Posted on | June 5, 2015 | 26 Comments
How many data points are necessary to demonstrate a pattern? In the news business, the old joke was, “Three’s a trend,” describing the unfortunately too-common method by which feature writers manufacture “trend” stories from thin air.
When the “Sex Trouble” series began way back when, I was extraordinarily conscious of the “arguing by exceptions” trick through which any attempt to state a general rule immediately provokes protestations about some example that does not fit within the rule. Anyone who has tried to discuss abortion with a liberal understands how this works. Far more than 90 percent of abortions are simply a matter of personal convenience, a sort of belated contraception, and thus we might reduce abortions to 1/10th their current number if we could agree that stupidity and selfishness are no justification for what is, objectively, homicide, which should be prohibited by law. Yet this immediately provokes the liberal into furious rants about the single-digit percentage of abortions which involve rape, incest or threats to the life and health of the pregnant woman. Ultimately, one realizes, the liberal is an irrational fanatic who has what can only be described as a religious devotion to abortion (the “sacrament” of liberalism, as Ann Coulter famously observed) so that any attempt to discuss abortion as a matter of public policy is quite hopeless.
Conscious of this, I understood that a project aimed at documenting the radical ideology of feminism, especially as propagated within the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex of university Women’s Studies programs, would be met with the accusation that this was not “real feminism.” This tactic is addressed on page 8 of Sex Trouble:
When confronted with the extremist rhetoric of feminists — vehement denunciation of males, condemnation of heterosexuality, claims that men (collectively) oppress and victimize women (collectively) in ways comparable to the Holocaust — the average woman is understandably startled and, if she thinks of herself as a feminist, she quickly shifts into denial mode. The anti-male passage you’ve just quoted to her is an aberration, an anomaly, an expression of fringe beliefs that does not represent the feminism that she endorses. She is not a Marxist, she is not a lesbian or a man-hater, she is not the kind of pro-abortion fanatic who views motherhood as male-imposed tyranny. The question thus arises: Is she actually a feminist?
This question of what we mean by the word “feminism” is seldom adequately examined, because everybody seems to have in mind their own definition, so that everybody claims to be an expert on the subject. The fact that I have spent more than a year plowing through dozens of feminist books published over the course of the past several decades — necessary to a defense against the common feminist claim that their critics are “ignorant” of what “real feminism” is — does not seem to fully register with many of my fellow conservatives. Ten years after Larry Summers’ statements about “innate differences” between men and women resulted in a feminist firestorm that ended his tenure as president of Harvard University, most people still don’t recognize the reality of feminism’s hegemonic control of academia, or understand the far-reaching consequences of what is, in essence, an intellectual dictatorship on our nation’s campuses. My reputation for sarcasm permits my friends to imagine I’m exaggerating when I say, “Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.” And I’m like, “No! You don’t understand! This is serious!”
Demonstrating the cultural significance of feminism’s death-grip on academia is why I keep returning to the phenomenon of feminist Tumblr. Why has Tumblr.com become notorious for a particularly stupid and angry type of feminism? Explaining this would take more time than it’s probably worth. The point is that it seems to attract a lot of distinctly abnormal women, e.g., “Alicia. Artist, feminist, activist. Graphic designer, currently working with a nonprofit. . . . Bisexual. ENFJ. 23 years old. Actual princess living in Denver, Colorado”:
I blog about politics and feminism and clothing and art. I like photography. I like selfies, and I really love dogs. I like sewing and pastel colors and newspapers. I like adventure.
I recently moved across the country with my high school sweetheart. We’ve been together for over eight years and we’re very very in love.
This is quite remarkable. Alicia is bisexual, but she’s been with her “high school sweetheart . . . for over eight years”? Wouldn’t you expect that, if Alicia had been with a male partner that long, she would describe herself as heterosexual, whereas if her partner were female, she would call herself a lesbian? Ah, but Alicia is a feminist, you see, and 21st-century feminism is all about gender theory, i.e., the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. As a matter of fact, Mimi Marinucci — a professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Eastern Washington University — published a 2010 textbook entitled Feminism is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory:
Feminism is Queer is an introduction to the intimately related disciplines of gender and queer theory. While guiding the reader through complex theory, the author develops the original position of “queer feminism,” which presents queer theory as continuous with feminist theory. While there have been significant conceptual tensions between second wave feminism and traditional lesbian and gay studies, queer theory offers a paradigm for understanding gender, sex, and sexuality that avoids the conflict in order to develop solidarity among those interested in feminist theory and those interested in lesbian and gay rights. This accessible and comprehensive textbook carefully explains nuanced theoretical terminology and includes extensive suggested further reading to provide the reader with a full and thorough understanding of both disciplines.
The reason I keep returning to feminist Tumblr, you see, is that young women online who call themselves feminists nowadays are most often either university students or recent graduates, so that their discourse tends to reflect the attitudes promoted on campus by the ideologues and intellectuals like Professor Marinucci. We can observe this in the case of Alicia, the 23-year-old “Actual princess” (?) who describes herself as “bisexual” despite her eight-year relationship with a “high school sweetheart” who, being one sex or another, would logically seem to define Alicia’s own preference as either heterosexual or lesbian. However, because Feminism Is Queer, everybody self-defines (or “socially constructs”) their own identity and, while it would appear that Alice’s partner is male, he seems to be non-binary, a gender theory term that is not to be misunderstood as a synonym for “sissy.”
People’s lives and choices are their own private business, except that (a) feminists insist “the personal is political,” and (b) the Tumblr feminist must always advertise herself to the world by posting selfies and making her own idiosyncratic indictments of the oppressive patriarchy. We are only aware of Alicia’s bisexuality (and her preference for an ostensibly effeminate male partner) because she decided this was something she needed to publish to the entire online world. Like Catholicism, feminism turns confession into a sacred ritual, so that the feminist obtains a kind of holiness by telling her inmost secrets and desires. Like many other Tumblr feminists, Alicia includes her Myers-Briggs personality type (ENFJ) in her profile, the same way others would include their zodiac sign. Declaring one’s sexuality is likewise de rigueur on feminist Tumblr. Why? To ask such a question is to step off into The Feminist Abyss, a fantasy universe where everything is subject to “deconstruction” through “critical theory,” where nothing is certain and there is no such thing as “human nature.” Never mind, for now, why feminists are so obsessed with sexuality. Instead, briefly contemplate why Alicia felt the need, during her senior year at the University of Michigan, to confess her feelings of body shame in the student newspaper:
I spent hours in front of my bedroom mirror trying to convince myself that what I saw staring back at me, annoyed and exposed, was beautiful. And some days, I really believed it. I saw my dimpled thighs, I saw my long nose, and I felt pretty despite them. But usually, I found myself repeating empty words at my reflection: “you are beautiful, you are beautiful, you are beautiful.” Frustrated with the double standards before me — like a Dove commercial telling me to love my body moments before it reminds me that I still need to buy special soap to prevent that nasty dry skin — I wondered if I’d ever stop needing to convince myself to like how I looked. . . .
Especially for women, body image is learned as an incredibly competitive notion. Many of us are conditioned to hate those we perceive as prettier than ourselves, and to feel superior to those that are not. But learning to love your own stretch marks and arm hair means that you slowly release yourself from being critical of “flaws” in others. Freeing myself from thoughts like “she shouldn’t be wearing that” is almost as relieving as finally being able to wear outfits I like without constantly worrying about what’s “flattering for my body type.”
Where does it come from, this jargon of “body image” and the idea that women are “conditioned” to think certain ways? Once they have been taught that neither beauty nor emotion are natural, but rather that everything is “socially constructed,” feminists must next learn how to identify the social machinery that explains their self-consciousness, their sense of shame, their envy, etc., etc. To be a feminist means that you cease to believe that there is anything natural about the human condition and, furthermore, you must reject everything “normal” as inherently oppressive. So the purpose of Alicia’s confession — all that stuff about dimpled thighs, dry skin, stretch marks and arm hair — was to help others attain Feminist Consciousness. By constantly sharing everything, all their feelings and stories and selfies, feminists forge the bonds of Radical Sisterhood, as they struggle to overthrow the power of Male Supremacy.
You might dismiss Alicia the ENFJ Bisexual Actual Princess as an exception, however, if I didn’t keep going back to Tumblr and finding similar cases that demonstrate the extent to which these weirdos are the rule of 21st-century feminism. The bizarre eruptions of “rape culture” hysteria on college campuses are not random or coincidental; rather, these public spasms of madness are symptomatic of the surrealistic belief system that the Feminist-Industrial Complex instills in the minds of young people. Is the reader curious to know how I found Alicia on Tumblr? By searching for the term “male entitlement,” which led me to a May 2014 post in which Alicia said this:
Always remember that women who call themselves feminists will be accused so many times of being man-haters, but when a man kills women just for being women, he is called mentally unwell, and a madman rather than a woman-hater or misogynist.
That 41-word sentence has been liked or reblogged more than 150,000 times on Tumblr in the past year. It was written in reaction to the Isla Vista Massacre, perpetrated near the campus of the University of California-Santa Barbara by the demented Elliot Rodger. As I wrote when this atrocity happened:
It is apparently very important to some people that the blame for Elliot Rodger’s crimes be generalized so that the murders in Isla Vista are not the sole responsibility of the Creepy Little Weirdo who perpetrated them, but rather are fitted seamlessly into the “War on Women” narrative that helped Obama win re-election in 2012.
Having stayed awake until 4 a.m. reading Elliot Rodger’s bizarre 141-page “manifesto,” however, I recognize his collectivist worldview, his envious obsession with “fairness” and especially his narcissistic sense of entitlement as typical of left-wing Millennials.
Yet there was nothing genuinely political — neither liberal nor conservative, neither Republican nor Democrat — about his twisted hatred: Crazy is not a political philosophy.
In other words, despite the extraordinary nature of this event and the freakish insanity of Elliot Rodger, pure partisan politics required that responsibility for Rodger’s crimes be generalized, so that anyone who had ever criticized feminism could be portrayed as complicit in mass murder. Such rhetorical methods — akin to totalitarian propaganda — serve to create the impression that critics of feminism are dangerous and potentially violent. Disagreement becomes a hate crime.
Is it a waste of time to pay attention to what feminists write on their blogs? Is it an exercise in silliness to notice a university professor’s book declaring Feminism Is Queer? Maybe you think so, but I think we need to take this seriously. “Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It,” and Hillary Clinton might become the next President of the United States because Tumblr feminists can vote.
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.
Posted on | June 5, 2015 | 145 Comments
“Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol” is French for “This Is Not a Rape” and if recent Columbia University graduate Emma Sulkowicz intended this eight-minute video as “art,” it’s very bad art. Sulkowicz claimed she was raped by fellow student Paul Nungesser, who was cleared of wrongdoing in subsequent investigations by the university and by New York City police. Sulkowicz then made herself famous by carrying a mattress around campus as a senior art project to publicize her (disproven) accusation; in April, Nungesser filed a lawsuit against Columbia (see “Emma Sulkowicz Is a Vindictive, Dishonest and Crazy Slut — Allegedly”).
Artnet has confirmed that Emma Sulkowicz . . . is behind the website “Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol.” The site hosts an artist’s statement from Sulkowicz, who graduated from Columbia in May of this year, and a video she filmed with director Ted Lawson several months ago over the university’s winter break.
The eight-minute video features Sulkowicz and a man, his face blurred, engaging in what appears to be consensual sex that turns violent. The unidentified man open-palm slaps Sulkowicz, chokes her, removes the condom, then continues to have very rough sex with Sulkowicz, who whimpers and protests from pain.
Is that actually Emma in the video? I didn’t watch it myself, so I can’t say whether the unattractive blue-haired woman in the video is her or not. Either way, the site at which she posted the video is full of craziness:
Trigger Warning: The following text contains allusions to rape. Everything that takes place in the following video is consensual but may resemble rape. It is not a reenactment but may seem like one. If at any point you are triggered or upset, please proceed with caution and/or exit this website. However, I do not mean to be prescriptive, for many people find pleasure in feeling upset.
Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol is not about one night in August, 2012. It’s about your decisions, starting now. It’s only a reenactment if you disregard my words. It’s about you, not him.
Do not watch this video if your motives would upset me, my desires are unclear to you, or my nuances are indecipherable.
You might be wondering why I’ve made myself this vulnerable. Look—I want to change the world, and that begins with you, seeing yourself. If you watch this video without my consent, then I hope you reflect on your reasons for objectifying me and participating in my rape, for, in that case, you were the one who couldn’t resist the urge to make Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol about what you wanted to make it about: rape.
Please, don’t participate in my rape. Watch kindly.
As if this wasn’t crazy enough, Sulkowicz then appends “a few questions to help you reflect,” which include these:
- How well do you think you know me? Have we ever met?
- Do you think I’m the perfect victim or the world’s worst victim?
- Do you refuse to see me as either a human being or a victim? If so, why? Is it to deny me agency and thus further victimize me? If so, what do you think of the fact that you owe your ability to do so to me, since I’m the one who took a risk and made myself vulnerable in the first place?
- Do you hate me? If so, how does it feel to hate me?
Comments at the site range from crude to hilarious. This is not an art project. This is what we call “a cry for help.” Feminism often functions as a substitute for therapy, but not an effective substitute. Crazy women who become involved with feminism just keep getting crazier.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 5, 2015
- The Ralph Retort: Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz Puts Out a Rape Porno (Yes, It’s Real)
- The Daily Caller: Columbia’s Mattress Girl Has Made An ‘Artistic’ Sex Tape
- Reason: Yes, Emma Sulkowicz Appeared in a Pornographic Art Video. Doesn’t Mean Much.
- Jim Treacher: Is Emma Sulkowicz The First Porn Star To Attend The SOTU?
EMMA SULKOWICZ DOES PORN: "I hope you reflect on your reasons for objectifying me and participating in my rape." http://t.co/k2VPh44JdR
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 5, 2015
If this video is actually Emma Sulkowicz, she is mentally ill. Period. http://t.co/k2VPh44JdR
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 5, 2015
— Conversativism (@InTwittVeritas) June 5, 2015
Confirmed: Emma Sulkowicz is zany, deranged, demented, bonkers, nuttier than a Snickers bar, cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. https://t.co/pwayDz8Ysg
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 5, 2015
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 5, 2015
It seems Emma Sulkowicz's erstwhile feminist supporters are greeting this video with embarrassed silence. http://t.co/k2VPh44JdR
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 5, 2015
@rsmccain Emma's parents paid for a Columbia education just so their daughter could be a porn star.
— Kim Priestap (@kimpriestap) June 5, 2015
Posted on | June 4, 2015 | 20 Comments
In case you missed it, in April, a poll commissioned by the left-wing blog Vox.com found that “feminist” is not a popular identity. This made Jenny Kutner at left-wing blog Salon.com very sad:
Eighty-five percent of people favored “equality for women,” and 78 percent agreed that they believe in the “social, political, legal, and economic equality of the sexes.” But when asked if they considered themselves to be feminists, not even a fifth of Americans polled said yes.
Although only 18 percent of respondents identified as feminists, and although 52 percent gave a definitive no when asked if they identified as such, there is some more good news: People don’t think talking more about feminism is a bad thing. Thirty-five percent of people said they think feminism is being discussed more, and nearly as many think that’s good.
Yes, it certainly is a good thing that “feminism is being discussed more,” because people will learn that “Feminism Is NOT About Equality,” that “Men ‘Calling Yourself Feminist Is Invading a Movement That Was Not Made for You'” and that “Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.”
The more you know about feminism, the more you hate feminism.
Posted on | June 4, 2015 | 18 Comments
When did I ever say I support equality?
Feminism is about anything as half assed as “equality.” Equality for whom? With whom? Who is to be made equal with whom, and at what cost? With white men, the most well off group in our world? But white men only have it so good because they’ve exploited and brutalised the entire world for centuries. Their benefits have come to them at the cost of every one else. God forbid anyone else be equal to them, can you imagine? We need less f that, not more.
Can’t be done under capitalist patriarchy.
Feminism is a radical politics that tears down the whole system with all its inherent structural inequalities and beginning anew. It’s revolution. It’s not EQUALITY.
Misandry Mermaid (“Forever Bathing in Your Male Tears”) laughs at your pathetic delusion that feminism is about “equality.” You may notice the citation of Why Marx Was Right.
What have I told you? “Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.” Feminists keep saying the same thing. Are you paying attention yet?
Posted on | June 4, 2015 | 64 Comments
Feminism as a movement is not about prioritizing the feelings of cis men as above or equal to our own. You are welcome to be an ally for us. But calling yourself feminist is invading a movement that was not made for you and in which your voice is not necessary and often not wanted. It is male privilege to think you are entitled to join and gain a title in any club, group or movement you want. I’ve noticed that cis men who insist on being called “feminists” rather than “feminist allies” put their own feelings and need for legitimacy/validation above the actual goals and priorities of feminism. Feminist can be used as an adjective/descriptive term for men, like “I met a guy who seemed very feminist.” Or “He has some strong feminist beliefs”. A man could say “I believe in feminism”. But to adopt the title of feminist is appropriation of a movement that has been built on and by the suffering of women and other people who experience gender-based oppression. Basically, if a man says he’s a feminist and, when asked by us to call himself a “feminist ally” instead, he refuses, he proves that he doesn’t actually care about women or our needs and feelings, and he has no right to be involved in feminism in any way.
Feminism means: Men have no rights. Period.
“Feminism is a totalitarian doctrine of hatred. It cannot be reformed, nor can it be appeased. Feminism is an ideology that demands war against human nature, and the question is whether we can stop this deadly menace before it destroys our civilization.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 13
Radical equality requires the negation of liberty, because only the oppressed have rights, and their oppressors have none. The feminist worldview requires that any apparent inequality between males and females must be condemned as injustice. All men are members of the oppressor class, benefiting from and participating in the victimization of women (all women) under a system of male supremacy. To speak of men’s “rights,” according to feminist ideology, is to justify inequality, and to assert that women deserve to be treated as inferior.
This is feminism’s formula for insanity, a totalitarian theory that denies the reality of sexual difference and seeks evidence of patriarchal oppression in every individual decision (because “the personal is political”). Once this principle of Feminist Consciousness is grasped, we see why The First Rule of Feminism is SHUT UP!
“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)
Feminism means men have nothing to say, because men have no valid knowledge. Whatever a man believes is wrong, whatever a man does is oppressive, and anything a man says is sexist. Therefore, SHUT UP!
It is especially important that feminists should be empowered to insult men, and to ridicule men who resent such insults:
Some feminist on the internet: Haha white boys are gross, it’s funny how they think they can dance or their opinions matter lol
No white guy ever: See this is okay because she has a right to express herself under free speech. Plus if I can’t laugh at myself, who CAN I laugh at? Also I’m sure she was just kidding and doesn’t really believe that, I should give her the benefit of the doubt.
You see how her chip-on-the-shoulder resentments are expressed as an ostentatiously “clever” reversal: Feminists are accused of being over-sensitive and humorless, and so therefore — har-de-har-har — the joke is on you, “white guy,” whom she accuses of being too stupid to “get” her cleverness, so that you don’t even know whether she’s “just kidding” or whether she “really believes” the hateful things she says about you.
You know who excels at this kind of manipulation, smokescreening, gaslighting and psychological projection? Narcissistic sociopaths.
“Misandry Mermaid,” as she calls herself, is a warped and sadistic personality who derives perverse pleasure from imagining the humiliation and mental pain she endeavors to inflict on males. Men deserve this humiliation, the feminist believes, because men are her inferiors and have unjustly refused to recognize her superiority. The man who refuses to kneel before her in worshipful adoration has deprived her of what is rightly hers, and the man who dares speak in his own defense thereby proves himself a misogynist, by justifying his existence, which oppresses her. Any cruelty the feminist inflicts on a man is social justice, and he cannot be permitted to say a word in reply.
Most people cannot understand Feminist Logic™ because it is so difficult to imagine hating anyone as much as feminists hate men.
Posted on | June 3, 2015 | 45 Comments
Jessica Ewing (left) and her victim Samanata Shrestha (right).
Virginia Tech senior Samanata Shrestha was 21 when she was strangled to death in February 2014 by a fellow student, Jessica Ewing, 22. Police and prosecutors had not publicly discussed the motive, and it was not until a sentencing hearing this week that Ewing testified that she is a lesbian, and had been in love with Shrestha, who rejected her. Ada Calhoun at Cosmopolitan reports:
Shrestha had invited Ewing over for dinner. At the apartment, Ewing strangled Shrestha, then put the body in a sleeping bag and put it in the victim’s car. Her plans to burn the body were thwarted when a friend wouldn’t help her. She described this in a damning journal entry as: “Some friend. He fucking won’t even help me move a goddamn body . . . friendship test failed.” . . .
During her statement, pulled out of her bit by bit by her attorney, Ewing described a fragile mental state that made her “lose it” the night of the attack. She said she had been sexually abused by a friend’s father as a young girl, had been drugged and raped at a campus party by an unknown assailant in spring 2013, and had felt deep conflict around her sexual feelings for Shrestha. She said she had kept these secrets from everyone except for therapists at a local counseling center, whom she told about the rape. In fall 2013, she was depressed and failing classes, and that, too, she kept from her family. “The only thing I know how to do is hide things,” she said when explaining the steps she’d taken to conceal the murder. “The only thing I’ve ever done is hide what I don’t want people to know.” . . .
One of those in the courtroom was Shrestha’s boyfriend, Scott Masselli . . . They had talked, Masselli said, about getting married next year, and he’s haunted by a sense that he should have protected her . . .
Ewing said yesterday that she thought of Shrestha as a “golden child” or a “perfect person,” a derogatory descriptor she used for someone to whom things came easy. But Shrestha had overcome obstacles. She came to the United States at the age of 3 from Nepal and learned English at school while speaking Nepali at home. Shrestha eventually also became fluent in Spanish, Hindi, and American Sign Language. . . .
The week of Feb. 3, 2014, on one of their daily calls (Masselli graduated from Virginia Tech in 2012 and is now finishing up law school at William & Mary), Shrestha told Masselli that she was going to make dinner for Ewing on Friday. The girls had been around each other three or four times, Masselli said (Ewing said in court it was more like six).
The girls had also kissed once or twice. “Sam’s boyfriend was aware that Sam had some interest in finding out what it would be like to kiss another girl,” Commonwealth’s Attorney Mary Pettitt told Cosmopolitan.com. “There had been a kiss exchanged between the two girls, but he doesn’t like the characterization even of ‘experimenting.’ I don’t know how you describe that. It was curiosity or interest. He didn’t feel like she was bisexual or not interested in him or anything.”
“You would be greatly mistaken if you wrote that Sam had a romantic relationship with the defendant,” Masselli wrote in an email. . . .
Problem: One girl is “bi-curious” or “hetero-flexible,” and the other girl — well, it’s serious for her, you see? One girl is popular and successful and has a boyfriend in law school, and the other girl — well, she’s damaged, you see? We are expected to ignore the fact that damaged people are often dangerous people. We aren’t supposed to mention this, because we aren’t supposed to “stigmatize” the mentally ill. Certainly we cannot be permitted to “blame the victims,” and Jessica Ewing depicted herself as a victim twice-over, first of childhood molestation and then of campus rape, although (conveniently) this is an unverified narrative, a poor-pitiful-me story offered as an excuse for murder.
Excuse me for being unsympathetic to murderers. For every killer who tells this kind of tale of youthful woe, there are hundreds of other people who had worse childhoods and yet managed to grow up to be law-abiding responsible adults. Now we return to The Tale of The Lesbian Strangler:
At 3 in the morning the night before the dinner, Ewing texted a friend from her Bible study group: “Tomorrow night is worrisome. And I can’t stop this idea. It slowly creeped its way to consume my black heart. I want to … let someone else decide, but I’ve already etched it in history.”
Shrestha’s mother, Rajshree Shrestha, said in court yesterday that the family prides itself on being good hosts and believes it is the ultimate treachery to eat food someone has prepared for you knowing all the time that you plan to kill them. Ewing, however, said there was no plan, and that she and Shrestha had been secretly dating. Ewing said the “worrisome” text was about how she was expecting they would have sex that night, something she was excited for but also anxious about. For one thing, she said, she felt she would be cheating on her boyfriend. Also, she said growing up Baptist in the small town of Easton, Maryland, she was led to believe that homosexuality was wrong. . . .
(News flash: Lots of people grow up Baptist in small towns and don’t become lesbian murderers.)
“Jessica’s never been an aggressive person,” her mother, Donna Ewing, a band teacher, told the judge. . . . Answering a question about all the surprises her daughter introduced in court — shame around lesbian feelings, rape, childhood sexual abuse — Donna Ewing said through tears to the judge, “It just breaks my heart knowing what she’s had to endure.”
(Again: There are people who had worse childhoods, but did not grow up to become lesbian murderers.)
She said in court that she was ultimately kicked out of the [university’s] Corps [of Cadets] following an accusation around the same time made by someone “who had it in for me” that she had hazed new recruits by pouring water on their faces while they exercised. . . .
Once ostracized from her Corps friends, Ewing said, she spiraled into a depression. It was then that she met Shrestha. Both biology students, they’d met outside a classroom where they had back-to-back classes. They wound up talking about The Lion King, which Ewing said was her favorite movie and which Shrestha said she had never seen. They made a plan to watch the film together, and Ewing described that as their first date. . . .
(So “somebody had it in for” her, and she was ostracized and depressed and then she meets the girl she is destined to murder. Notice it’s always poor pitiful Jessica we are expected to feel sorry for? Not, y’know, the girl she strangled.)
About two months later, Ewing drove to Shrestha’s apartment with a large bottle of Yellowtail wine and a can of whipped cream. She spent a long time getting ready and was an hour late. When she arrived, she said, she was disappointed that Shrestha was wearing yoga pants and complained about it. Ewing said Shrestha then changed into a dress, the same dress found later with her naked body. They then bickered, Ewing recalled, over the proper way to chop bell peppers for the meal . . .
Shrestha texted with her boyfriend throughout the evening, and then after a lull, “She hid my phone, sorry. Ha ha. Love you.” . . .
(Notice Jessica was an aggressive pursuer? Notice she was “disappointed” and “complained”? Notice Samanata kept texting with her boyfriend — reassuring him — and this caused Jessica to hide her phone? This is what an obsessive, controlling personality is like.)
As they drank, Ewing said, they became playful, making a fort out of blankets and having a whipped cream fight. Ewing said they then both took all their clothes off and had sex in the fort. A fight followed, Ewing said, during which Ewing called Shrestha a “whore” and a “spoiled bitch” who had a paid-for apartment and a Mercedes. Ewing said Shrestha then told her she was only an “experiment,” and Ewing became “beyond mad. I was hurt and upset. I would say enraged . . . I loved Sam. I couldn’t believe she would be . . . that I could be just some experiment to her. It hit me where I was most vulnerable. It’s no excuse. But I couldn’t control it at the time.”
In a struggle, Ewing said, they knocked over a hamster cage. Ewing then overpowered Shrestha and strangled her to death.
You can read the rest. Jessica’s tale of sudden rage and loss of control, we understand, is intended to show that Samanata’s murder was not premeditated. But exactly why, after having sex with her, would Jessica call Samanata a “whore” and a “spoiled bitch”? If she harbored such resentments toward her, what was all that “playful” stuff about? Never mind. If this was a premeditated murder, Jessica’s plan for getting away for it was badly flawed. One interesting detail: Jessica asked “her best friend, Keifer Kyle Brown, to rid her apartment of ‘dark’ books — books about tarot cards and the occult and, inexplicably, a Shakespeare compilation — that she feared might make her look suspicious.”
Books about “tarot cards and the occult”? The lesbian murderer was dabbling in that stuff, huh? It makes sense.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 3, 2015
Posted on | June 3, 2015 | 30 Comments
A 14-year-old girl who was impregnated by a relative was beaten by four other family members to induce an abortion, Dallas police say.
After the eight-month pregnant girl delivered, the family tried to cover up the crime by burning the stillborn baby on a charcoal grill at a Pleasant Grove home, police say.
Cedric Jones, 27; Sharon Jones, 45; Cecila McDonald, 25; and Lonnell McDonald, 27, were arrested Tuesday on charges of engaging in organized criminal activity. . . .
The hours-long attack allegedly occurred in 2013, but the girl stayed quiet until another woman, who said she witnessed part of the assault, took her to a police station May 22.
The girl said she became pregnant after she was sexually assaulted by a family member in August 2012 . . .
She told police she was a virgin before she was raped and “did not tell anyone about the sexual assault because … she was embarrassed.”
Police said the girl’s relatives found out between January and March 2013 that she was pregnant and “became very nervous and were concerned about . . . [Child Protective Services] removing children from the residence,” the affidavit says.
Sharon Jones gave the girl “multiple doses of birth control pills, Plan B [emergency contraception] pills and cinnamon tablets . . . to abort the baby,” police said.
After the pills failed to induce an abortion, Cecila McDonald pinned the girl down while Lonnell McDonald began “repeatedly bouncing up and down” while sitting on the girl’s abdomen. He also is accused of kicking the girl repeatedly. . . .
Robert Joseph Cayald, 22, is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. He is being held in the Dallas County Jail in lieu of $25,000 bail.
Deputy Chief Gil Garza said the family members who “took matters into their own hands” to abort the unborn child were cousins of the teen, who is now 16. He did not say how Cayald was related to the girl. . . .
CPS spokeswoman Marissa Gonzales said the agency has no previous history with the family.
She said in addition to the 16-year-old girl, six other children were taken into CPS custody Tuesday. They were the girl’s 15-year-old brother and 14-year-old sister and Cecila McDonald’s four children: a 9-year-old girl, 7-year-old girl, 6-year-old boy and 3-year-old boy.
The culture of death is pure evil. Democrats celebrate it as “choice.”
Posted on | June 3, 2015 | 9 Comments
He was “dedicated to empowering Muslim youths,” IYKWIMAITYD:
Detectives from Polk and Lake counties on Tuesday announced the arrest of 101 people in a sex predator sting in which detectives posed as children between the ages of 12 and 14.
Judd said detectives used a vacant house in Clermont and chat forums to pose as a child, a parent or an individual looking for prostitution.
Those arrested included theme park workers at Universal Orlando and SeaWorld, and a Disney World cast member who quit before he was arrested, deputies said.
Also arrested was Ahmed Saleem, founder of Saleem Academy, an organization dedicated to empowering Muslim youths, detectives said. The academy’s website and Facebook page were not available Wednesday.
Saleem traveled to the Clermont home in car that had a license plate that read: “Invest in Children,” according to detectives. . . .
Authorities said he operation was named “Operation: L and P” — for Lake and Polk counties — and lasted from May 18 to 28. . . .
“If we didn’t get you in this operation, you better be sure we will in the next one,” Polk Sheriff Grady Judd said. “We are after you. Leave our children alone.”
Ahmad Saleem is an active community organizer in Orlando, Florida. He is responsible for spreading CAIR Florida’s impact and presence in the Orlando community . . . He is the son of Pakistani immigrants. . . .
He graduated with a degree in Psychology from the University of Central Florida (UCF). During his time there, he led many initiatives via his leadership of the Muslim Student Association at UCF. . . .
Apart from being the former MSA president at UCF, he was the MSA National service director, a board member of Muslim Youth Project USA . . .
Mr. Saleem is the founder of Saleem Academy, an organization dedicated to empowering Muslim youth globally. Under it, he has conducted his “Inspired by the Quran” and “Muslim Youth Survival Guide” weekend seminars. . . .
“Inspired by the Quran”? Yeah, tell it to the judge, Ahmed.
« go back — keep looking »