media Missed
This Ain’t Hell: AP Scrutinizes The Army’s Fugitive Program
Weasel Zippers: Lena Dunham Shocked To Find Liberals More Hostile To Her Support For Hillary Than “Anything I’ve Received From The Right Wing”
Megan McArdle: When Your Spouse Is A Picky Eater

Elvis Is Dead and I Don’t Feel So Good Myself
They Tore Out My Heart and Stomped That Sucker Flat

« go backkeep looking »