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

Posted on 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.




 

107 comments

  1. Laurie Penny is to women’s equality what Richard III was to the British monarchy, a vile and loathsome stain.

    Actually, that’s an insult to Richard III, whose bad reputation exists solely because Wm. Shakespeare wrote a play to kiss up to Elizabeth I, whose Tudor grandfather vanquished the Yorks to seize the throne. Richard’s reign has been recently reappraised. It’s even questionable whether he was responsible for the death of his nephews, which has been laid at his feet since the Tudors became the ruling house.

    Nonetheless, your point is well-taken. Penny is a loathsome human being.

  2. Great piece. You’ve got these folks nailed. The problem is that insight only comes from repetitive research. And so I ask, where are your colleagues on one of the biggest stories in the last half-century? They are leaving you out on a limb where it is likely the messenger takes the grief you are only delivering.

  3. “Richard’s reign has been recently reappraised.”

    REVISIONISTS! To hell with revisionists!

    What about the Princes in the Tower? You want to explain away that little atrocity by alleging that Shakespeare was a Tudor propagandist?

    Bah! Humbug! I’m tired of “intellectuals” mucking around the past and telling us that the bad guys were good guys and the good guys were villains.

    “Oh, pity Gloucester! He was just misunderstood! And, oh, by the way, you know Stalin wasn’t really as bad as all that. Also, [insert name of famous general] was secretly homosexual.”

    No, sir! Keep your revisionism far away from my history.

  5. Heh, heh. Never proven. Attributed to him after Bosworth Field. Besides. the marriage of Edward IV to the twins’ mother was ruled illegal and the twins’ lost all right to the throne. There was no need to kill them.

    (I have no dog in the fight, BTW. My ancestors were eagerly awaiting Calvinism and Henry of Navarre in order to aggravate Richelieu. That’s why we never accept dinner invitations for St. Bartholomew’s Day.)

  7. Enough with the misuse of the word hate already! A disagreement is not hate, a robust debate is not hate, random abuse is not hate. I am pretty sure most of the people responding to her on twitter barely know her enough to be able to marshal up the full emotional resources for hate. Personally, I’m going to stick with abhorrence.

  11. For anyone who missed it, Pat Condell put together a particularly pointed commentary on this exact subject mere hours before the Brussels attacks. Of course, in the bright new Europe of the Future such circumstances will be less suspiciously coincidental, as it will always “a few hours before a Muslim attrocity”.

    Anyway, he smacks around the Muslim-apologist feminists with a delightful acidity.

    https://youtu.be/gZKAewadF9U

  12. What I love about Penny is how she claims some special insight and yet cannot detect how mentally ill and sociopathic she so obviously is. Is she so completely unable to measure her behavior against that of normal human beings? Is pathological lying compulsive? Do they know they’re doing it? Has she no parents to tell her she’s gone off the deep end?

  13. Perhaps we need a new category for those feminists who ignore or excuse Muslim atrocities because it might shift attention off of important issues like micro-aggressions or “the male gaze.” Would “Vichy Feminists” be correct, or perhaps “Quisling Feminists?” I am sure the Muslims will find a name for them…

  14. Richard of Gloucester wanted the throne, did what was necessary to obtain it, and the lifespan of inconvenient or extra princes was frequently harrowing and short; he was a man of his times.

    He will never be “Good King Richard,” but he was a 15th century king; England has had better, and England has had worse. Had he been victorious at Bosworth Field, he’d have been remembered as a pretty good king.

  20. Absolutely nothing. She made it all up, as column fodder, because she really has nothing interesting or legitimate to say.

  21. That is a fair assessment of his reign, I think. The interesting thing is that Henry Tudor didn’t have a particularly great reputation at the end of his life. His son, Henry VIII did a lot to rehabilitate the Tudors, his serial monogamy notwithstanding.

  22. All of these SJWs isolate themselves from humanity. That’s obviously what gives them their incisive and exhaustive knowledge of it.

  24. A bit mealy mouthed of her to claim compassion for the victims and their families, considering many of them were white males and thus fully deserving of what they got.

    Waiting for her compatriots to begin muttering about the bombings being an Israeli false flag operation. Actually, pretty certain they’re doing it already and it just hasn’t risen to the level of attention yet.

    But let’s not forget the real victim of this atrocity – that would be Obama and his legacy. Stand by for the articles from TNR and the NYT and the usual suspects that will be about, not the attacks nor the ideology that spawned them, but what Republicans will say about them.

  27. Laurie Penny is one of the idiots the BBC always call on to fill the airwaves with their idiocy.

    You need to check out Jack Monroe a transexual chef with a make believe ‘Dr’ degree.

    The idiots Britain produces!

  29. Oh, I dunno… we have more than our share of credentialed idiots over here.

    The real question is, on a per capita basis, which nation produces more? I suspect that the smaller population gives much greater scope for idiocy in Old Blighty. And anyway the Brits have always had a weak spot for lovable eccentrics… and there’s a thin line, as Spinal Tap informs us, between stupid and clever.

    On the other hand, even if the Limeys produce more as a proportion of the population, here in ‘Murica we do everything bigger and better, and that includes our idiots.

    USA! USA! USA!!!

  32. ‘Revisionism’ has nothing to do with ‘Ne gationism’. Revisionism is normal thing through history studies… You find new sources, you document them, and you revise history. It happens all the time.

  33. It probably doesn’t help her dating life that she’s as ugly as a bag of assholes. I mean, look at her: Only gay men would want to have sex with her because she looks like a guy. And an ugly guy, at that.

  35. Of course, she doesn’t realize that the common factor in all her failed relationships is: her. That would require self-analysis, a skill that not a single one of these radfems seem to possess.

    Me, I haven’t been single since I was 22, and I’ve had a grand total of 2 relationships in 25 years, but what do I know.

  37. Speaking of credentialed idiots, check this out.

    Once I was working at a gubmint installation, when a bunch of us started getting nosebleeds (turned out to be mold in our building). They sent us over to the facility doctor, a young guy. He asked me…I swear this is true…whether I, an adult in my 30s…had been inserting objects into my nose. I said, “I’ve been putting sharpened pencils in there. Do you think that could be it?” He stared at me for a long moment, and said, “I’ll take that as a no.” I said, “Good call, Slingblade.”

  41. I don’t think she’s ugly. I think she’s rather cute. Put a little makeup on her and she’d be fine. It wouldn’t make up for her loathsome personality and horrendous ideas, however.

  42. Apparently one of the American Mormons injured in Brussels also survived Boston and Paris. So he’s apparently lucky/unlucky: it’s amazingly poor luck to be at all three, but at least 1. he’s alive and 2. he isn’t Laurie Penny. Really dodged a bullet with the uterine lottery!

  44. And you’d love to believe it’s all snark, right?

    Twenty bucks says if you trawl through Twitter and Facebook you’ll find examples of all three points I made.

  46. Perhaps Penny is the poster child for “fractal wrongness”. That’s where you’re wrong at all levels of magnification.

    I particularly like the circular reasoning that people like Penny use (I don’t know if she’s used it herself) with this argument: your claim that you’re not oppressed by “the patriarchy” is proof that you ARE oppressed by the patriarchy; you’ve been falsely convinced by “the patriarchy” that you’re not oppressed without realizing it.

  47. Hey, you were working in a government facility. If you have as many years under your belt working in that pre-school environment as I do, you know for sure that that doctor probably had encountered more than a few (so-called) adults who probably stuck things even more hazardous and disgusting than pencils up their noses and then complained in amazement that it caused them problems (probably more than few of them were management types).

  48. She probably did make up the part about relationships with men in her past. As others here have pointed out, it’s impossible to imagine any man worthy of the name wanting to occupy the same hemisphere with her, let alone be in a relationship.

  49. Unless your sleeping around like a wanton slut you couldn’t possibly develop a comprehensive understanding of human relationships.

  50. So perhaps the spate of splodey-Muslim incidents has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine, or the Iraq War, or ISIS, a commandment to conquer the infidels, or what have you.

    They just really, really hate this one guy.

Comments are closed.