The Other McCain

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

Guys: Never Talk to a College Girl, Because All College Girls Hate You

Posted on | November 1, 2015 | 70 Comments


The implementation of so-called “affirmative consent” policies means that every heterosexual male student is at risk of expulsion if he attempts to have sex on campus. College orientation is now basically an anti-sex training program where female students are (a) taught that all men are rapists and (b) encouraged to file sexual assault charges if they have any physical interaction with male students. The fate of “John Doe” at Brown University — banned from campus for making out with a girl he met at a party — illustrates the extreme danger male students face in an academic environment where feminists have ginned up a frantic hysteria of hatred. Because the number of actual rapes does not justify their claim that 1-in-5 college women are victims of sexual assault, officials are trying to make up for the “Rape Shortage” by inciting false accusations.

At Washington and Lee University, an official reportedly told female students that “regret equals rape.” At Ohio State University, you are guilty of sexual assault unless you and your partner agree why you are engaging in sexual activity. At Harvard University, there were six false rape accusations in 2014. The organizer of a “Summit on Sexual Assault” conference at Darmouth College suggested male students should be expelled as soon as they are accused.

This is what feminism means for college students in 2015: Every male student on campus is a suspected rapist, and every female student on campus is his would-be victim. A college boy risks an accusation of “harassment” if he even speaks to a girl. The smartest thing a male student can do is to avoid female students as much as feasibly possible. Shelby Emmett interviewed students at New York University and one boy expressed the fear of sex caused by “affirmative consent” policies:

“That’s what scares the sh*t out of me. Because if anything happens, if someone says I did anything or something is misconstrued, I’m automatically the villain, I’m automatically the bad guy, and it’s up to me to prove that I’m not — which is interesting, because in America it’s supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.”

Yes, college boy, you are “automatically the villain.” Feminists hate you for being male, and they want to see you expelled.


Rule 5 Sunday: Just What It Says On The Label

Posted on | November 1, 2015 | 14 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

With the coming of cool weather to Las Vegas, one’s thoughts naturally turn to hot & spicy foods – and, of course, hot and spicy women. What better example than Kate Upton, who in a classic example of truth in advertising, went to a Halloween party dressed as a bottle of Tabasco? I daresay the McIlhenny folks are missing out on an awesome marketing opportunity if they don’t glom on to this. Since I haven’t done the disclaimer thing for a few weeks, let me take this opportunity to remind our Gentle Readers that many of the following links are to pictures generally considered Not Safe For Work since they are of young women clad in little or nothing. Nothing pornographic, mind you, but any problems you have with wives, girlfriends, bosses, or SOs objecting to them on your computer screen are YOUR problems, not ours.

Mr. Verlander’s not the only one in the couple bringing the heat. 🙂

Politically Incorrect Conservative leads off this week with some fine videos by Charlotte McKinney, followed by Tricking and Treating with the Goodstuff, Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress, and Girls with Guns, and the debut of Missouri Spectator with some criticism of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. Animal Magnetism has Rule 5 Friday and a Super-Sized Saturday Gingermageddon Deluxe, which I can personally verify has no cheese. First Street Journal this week blogged about the women of the IDF (alas, with all their clothes intact) and we also heard from The Last Tradition (another debut!) with Anastagia Pierce.

EBL’s thundering herd this week has Mitzi Gaynor, The Force Awakens, Supergirl, Becky Quick, Mets WAGs, Game 4 World Series Rule 5, Halloween Cheerleaders, and Demi Lovato.

A View from the Beach chips in withElvira’s Halloween SpecialZombie Crabs Haunt Chesapeake BayAussie Develops Sudden Interest in Mexican WeatherBut It’s Good to Be a GuyModern Vampires Plague New OrleansTuesday Morning Golf Tips,  “We’re Not the Jet Set”Is Man the Boxing Ape? (Cave girl), Can the Redskins Maroon the Buccaneers?, and RIP: Maureen O’Hara.

Soylent Siberia’s Sunday coffee creamer is a kitchen elf, followed by Monday Motivationer Carmen, Tuesday Titillation Elena, Humpday Hawtness Carpet & Woodwork, Falconsword Fursday Sushi, Corset Friday Underwear Oversight,  T-GIF Friday Don’t Poke Your Eye Out, and best wishes for a Soylent Halloween.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Ashley Benson, his Vintage Babe is Norma Talmadge, and Sex In Advertising is covered by Gisele Bundchen. Also, the obligatory 49ers cheerleader! At Dustbury, it’s Mindy Kaling and Maitland Ward.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially the linkagery that’s made Rule 5 Sunday the most linked post at The Other McCain two weeks running! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Pre-Veterans Day Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, November 7.

Tabasco Football Caddy with Tabasco Hot Sauce Gift Set
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Hillary Is Lying, People Are Dying

Posted on | November 1, 2015 | 14 Comments

Patrick Howley reports:

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s embassy in Tripoli, Libya, warned State Department officials in Washington, D.C., not to blame the Youtube video, Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack.
The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clinton’s underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to use the administration’s “video” talking point.
“Colleagues, I mentioned to [redacted] this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” the official wrote.

You can read the whole thing. The official in Tripoli told the State Department that it was “increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence,” and warned against conflating the simultaneous protests in Egypt with “this well-planned attack by militant extremists” in Libya. What this email shows is that Clinton cannot plausibly claim she believed the lies about the Benghazi attack that she and others (including Susan Rice) promoted in the days after Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, 2012.

The Benghazi cover-up was necessary, first of all, to protect Obama’s re-election campaign message that, with the death of Osama bin Laden, the threat of Islamic terrorism had been defeated. By deliberately lying — portraying the Benghazi attack as a protest against a YouTube video — Clinton sought to reverse the meaning of this event, creating the false impression that right-wing “Islamophobia” was a greater threat than radical Islam itself. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what happened at Benghazi was a consequence of U.S. covert operations to influence the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings that had begun in 2011. Questions about what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi, and the nature of the CIA operations in Libya he was apparently overseeing, are at the heart of what this scandal is really about.


“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The answer to Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous question is that the death of four Americans in Benghazi brought to light an aspect of Obama administration policy that continues to have consequences for U.S. national security. Was the “Arab Spring” a spontaneous occurrence or was it a result of a U.S. covert policy intended to overthrow the governments of Libya, Egypt and Syria? There have been reports that the United States supplied weapons to the rebels who toppled Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi and then sought to recover those weapons, shipping them to opponents of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It is believed that Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, as part of that operation, to conduct negotiations with Libyan rebels who were refusing to give up their U.S.-supplied weapons. This backstory of the Benghazi attack, as part of a much larger U.S. policy in the North Africa/Middle East region, is why this ongoing investigation cannot be dismissed as mere partisan politics or a trivial concern with Hillary Clinton’s personal emails. The current crisis surrounding ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq, which has caused the deployment of U.S. Special Forces to Syria, is directly connected to the policies that Hillary Clinton implemented and supervised during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, Islamic extremists are exploiting the instability that the Obama administration’s policies have created. Egypt:

ISIS has released a video purporting to show the final moments of the Russian jet that crashed in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board.
The terror group has claimed it downed the aircraft, but has not said how it might have done so. The horrific footage . . . shows a large structure resembling a plane falling through the air, before being consumed by a mass of smoke.
Cairo and Moscow have denied any possible terrorism link in the incident, which was one of the deadliest Airbus crashes in the past decade.
However, it has emerged that the aircraft broke up mid-air scattering debris and bodies over a wide area. . . .
Professor Michael Clarke, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute said early indications suggest that the jet may have been destroyed by a bomb on the aircraft.
He told BBC Radio Five Live: ‘This aircraft was 200km north of its take-off zone, that means it was flying at around 31,000 feet. Terrorists, as far as we know, don’t have equipment to take down an aircraft at that height.
‘They have shoulder-launched missiles, known as man-portable missiles. They can get aircraft when they are taking off or landing, when they are going low and slow. But anything above 8,000 or 9,000 feet is out of the range of the weapons that they’ve got.’
He said the area where the jet crashed is a known location for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda and ISIS, but it was highly unlikely that a ground-based weapon was responsible for the in-flight break up.
‘Early reports said it split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but perhaps an explosion on board, so I would be much more inclined to think, if we have to guess at this stage, it is much more likely to have been a bomb on board than a missile fired from the ground.’

A terrorist attack in Egypt against a Russian airliner, at a time when Russian forces are engaged in defending Assad’s regime in Syria? We are seeing the consequences of a disastrous policy failure by the Obama administration, a failure in which Hillary Clinton is deeply implicated.


American Academia Is a Corrupt Racket

Posted on | October 31, 2015 | 31 Comments

Arthur Brooks reports the deliberate and systematic prejudice:

This year, a team of scholars from six universities studying ideological diversity in the behavioral sciences published a paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences that details a shocking level of political groupthink in academia. The authors show that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal social psychologists. . . .
In one survey cited, 82 percent of social psychologists admitted they would be less likely to support hiring a conservative colleague than a liberal scholar with equivalent qualifications. . . .
One of the study’s authors, Philip E. Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania, put it to me more bluntly. Expecting trustworthy results on politically charged topics from an “ideologically incestuous community,” he explained, is “downright delusional.”

(Hat-tip: Donald Douglas at American Power.) This has profound repercussions, because every intelligent college student is aware of the political biases of the faculty. Because the left-wing prejudice of professors is so extreme — 14-to-1 — young conservatives know that they have a near-zero chance of ever being employed in academia. Therefore, conservatives simply don’t pursue advanced degrees that would qualify them for such employment. No matter how much interest a conservative student might have in a field like psychology or history, there is no incentive for a conservative to seek a Ph.D., because no university would ever knowingly hire a conservative scholar.

Systematically excluded from employment in academia, conservative students instead get degrees in fields like business management or engineering, which qualify them for private-sector employment with just a bachelor’s degree, or else go to law school. The built-in political prejudices of the arts, humanities and social science faculty thus have a self-replicating effect, discouraging the interest of any student who does not support the radical far-left politics of the professors.

Discrimination against conservatives in academia, in turn, influences the larger culture. An obvious reason for the blatant bias of the mainstream media is that all the university professors who train journalists are Obama voters. Go to Northwestern University or Columbia University and try to find a Republican on the communications, journalism or political science faculty. Think about this: Who is the most successful radio broadcaster of the past 25 years? Rush Limbaugh. Has any university communications department in America ever asked Rush Limbaugh to lecture their students? Don’t be absurd.

Likewise, have any of the more prominent on-air personalities on Fox News — Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly — ever been invited to share their expertise with journalism students? What about the reporters, commentators and editors at National Review and the Weekly Standard? Do they get asked to teach any college journalism seminars?

No, of course they don’t. Our nation’s university campuses are off-limits to conservatives. What colleges now provide students is not education, but political indoctrination by fanatics who see their primary mission as recruiting and training activists for the Democrat Party.

Our nations’s colleges are totalitarian institutions controlled by radicals who hate America almost as much as they hate God.

Damn them all. Damn them all to Hell.


FMJRA 2.0: Ride Across the River

Posted on | October 31, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Pre-Halloween Pinups
Animal Magnetism
Politically Incorrect Conservative
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

West Hollywood House of Horrors: Radical Lesbian Feminists From Hell
The Pirate’s Cove
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: The Million Dollar Piano
The Pirate’s Cove
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Her Majesty Addresseth The Rancid Peasantry In The Royal Quotidian Mode
First Street Journal
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

Important #Benghazi Clarification
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox: 10.26.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

What ‘Rape Culture’ Really Means: Your Male Heterosexuality Is Problematic
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox: 10.28.15
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

What No One Can Say on Campus
Something Fishy
First Street Journal

The Man In The High Castle
Batshit Crazy News

Rubio Knocks Out Jeb Bush in Debate
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 10.29.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

‘Rape Culture’ Rhetoric as Bad Poetry
Law Of Markets
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

‘Medical’ Marijuana: There Must Be an Epidemic of Glaucoma in the ‘Hood
Batshit Crazy News

Santorum Says Immigration ‘Flooding This Country’ With Low-Wage Workers
Batshit Crazy News

The Queering of Feminism: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion?
First Street Journal
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (13)
  2.  A View from the Beach (7)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Brothers in Arms

Tancredo Rejects the GOoP

Posted on | October 31, 2015 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

Tom Tancredo offers the kind of leadership the GOoP needs:

The Boehner budget deal is the last straw, and enough is enough. I cannot any longer defend this transparently dishonest charade called the Republican Party.
What I will do instead is join the largest political group in the nation, unaffiliated Independents. In Colorado, they outnumber both “major” political parties.
The next day I will begin working my tail off for the next twelve months to organize Independents to help elect Sen. Ted Cruz as President of the United States. Cruz is the only candidate who both understands the left’s agenda and has demonstrated the courage to fight for our liberties, our sovereignty, and the survival of constitutional government.

Of the remaining herd, Cruz is about the optimal choice for President. Trump is somewhere between a mercenary and a weather vane. I can expect The Donald will cling to principle when under pressure and presented with a bag of gold, say, for this about long => […]. Rubio probably has the most charisma of the lot, but you can tell Marco knows who’s buttering the bread. I have vast personal respect for Carson. And he’s had his mettle tested quite a bit already. Rand Paul’s problem is differentiating his foreign policy ideas from those of #OccupyResoluteDesk. Carly is a great lady, but she’s really cut of the same cloth as Trump. #NoMasBush. Christie? I mean, I could support him, but the primaries will be an opportunity for him to burn off some calories, and little more.

The GOP was founded as an abolitionist party. The GOoP seems Progressively bent on turning the country into a vast debt plantation, along with its Democrat partners. Doesn’t take much to see that Princess Pelosi figures Her Majesty’s coronation will mean a return to Speakership.

Somebody with spare time please do me a favor and rank the GOoP candidates by the number of executive branch organizations they pledge to decommission. I think Cruz may win that. The point is that we need reform, and we need it years ago.

via Teach

If These United States Are Exceptional. . .

Posted on | October 31, 2015 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

There is a looming domestic test of American exceptionalism. Case in point, the Commerce Department:

. . .how Commerce got to that 1.5 percent number is truly amazing.
Of the 1.5 percent, 0.45 of a percentage point came from increased health care spending. In other words, mandatory ObamaCare payments caused about one-third of the third-quarter GDP growth.
Without that forced spending, GDP growth would have been just 1 percent annualized.
But that ain’t all.
Increases in durable-goods spending contributed 0.48 of a percentage point to that 1.5 percent GDP number. Without that increase — on products like cars, refrigerators and planes, which are long-lasting — annualized third-quarter GDP would have been just 1.02 percent.
Here’s the bizarre part: Sales of durable goods have been in a free fall.
The Census Bureau, part of Commerce, reported earlier this week that durable goods sales in September fell 1.2 percent, after a 3 percent decline in August.
The only other month in the third quarter is July. And durable goods sales rose 2 percent in that month.
But how does an increase of 2 percent (in July), a decline of 3 percent (in August) and a drop of 1.2 percent in September add up to durable goods contributing 0.48 of a percentage point to the third-quarter GDP?

Read the whole thing.

We have permitted so much rank dishonesty for so long that something akin to a Great Awakening is going to be required. Where we locate the integrity to inject back into our leadership, and how the generally dishonest are purged from the government is entirely unclear.

I’m pretty confident that Her Majesty is not the answer we seek.

via Hoyt at Instapundit

The Queering of Feminism: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion?

Posted on | October 30, 2015 | 53 Comments


Boston University’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program “fosters interdisciplinary research and teaching related to the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, and other categories of identity that organize and disorganize our lives.” The director of the program, Associate Professor Carrie Preston, describes her “research and teaching interests include modernist literature, performance, and dance, feminist and queer theory, and transnational and postcolonial studies.” Boston University’s annual tuition is $48,436. Their web site outlines the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program’s history:

Our program began in the 1970s and emerged in the 1980s as the Boston University Women’s Studies Program, a site of intellectual inquiry and feminist consciousness-raising concerning women’s lives. . . .
Scholars began to problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given or social reality and focused concern on topics in sexuality that could not be reduced to concerns with gender. Current scholarship in the field examines the extent to which sexuality and gender have been linked together historically (through the recruitment of sexuality as the “performance” or “proof” of gender, for instance) as well as aspects of sexuality that are distinct from gender.

To “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given,” you see, is what feminist theory requires. Part of the “interdisciplinary” exploration of gender, sexuality and identity is the annual Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick Memorial Lecture, a tribute to one of the early leaders of Boston University’s program, whose 1990 book Epistemology of the Closet is “widely considered a founding text of queer theory.”

How do Boston University students get their $48,436 of queer theory?

Faculty moderators held two workshops for undergraduate and graduate students on Sedgwick’s 1991 essay “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay: The War on Effeminate Boys.” This short, accessible text focused attention on the alarming rate of suicide among gay and gender non-conforming youth, and critiqued the failure of psychotherapists in the US to address this crisis with queer-affirmative interventions.

Anyone may read the “short, accessible text” named:

I am especially interested in revisionist psychoanalysis including ego-psychology, and in influential developments following on the American Psychiatric Association’s much-publicized 1973 decision to drop the pathologizing diagnosis of homosexuality from the succeeding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III). What is likely to be the fate of children brought under the influence of psychoanalysis and psychiatry today, post-DSM-III, on account of anxieties about their sexuality? . . .
That one woman, as a woman, might desire another; that one man, as a man, might desire another: the indispensable need to make these powerful, subversive assertions has seemed, perhaps, to require a relative de-emphasis of the links between gay adults and gender-nonconforming children. To begin to theorize gender and sexuality as distinct though intimately entangled axes of analysis has been, indeed, a great advance of recent lesbian and gay thought.
There is a danger, however, that that advance may leave the effeminate boy once more in the position of the haunting abject — this time the haunting abject of gay thought itself.

You may read the whole thing, and note that Sedgwick assumes as her premise that any psychiatric problems (including suicide) experienced by homosexual or “gender-nonconforming children” can only be explained by society’s homophobia. According to Sedgwick, the psychiatric community’s “pathologizing diagnosis” of homosexuality as a mental disorder prior to 1973 was nothing but an expression of anti-gay bigotry and, in 1991, Sedgwick perceived a “danger” that psychiatry might continue to view “the effeminate boy” in this way.

Is there a direct cause-and-effect relationship between homophobia and teen suicide? No. Most homosexuals do not commit suicide, and most people who commit suicide are not homosexual. Furthermore, we cannot simply discard as obsolete (or “regressive”) the basic psychological insight that views homosexuality as a tendency arising from childhood problems often associated with family dysfunction. You don’t have to be a bigot or an advocate of “reparative therapy” to interpret homosexuality as a matter of psychosocial development. The same issues correlated with homosexuality are also correlated with problems like drug abuse and depression. Trying to make “homophobia” a simple cause-and-effect explanation for the gay teenager’s suicide is an error of logic, even if it is the suicidal teen who offers this explanation. (To climb up on the cross of martyrdom — to blame “society” for your personal problems — can be a temptation for anyone with a disposition to self-pity, and troubled teenagers are unusually prone to self-pity.)

More to the point, we must recognize how Sedgwick’s “queer theory” employed a sort of radical jiu-jitsu that reversed the entire purpose of psychotherapy. Whatever the troubled young person’s problem, psychology traditionally sought to locate the cause of the problem in order to help the patient successfully adjust to adult life. This emphasis on adjustment — being able to complete school, become gainfully employed, form healthy relationships with others, etc. — is rejected by radicals, who say that instead of helping the patient adjust to society, we should change society for the benefit of the patient.

This is why, when we look at feminism today, it so often seems as if the inmates are running the asylum. Disgruntled kooks and perverse weirdos flock to the feminist banner because it offers them a political rationalization of their personal problems, and gives them a platform from which to express their alienation from mainstream society.

Adjusting society to enable misfits to feel “accepted” — letting little Johnny wear a hairbow and a lacy skirt to school and teaching the other kids that this is perfectly normal — is one of the logical consequences of feminist theory that seeks to “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given.” Rather than trying to teach little Johnny how to fit in with the other boys, Sedgwick’s “queer theory” rejects as invalid the categorization of children as boys and girls, and condemns as “homophobia” any expectation (by parents, especially) that children should grow up to be normal.

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
Sara Salih, Judith Butler (2002)

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” and denies that behaviorial differences between men and women are natural. Any apparent differences between men and women are socially constructed by the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix (see Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990). Feminism seeks to abolish gender in order to achieve “equality” by establishing an androgynous society in which the categories “male” and “female” cease to have any significance. A radical ideology which denies that there is any such thing as “human nature,” feminism requires us to celebrate Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner as Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year.”

These bizarre manifestations of radical perversity do not occur spontaneously. They are expressions of a belief system promoted by the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex, the taxpayer-subsidized institutions in which professors indoctrinate students through “feminist consciousness-raising” and train them as activists committed to changing society. Because feminism condemns heterosexuality as “a socially constructed institution which . . . maintains male domination,” feminists encourage homosexuality in order to prevent “male power” from “channel[ing] women into marriage and motherhood.” Feminists therefore “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given,” promoting the belief that “gender is radically independent of sex,” in order to destroy “the dominant order” of “heterosexist culture.”

What feminists mean by “equality” is “the end of civilization as we know it” (to quote lesbian feminists Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love) and this radical ideology exercises such hegemonic authority in academia that no one is permitted to criticize or oppose feminism on the 21st-century university campus. This is why feminists rant about “rape culture,” in order to demonize heterosexual male students, inciting young women to irrational fear by portraying young men as violent sexual predators.

To do what I have done — to quote what feminists say, to show what feminists believe, to explain what feminism is — would be condemned as a hate crime by the intellectual totalitarians who now control American universities. Opposing viewpoints are prohibited, so that the authority of feminism and “queer theory” goes unchallenged on college campuses.

“Spanking and Poetry”: A Conference
on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

Annual English Student Association Conference
February 25-26, 2010
The Graduate Center
The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10016

This two-day conference seeks to extend the work of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick by bringing together junior and senior scholars to examine her critical, literary, and artistic work.

That conference, “Spanking and Poetry,” incidentally, derived its title from a paper Sedgwick presented at a 1986 conference “Feminism, Sexuality, and Power,” at Mount Holyoke College, which erupted into a controversy over the issue of lesbian sadomasochism (see Gayle Rubin, Deviations, p. 213 and p. 399, note 72). So, what sort of topics do you suppose are discussed at a conference devoted to the legacy of Eve Sedgwick? Would you believe “queer theory in Classical studies”?

Michael Broder discussed the (almost non-existent) state of queer theory in Classical studies, arguing that despite brilliant foundational work by David Halperin and Amy Richlin, classicists have become curiously resistant to queer theory. And who doesn’t like hearing about Priapus, the Roman god of gardens who’d fuck any intruder, man or woman, in any available orifice?

Who, you may wonder, is Michael Broder?

My name is Michael Broder and I am The Queer Classicist, a freelance writer with a PhD in Classics from the City University of New York and an MFA in Creative Writing from NYU. I write about sex, gender, and kinship from my own perspective as a same-sex married gay man but also informed by perspectives including queer theory, feminism, and cultural materialism (this list is representative, not exhaustive). That means I’m going to write a lot about tops and bottoms, butches and fems, poz and neg, cis and trans, porn, hustlers, drag queens, divas, and queer fads and fashions of all sorts, including theater, film, television, music, and art. You may also find me writing about other aspects of culture and society including race, class, age, ability, religion, and more. I live in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn with my poet husband and too many feral and domestic cats.

You need a Ph.D. to write about that stuff, obviously.

Feminism’s ironclad grip on academia means that parents who pay $48,436 a year to send their sons and daughters to Boston University can be certain that their children will never be exposed to any perspective on “sexuality and gender” that contradicts the “feminist and queer theory” advocated by Professor Carrie Preston.

Professors at Boston University, like practically every other university and college in American, reject “the very notion of sex as a biological given.” No American university student is ever exposed to any cogent analysis of human behavior based on the premise that males are naturally masculine and females are naturally feminine, and that family formation on the natural basis of heterosexual pair-bonding serves any legitimate or useful social purpose. Achieving feminism’s goal of “equality” means that “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay” is now the essential task of parents who want to abolish the “socially constructed institution” of heterosexuality that “maintains male domination.”

Thank God, I can’t afford $48,436 a year. Maintaining “male domination” isn’t always easy, but it’s a lot cheaper than “equality.”

(Hat-tip: Wagner Clemente Soto on Twitter.)

+ + + + +

Unlike feminist professors, whose salaries are subsidized by taxpayers in the name of “education,” this blog is an exercise in shameless capitalism. My research into radical feminism is funded by readers in response to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:


It’s been a rough month and my wife expects me to do my patriarchal duty by paying the electricity bill, so whatever you give — $5, $10, $20 — would be most sincerely appreciated.


« go backkeep looking »