The Other McCain

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

‘Aggressive Heterosexuality’

Posted on | February 27, 2017 | Comments Off on ‘Aggressive Heterosexuality’

“A great part of the feminist agenda is protesting rape culture. . . . By raising awareness and educating people on the way rape culture manifests itself, feminists seek to eradicate the cultural bias so the legal path will be easier, and make the legal path easier so to eradicate cultural bias.”
Ann Weisgerber, Feb. 12



Ann Weisgerber (@citruswaves on Twitter) is a freshman at New York University (annual tuition $49,062) and, of course, a feminist.

Dear Anti-Feminists — Feminism Helps Everyone

That’s the headline on Ms. Weisgerber’s Feb. 12 post at the blog of LAPP, a feminist fashion brand begun by British model Leomie Anderson. One of the ironic aspects of 21st-century feminism is the fact that, while the feminist movement is both anti-capitalism and anti-beauty, the fashion industry has figured out how to cash in on radical ideology by using “feminist” messages to brand its products as “progressive,” and thus appeal to dimwit upper-middle-class teenage girls with disposable income. It’s kind of like how Starbucks has positioned itself as a “progressive” coffee shop based on . . . Well, what exactly?

Anyway, “LAPP is all about empowering women and promoting confidence, positivity and unity through fashion and creating another platform to voice women’s issues,” but it’s also about making money for Leomie Anderson and her managers, and hey, capitalism is awesome! Cash in wherever you see an opportunity, pile up the profits and then try to keep the tax man from filling his greedy hands with your money. If college girls naïvely believe they are “empowering women” by spending $32 on an anti-Trump hoodie, it would be wrong not to take their money — “Never give a sucker an even break,” as W.C. Field said.



Hustling suckers by selling them the Feminist™ brand is not a new scam, and it was almost clever enough to elect Hillary Clinton president, but her near-miss at a return trip to the White House has left feminists trapped in a sort of bipolar madness. They seem to be oscillating between pessimistic depression and manic rage. Their political mood disorder involves occasional bouts of delusional ideation in which feminists imagine that all the arguments that failed in 2016 will somehow succeed in the future.

So now we return to Ms. Weisgerber’s argument:

Dear Anti-Feminists:
Excuse me. Yes, I am talking to you. The “meninists,” the “egalitarians,” the trolls on Facebook, the modern, educated women who don’t need some self-pitying, angry activists telling them what rights they do and don’t have: please listen up. Because this is important, and you’re standing on the wrong side of history. . . .

(Tell that to the President of the United States, ma’am.)

Many people frequently debate over the very word “feminism.” It’s a polarizing issue. Marginalized groups acquiring rights from the ruling class always has been. But now, feminism, to many who don’t understand the complexity and breadth of the issue, seems to be more about beating the dead horse. . . .

(See? If you disagree with Ms. Weisgerber, it’s because you “don’t understand the complexity and breadth of the issue,” whereas she, as a college freshman, understands everything.)

Surprisingly enough, men need feminism too — this movement champions equal rights in both directions. Yes, there are some privileges women have that men don’t; primarily, not being victims of toxic masculinity, which dictates that boys cannot show deep emotion, show an interest in “girly” things, or even be perceived as gay, for fear of being labeled weak. This is a feminist issue because it involves the assumption that “girly” traits are weak, and “manly” traits, such as strength, emotionlessness, and aggressive heterosexuality are strong. This perpetuates a culture in which women are seen as less capable, less strong, less valuable and less valid than their male counterparts, which harms both men and women in different ways. This manifests itself differently, from the wage gap (which, yes, still exists) to high rates of suicide in the LGBT community, to the perpetuation of rape culture, all of which are dangerous to boys and girls, men and women alike. . . .

You can read the rest of that, if you’re feel like you haven’t had enough lectures about “toxic masculinity” and “rape culture” from teenage girls attending elite universities. And if you are willing to risk getting banned from Twitter, you might try discussing this with Ms. Weisgerber, but I suspect you’ll be ignored and/or blocked by her, even if she doesn’t report you to the commissars of the Trust & Safety Council for “abuse.”

The insulting tone of her rhetoric — men “need” feminism because males are so hopelessly stupid they don’t know how to do anything without a teenage girl to give them instructions — is not something that Ms. Weisgerber (or any other feminist) ever stops to consider before launching into their anti-male screeds. Ms. Weisgerber begins by assuming that anyone who disagrees with her is her moral and intellectual inferior. Rendered as a syllogism, the basic argument is this:

Premise A: All smart people are feminists;
Premise B: You are not a feminist;


Conclusion: You are not smart.

This functions as a sort of categorical exclusion of evidence, which serves to disqualify all opposing arguments. No fact to which an opponent might make reference can be admitted to the argument, because the feminist is so tautologically certain of her superiority that she must ignore or rationalize any contradictory evidence. Ms. Weisgerber does not even notice how her argument that men “need” feminism is built upon a pile of insulting accusations. She implies that without feminists to show him the way, the young man would be victimized by “toxic masculinity,” incapable of “deep emotion,” subscribing to stereotypical “assumptions” about male/female differences, etc. Her sole qualification to deliver this insulting lecture is that she is a feminist, which makes her superior to all males, who “need” her to tutor them in the manner of a kindergarten teacher scolding an unruly 5-year-old. However, if any man should object to being lectured by this impudent young know-it-all, Ms. Weisberger will instantly switch her role, from being the Omniscient Feminist Tutor to being the Martyred Victim of Misogyny. So on Feb. 12, she was eagerly insisting that feminism helps everyone, but a week later on Feb. 19, Ms. Weisgerber declaring how important it is to “kick a man in the balls.”

Exhibiting a trait typical of all feminists, Ms. Weisgerber takes sadistic pleasure in humiliating males by striking an ostentatious pose of moral authority — she’s “on the right side of history,” you see — and then making insulting accusations against men, who are inherently “toxic” as members of “the ruling class,” and who therefore suffer from a variety of faults, including “fear of being labeled weak.” Anyone who disagrees with or objects to Ms. Weisberger’s claims is pre-emptively dismissed as a Facebook troll or some other kind of ignorant sub-human.




We see how feminism operates in politics. Ms. Weisgerber hates America because Hillary lost the election, and condemns all 63 million people who voted Republican as guilty of a “hate crime.” Are we therefore to suppose that, despite being discredited by political failure, feminism is somehow a formula for personal success and happiness?



“The personal is political,” feminists have always insisted. Her fanatical commitment to feminism is unlikely to make Ms. Weisgerber popular with men and, even if she were able to arouse a heterosexual man’s interest, her anti-male ideology would sabotage any potential romantic relationship. However, because “SJWs Always Project,” as Vox Day says, the fact that men don’t like women who hate men gets turned around in the minds of man-haters like Ms. Weisgerber, cited as further proof of what’s wrong with men. Her paranoid hostility toward men cannot be the problem, in Ms. Weisgerber worldview. Instead the problem is that men won’t acknowledge that they deserve to be hated. Men who object to her insults are “trolls on Facebook” engaged in the “perpetuation of rape culture,” and it is difficult — if not impossible — to imagine why any man would be interested in a relationship with Ann Weisberger.

Never mind, take a look at her Jan. 24 Facebook lecture:

“At the end of the day, this is not about anyone’s opinion
of Trump, nor opinion of feminism, nor anything else. . . .
This march is a protest against those who try to oppress us,
our brothers and sisters, and others around the world,
and a sign of hope for what truly makes America great:
our freedom of speech, love and tolerance for others,
and our potential for true equality.”

She’s all about “freedom of speech, love and tolerance of others,” but she hates America and considers it a “hate crime” to vote Republican.

Ms. Weisgerber justifies this by her anti-male ideology, expressed in a rhetoric that demonizes all men as oppressors and rapists. Ms. Weisgerber believes all males to be inherently inferior. Males are “on the wrong side of history,” and men are so ignorant they cannot “understand the complexity and breadth of the issue,” whereas every college girl possesses the superior feminist wisdom necessary to explain to the male (a) why she hates him, and (b) why he deserves to be hated.

Well, it’s a free country, and she is at liberty to say whatever she wants, and 25 years from now, when she’s living alone in a tiny apartment with her cats, she can blame her loneliness on the patriarchy. Amazing what NYU teaches these young geniuses for $49,062 a year . . .




Comments are closed.