Category: Celebrities

Andrea Dworkin . . .

Posted on Comments

. . . could not be reached for comment:

BAY MINETTE, Ala. — By most accounts, 19-year-old Brittney Wood was with uncle Donnie Holland the night of May 30, 2012, the last time anyone saw her. Holland — who was under investigation for horrific sex crimes at the time — died from a bullet within days in what was ruled a suicide.
The investigation that followed has publicly unraveled what authorities describe as a dark, twisted tale of perversion in the working-class neighborhoods and piney backwoods of coastal Alabama.
Eight of Woods’ adult relatives and three family friends have been charged with dozens of felonies in two counties as the alleged members of an incestuous ring that authorities say shared children for group sex. Holland was the leader, prosecutors say, of what has been described as the largest sex ring ever uncovered in Alabama. Wood was a victim and likely key witness. . . .
Even without Wood to testify, two of her uncles and an older brother already have pleaded guilty to sex charges, and jurors this month convicted a friend of Holland’s of multiple sex charges in the first trial. Others — including the missing teen’s mother, Chessie Wood, and two aunts — await trial. . . .
The case is so big officials don’t know exactly how many kids inside and outside the family might have been victimized; estimates range from 11 to 16 children who were as young as 3 or 4 when they were first molested or made to watch adult relatives during drug-fueled orgies.

In case you didn’t get the headline reference to the late feminist Andrea Dworkin, here’s a quote from her 1974 book Woman Hating:

The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture: it teaches us the mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feeling . . . The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism. . . .
The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.

Most people have no idea of the insane hateful perversity that is feminism’s ideological core. The fundamental theories of feminism constitute a doctrine hostile to men, marriage, motherhood, morality and, ultimately, hostile to heterosexuality, per se.  But this esoteric doctrine is never the topic of discussion when feminists are engaged in public propaganda. The general audience hears only the exoteric discourse, which focuses on specific grievances and is couched in liberal rhetoric about “rights,” “equality” and “progress.”

Feminism’s inherent contradictions create cognitive dissonance, and the feminist is prone to irrationality, becoming unhinged from the stress. And since we’re on the topic of unhinged perverts:

Where to begin with Lena Dunham? First of all, we can’t imagine a world where accusations of the molestation of a younger sibling would be “LOL.” And second, while the most disturbing passage from Dunham’s book, “Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She’s ‘Learned,’” has been covered by conservative outlets like National Review and Truth Revolt, it’s far from a “right wing news story” when those sites simply quote verbatim from Dunham’s book.

Weird things keep happening. Remember the gay men who shared their adopted son with a pedophile ring called the Boy Lovers Network? Remember “My Sister Is Pregnant and We Don’t Know Which of My Brothers is the Father”? Police in Arkansas say a 2-year-old girl died after suffering “severe internal injuries” when she was raped by her uncle. Yet amid this frightening epidemic of wickedness, Lena Dunham thinks she can write a bestselling memoir in which she confesses to doing creepy things with her baby sister and nobody can be allowed to criticize her for it? This freak has an HBO series?

Andrea Dworkin could not be reached for comment, but I get the feeling Lena might be seeing her soon enough, as she seems to be traveling at top speed down a highway that leads to the gates of Hell.

 

Did Pervert @LenaDunham Make Her Younger Sister Grace a Lesbian?

Posted on Comments

 

Kevin Williamson (@KevinNR) is a masterful journalist who knows a thing or two about effective storytelling. Sometimes, as a writer, you don’t want to be the one to connect the dots. Just say, “Oh, look, here’s a dot and there is another dot,” and let your readers form their own conclusions. And so, having undertaken to read Lena Dunham’s latest autobiographical opus — taking a bullet for the team there, Kev — Williamson describes Dunham’s depraved childhood habits:

Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter noted for his primitive brand of highbrow pornography, his canvases anchored by puffy neon-pink labia; her photographer mother filled the family home with nude pictures of herself, “legs spread defiantly.” Self-styled radicals from old money, they were not the sort of people inclined to enforce even the most lax of boundaries. And they were, in their daughter’s telling, enablers of some very disturbing behavior that would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions — Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace, the sort of thing that gets children taken away from non-millionaire families without Andover pedigrees and Manhattanite social connections. Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler, Lena Dunham pries open her vagina — “my curiosity got the best of me,” she offers, as though that were an explanation. “This was within the spectrum of things I did.”

That occurs in part one of the story, and then you read through part two of the story, until you get to part three of the story:

She sneers at “girls with boyfriends who looked like lesbians,” at a man guilty of “dressing vaguely like a middle-aged lesbian,” etc. “Lesbian” is Dunham’s shorthand for “awful.” On Girls, one of the characters scoffs that “dates are for lesbians,” and Dunham describes a childhood fear that she would become “the militant lesbian leader of a motorcycle gang,” but she also describes herself as “being in possession of a gay sister,” which fact she wields like a get-out-of-women’s-prison-free card against accusations of homophobia . . .

Notice the artfulness that Kevin Williamson has employed here: Early in the story, we learn that the degenerate young Dunham molested her sister as a child. Then, after reading several hundred more words, we are reminded, “Oh, by the way, that little girl Lena molested? She grew up to be a homosexual.” There is no need for Williamson even to suggest a correlation between these two facts. Anyone who has studied developmental psychology understands it.

Lena Dunham: Voice of a Perverted Generation!

 

 

What Self-Hatred Looks Like

Posted on Comments

@LisaKudrow expresses #feminism by obverse reaction:

Lisa Kudrow: ‘Gay Men Are
Superior Beings In My Mind’
. . . Although she notes that “the people I work with are gay,” Kudrow says her love of the gay community extends beyond the confines of Hollywood, too.
“I don’t know who I’m going to offend by leaving them out, but I need to say that I think gay men are superior beings in my mind,” she said. “The two sides of the brain communicate better than a straight man’s, and I think that has to be really important. They’re not women — they’re still men — and women also have thicker corpus callosums, so I think it’s the combination of those qualities that makes them like a superhuman to me.”

Think hard about this. Feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology tells women that a normal life is an inferior life.

To be conventionally feminine — to pursue a normal woman’s life of men, marriage and motherhood — according to feminist theory is to cooperate in one’s own oppression by the male-dominated society. By contrast, feminism teaches, the woman who pursues “sexual equality” (i.e., androgyny, where men and women are viewed as identical and interchangeable units) is “empowered” by preferring professional careerism over the inferior normal life of the woman who views her family role as more rewarding than whatever wage-earning work she may do (her job, rather than a career) to augment her family’s income.

This weird set of feminist premises — the power-oriented fixation on male “supremacy” and women’s alleged “oppression” by patriarchy, particularly identifying traditional family life as the source of inequality — can be used in syllogisms leading to any number of possible conclusions, one of which Lisa Kudrow has expressed quite clearly: If normal sexuality and the (patriarchal) culture produced by a (male-dominated) society are inherently oppressive, then gay men are “superhuman” creatures who are preferable to normal males.

However, what Lisa Kudrow is also saying (perhaps without realizing it) is that what makes heterosexual men the lowest form of human life on the planet is specifically the fact that they find women sexually attractive. Women are never to be desired by men as sexual partners — for male desire reduces women to an inferior role as mere “sex objects” — and females must always only be viewed as androgynous career-achievers whose sexuality has no socially normal or biologically natural purpose.

Such is the logic of feminism’s categorical imperatives, where sexual equality (androgyny) is the ideal, and where anything short of this utopian ideal is condemned as social injustice. The problem is that Lisa Kurdrow (unlike Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn Frye, Dee Graham and other outspoken radical feminists) neither clearly states her premises nor pursues her argument to its logical conclusion.

Instead, as for most women who have absorbed feminist ideas by a process of osmosis rather than through rigorous study, Lisa Kudrow’s worldview is expressed in incoherent and inadequately articulated statements which, while appearing quite odd from a common-sense perspective, are difficult to refute. An argument may be refuted, but a mere prejudice resists logical rebuttal, and expressions of vulgar feminism like Lisa Kudrow’s pseudo-scientific praise of “superhuman” gay men are nothing more than prejudice.

Readers of the “Sex Trouble” series understand that my arguments are not a matter of ignorance or male chauvinism. Rather, I am exploring the inherent radicalism of feminist gender theory, developed over the course of many decades and institutionalized within the curricula of Women’s Studies programs at colleges and universities. Most people who call themselves “feminists” are vastly more ignorant of feminism’s intellectual history and core philosophy than I am and, when they are exposed to the truth of what feminism actually is, the self-declared “feminist” will typically react in three ways:

  1. Dismissal — The startling quote you have just cited is dismissed as “not real feminism.” This quote must be out of context, the soi-disant feminist will say, or you are citing some obscure “fringe” extremist who is not representative of “real feminism.” Never mind that the quote is from a best-selling author or a distinguished professor. Never mind that the radical you’ve quoted has served as an officer of a major feminist organization, an editor of an influential academic journal, or headed the Women’s Studies program at a public university. It doesn’t matter how many times the feminist you quoted has had her works included in anthologies or textbooks, or cited in the “research” of her fellow feminist intellectuals. No, the startling quotation must be dismissed as “not real feminism,” or otherwise it might undermine the overall prestige of feminism. And your typical ignorant feminist calls herself a “feminist” for the precise reason that she thinks it is prestigious to label herself in this way.
  2. Denial — Your attempt to show a cause-and-effect correlation between feminist theory and harmful real-life consequences requires the feminist to deny that there is any such correlation. Are female college students being sexually victimized because they are trying to live according to feminist ideas about “empowerment”? If you try to show this correlation by anecdotal evidence, statistical data or logical inference, the feminist will deny it all — anecdotes, statistics and logic — rather than permit your argument to contradict the preferred feminist narrative. Can it be shown than the decline of marriage is both a goal highly sought by feminists and harmful to women and girls? “Deny! Deny! Deny!” answers the feminist. Encountering the feminist in denial mode is like watching an episode of the true-crime documentary series The First 48. Homicide detectives have video surveillance of the convenience store where the clerk was killed in an armed robbery. They identified the make and model of the getaway car from the video. When surveillance images of the robbers are shown on local news TV broadcasts, a call comes in to the Crimestoppers hotline, naming one of the suspects, who happens to own a car of the same make and model as the one used in the robbery. Patrol officers pull over the car, arrest the driver and find in the trunk of the car a ski mask, of the same type as worn by one of the robbers. This suspect confesses his role and names his two criminal cohorts, including the gunman who fired the shot that killed the store clerk. The suspected gunman is arrested and a search of his apartment turns up (a) blood-spattered sneakers of the same brand as those worn by the gunman, and (b) a 9mm pistol like the one used in the fatal robbery. Now, there is a mountain of damning evidence against this suspect, to say nothing of his accomplice’s statement naming him as the gunman. Once the DNA lab gets the results on the slain clerk’s blood on those sneakers, and the ballistics lab matches the pistol to the bullet that killed the clerk, there will be an airtight case for capital murder against this perp. Nevertheless, the detectives want to give the gunman a chance to confess his crime. Every viewer of The First 48 has seen this scene play out over and over. Detectives bring the perp into the interrogation room and say, “Look, we know you did it. You want to tell us what you did?” But no, says the killer, he wasn’t there and he doesn’t know anything about a robbery and that ain’t his gun. Deny! Deny! Deny! Feminists can never admit responsibility for the harms caused by their bad ideas.
  3. Demonization — Anyone who directly criticizes feminism, per se, or who contradicts the preferred feminist narrative of some contemporary issue, is vilified, demonized and scapegoated as a Misogynistic Enemy of Women’s Progress. This is where the Alinsky Rules for Radicals tactics are employed to marginalize and discredit the critic with ad hominem slurs and unsubstantiated accusations of mala fides (“bad faith”). No actual evidence of your hateful motives is needed by feminists to justify these attacks, and what they offer as “evidence” is irrelevant to the validity of your criticism, but by their coordinated, ruthless and persistent campaign of character assassination, feminists will turn the targeted critic into a Demonized Scapegoat whom all feminists are obliged to denounce. During the Cold War, the pro-Soviet defenders of Marxism did this to a succession of their critics and opponents — Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and Ronald Reagan, to name a few — and feminism’s totalitarian kinship to Communism is demonstrated by their predictable use of Soviet-style propaganda tactics to impugn their enemies.

Once you recognize feminism as a totalitarian ideology, everything else about it becomes transparent, including the incoherence of liberals who call themselves “feminists” without bothering to understand the philosophy they embrace by claiming that label.

Thus we return to Lisa Kudrow’s praise of the “superhuman” gay male brain and her Neurobiological Theory of Female Supremacy via the greater thickness of women’s corpus callosum. While an eminent scientist might be able to explain for us exactly what the hell Kudrow is talking about — assuming that the social significance of human brain differences is generally known to science — let me instead make this point: LARRY SUMMERS DESERVES AN APOLOGY.

Remember that Summers lost his job as president of Harvard University as a direct result of feminist outrage after Summers suggested — merely suggested — that “innate” differences between men and women might explain the relative paucity of women among the top rank of research scientists. Yet here we have a Hollywood celebrity claiming that these innate differences are a biological reality, so that (a) gay males are “superhuman,” and (b) the thicker corpus callosum of women’s brains is socially significant in some way that Lisa Kudrow failed to fully explain. Let’s be logical, eh?

  1. Men and women either are different or they are not.
  2. Male-female differences are either innate, or they are not.
  3. It either is acceptable to generalize on the basis of innate male-female differences, or it is unacceptable to do so.

From a standpoint of logic (as opposed to the standpoint of feminism), we may discuss male-female differences objectively without always being careful not to offend women, gays or any other protected class of persons who habitually claim victimhood.

However, as every feminist knows, logic is a tool of patriarchal oppression and objectivity is just a synonym for rape.

Lisa Kudrow is permitted by the rules of feminism to generalize about male-female differences as long as (a) her comments are pro-homosexual and (b) her comments are anti-male. Kudrow therefore praises gay men precisely because they are gay, which means that they are metaphysically female, from her perspective. The fact that Kudrow is herself married to a man and the mother of a teenage son does not prevent her from espousing a “scientific” theory which (a) derogates her husband for his heterosexuality, (b) also derogates her son, unless he is a “superhuman” homosexual, and (c) derogates herself — and all other females — as sexually inferior because no woman can be the object of superhuman gay male desire.

“A liberal,” Robert Frost once remarked, “is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel,” and Lisa Kudrow’s argument takes this to its obvious extreme. Her own life is a heterosexual female life, but she must praise the negation of her existence, expressing enthusiastic admiration for gay men (who find females sexually repugnant) and condemning heterosexual males as defective (because, being heterosexual, they find females sexually desirable).

Self-hatred of this kind used to be found only in lunatic asylums. Now we see it in, e.g., Max Blumenthal and the “Jews for Hamas” variety of far-Left anti-Zionism. I do not necessarily expect every Jew to be an ultra-Zionist, but for a Jew to endorse Jew-killing genocidal terrorism (which is what Hamas is all about) takes a special kind of crazy. By the same token, to be heterosexual is obviously not the same as being a homophobic hater, but it takes a special kind of crazy for heterosexuals to impugn their own preference as unworthy, and this is what Lisa Kudrow has done.

Or perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe she didn’t actually intend to demean her husband as the inferior of gay superhumans. Perhaps it is ridiculous of me to subject a Hollywood celebrity’s statements to the categorical rigors of logical analysis. Alternatively, maybe I’m too stupid to grasp the sophisticated beliefs of my intellectual superior, Lisa Kudrow.

If only I had a thick corpus callosum or a superhuman gay brain, all this would make sense to me. But I don’t think so.

The truth is still true, whether you believe it or not.




 

 

 

A #GamerGate Oddity

Posted on Comments

The troll @MMashItMatt popped up in my Twitter timeline Tuesday to call me a “piece of sh*t doxxer.” Now, there are two kinds of trolls: The worthless pests I block, and the potentially dangerous creeps I don’t block because I want to keep an eye on them.

See, I figured out that not every Twitter troll is just a random kook. Some of them are dangerous criminals and some of them are Neal Rauhauser who, if he is not a proven criminal, is arguably the most evil online operative I’ve ever encountered. Rauhauser once boasted that he had created more than 100 different accounts. And nobody has deleted more online content than Rauhauser, whose habits of secrecy and deception I’ve described at some length. And if you have read the dossier on Rauhauser, you can understand my suspicion that he must be operating somewhere in the shadows around the #GamerGate controversy. But I digress . . .

“Don’t feed the trolls” is good advice, but there are times when I deliberately call attention to a troll, so that my thousands of Twitter followers can see what kind of creepy evil is out there. And when I did this to @MMashItMatt, he said:

“You silenced a Palin critic by telling them you would
release their info. You are scum of the highest order.”

Oh, you mean “Audrey,” eh?

A small group of trusted people know the whole story of “Audrey” who, far from being merely “a Palin critic,” was in fact one of the most hateful and dishonest of the notorious “Trig Truthers.” The very last time “Audrey” posted to her blog in August 2009, she directly accused Sarah Palin of faking her fifth pregnancy — stated this as a fact in a post with the headline “Who’s not your mama?”

“Audrey” was one of several bloggers who latched onto the “Trig Truther” bandwagon that the vile Andrew Sullivan got rolling, and you can see how she squealed with pleasure the first time Sully linked her in November 2008. When “Audrey” stopped updating her blog in August 2009, some of her readers were mystified by her silence. And then on Sept. 12, 2009, this appeared in the comments:

**A NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR**
Hi faithful readers and friends, Morgan here.
Many of you have written expressing concern over Audrey’s absence from her blog. Several of you have heard rumors that she was threatened.
Those rumors are, unfortunately, true. Audrey has been threatened. She and her husband took the threats seriously enough to seek legal advice and have decided after consulting with their attorney to suspend posting for the time being.
She has asked me to convey her deep appreciation for the good wishes and support she has and continues to receive from all of you.
Thanks,
Morgan
[email protected]

Well, I knew that to be a complete lie, although perhaps a necessary lie, because the crazy readers of that once popular anti-Palin blog needed some explanation, and when Dan Riehl brought that note by “Morgan” to my attention, I wrote on Sept. 14, 2009:

Hey, “Morgan”: How about you grab yourself a nice hot cup of STFU, sweetheart? You’re not doing “Audrey” or her family any favors with inflammatory rhetoric like that.
A wise concern for mercy ought not be taken for granted because, in case you haven’t noticed, some of our regular readers were intensely curious about the mysterious end of this investigation. And the content of certain comments (some of which I’ve had to reject as hinting too obviously) indicates to me that these commenters are also capable of research.
Some other research-savvy bloggers might not be as scrupulous as Dan and I have been, “Morgan.” Your insulting comments could make those other bloggers angry, and who knows what might happen then?
Mmmm. The delicious flavor of fresh STFU . . .

It would be unnecessary and unwise for me to explain too much more than I explained at the time. But let me tell you, I was this close to hitting the “publish” button on an article, and decided against it:

Her carelessness confronted me with a very difficult dilemma, and I hesitate to think what might have transpired had some unscrupulous, selfish, vindictive person been in my position. . . .
As Dan Riehl and I discussed between ourselves, there is no reason to believe “Audrey” has been guilty of any legal wrongdoing, merely careless in her online choices.
As our research advanced, and sources provided further information, however, matters reached a point where I had to ask myself, “Do I really want to publish this?” This same research indicates that “Morgan” knows exactly what I’m talking about . . .
It would have been unnecessary cruelty on my part to have published without having first contacted “Audrey,” which I did by means of a courteous and quite friendly e-mail message to her husband (whom she had referenced at Palin’s Deceptions as a sort of in-house “expert”).

Everyone remembers how Dan Riehl and I exposed the perverted anti-Palin blogger Jesse Griffin, but that was different: Given the sick stuff Griffin had written about pornography, children and masturbation, there seemed to be a matter of public safety involved.

In the case of “Audrey,” however, it was different. Before I finally decided against publishing a thoroughly documented article full of screencaps, etc., I had already dropped a few hints on the blog, just to gauge the reaction. What would “Audrey” do if she realized that her separate online personas had been connected, and that I knew everything about the real person behind both personas?

Silence. She must have been scared shitless, as well she should have been. Let me see if I can explain what I mean:

  • X — Hateful and dishonest anti-Palin blogger “Audrey.”
  • Y — Reputable human being with a real life in a small town.
  • Z — Other embarrassing online behavior.

Now, imagine you are Reputable Human Being Y. For many years previously, you engaged in Embarrassing Online Behavior Z under a pseudonym that had never been penetrated. Y thinks to herself, “If nobody has figured out that I’m secretly Z, then Internet anonymity is very simple.” However, no one had very much of a motive to try to connect Z to Y; it’s a different matter when Y decides in 2008 that she is now also going to become X, telling lies about the Republican vice-presidential candidate who, as of August 2009, looked like a potential contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

There might be all kinds of people who decide to take an interest in discovering the identity of X, and one of those people might drop me an anonymous e-mail saying, “Hey, look at this.”

Ask yourself this obvious question: Why didn’t “Audrey” (X) use her real name (Y) to do her anti-Palin blogging? There is no law against being a “Palin critic,” after all. But she wasn’t a “Palin critic,” she was promoting the hateful insane lies of Trig Trutherism.

Do you want to know what the GOP vote margin was in the county where “Audrey” and her family live? I could look it up. Trust me, if her neighbors had discovered she was behind that wicked blog, she would not have been the most popular mom in the PTA.

Oh, but what about Embarrassing Online Behavior Z? If connecting X (“Audrey” the anti-Palin hate monger) to Y (the real person in the GOP-leaning small town) would have been hurtful, connecting Z to Y would have been thermonuclear destruction. Trust me.

And I was this close to hitting the “publish” button on that blog post, OK?

That unpublished post is still sitting there, five years later, in draft.

Some people criticized my decision not to publish that. “She’s a vile and despicable subhuman monster! What’s wrong with you?”

Trust me, I made the right decision. I’d seen the sudden silence at her blog after I started dropping hints, and I could imagine the panic. In fact, once I’d dropped a few hints, some readers searched around and figured it out for themselves. “Audrey” had been careless, and if I could connect X + Y + Z, her anonymity was not secure. But still, that question: “Do I really want to publish this?”

Hit “publish” and you destroy somebody. For what? For politics?

No, it’s not worth it. And I would not want to be known for that.

We know the denouement. I sent a polite email to Y‘s husband, explaining that the secret (“X + Y + Z“) was no longer secret. I suppose  “Audrey” decided that continuing to write wicked lies about Sarah Palin was probably not a good idea. (Smart decision, ma’am.) And, of course, Sarah Palin did not run for president in 2012; the wicked lies of Trig Trutherism were just a waste of time, anyway.

Did I “threaten” anybody? No. I don’t threaten people. I made a choice not to publish, and “Audrey” made her own choice. To see my choice criticized by @MMashItMatt, however, makes me wonder if mercy was the wrong choice. What are we to do with these insane, hateful and ignorant people who confuse mercy with weakness?

@MMashItMatt had better contemplate the consequences of attempting to impugn my honor with his dishonest accusations.

Mercy has its limits, and I am not always merciful. Selah.


Somewhere out there online, Neal Rauhauser must be lurking in the shadows of #GamerGate. If you find him, let me know.

 

The Curse of Beauty

Posted on Comments

Her name was Gia Carangi and she was, for a couple of years in the late 1970s, the hottest model in the fashion industry.

Only 18 when she arrived in New York and rocketed to success, appearing on the covers of magazines like Cosmopolitan and Vogue, she was the favorite model of legendary photographer Francesco Scavullo. “I have never known anyone so excitingly free and spontaneous, constantly changing, moving — she’s like photographing a stream of consciousness,” Scavullo raved in 1982.

By then, however, Gia Carangi’s career was nearing its tragic end. Her heroin addiction and erratic, unprofessional behavior had already gotten her blacklisted by many major names in the industry. By 1983, she was finished as a model. By 1986, she was dead.

Her sad story was brought to my attention by a commenter on my earlier post about Cara Delevingne, who is not the first lesbian supermodel — Gia was an open (and very aggressive) lesbian. At 15, she was already going to gay bars in her native Philadelphia:

“Gia just loved women and she fell for them whether they were straight or gay,” says one high school friend. “And the problem was that everyone fell in love with her, whether they were straight or not, male or female. She went after people and she always got them.”

Did you catch that? “The problem was that everyone fell in love with her” — why was this a problem? Isn’t this the kind of “problem” everybody wishes they had? Alas, Gia was a broken soul:

“Gia was prone to needing someone around all the time,” says another of her lovers. “Sometimes it was almost like she needed a baby sitter.”
“I think she mistook caring as sexual,” says one of the many straight women with whom Gia fell in unrequited love. “She needed people so badly that she pushed them away by putting expectations on them they couldn’t possibly fulfill.”

You can read the whole thing, which is full of bitter ironies. For example, Gia took delight in turning down propositions from men — she once turned down Jack Nicholson — but her heroin habit meant she associated with dangerous people in dangerous places:

“There were times in New York when people just took advantage of her. I guess you wouldn’t really call it rape because she wasn’t screaming, but there were a lot of times when that happened and she didn’t want it to happen. Being as high as she was, she couldn’t argue, she didn’t even know what planet she was on. She had a lot of anger about that.”

She turned down movie stars, but a junkie  isn’t usually in much of a condition to turn down anything. Gia died of AIDS at age 26.

Is there a moral to the story, other than “stay the hell away from heroin”? Maybe. Probably feminists will find a way to blame Gia’s fate on the patriarchy, because they blame everything on the patriarchy. But I think we have to look at how a blessing can be a burden.

To be one of the most beautiful women in the world — well, how many girls dream of the glamorous life of a famous supermodel? Yet we should not envy the beautiful woman, who is always to some degree trapped by her beauty, and we should not imagine that their beauty exempts them from the tragic dimensions of human life.

 

Lesbian Supermodel?

Posted on Comments

Cara Delevingne (@Caradelevingne) is a lesbian. Allegedly, I hasten to add, but this has been the press reaction after the 22-year-old supermodel celebrated “National Coming Out Day”:

She has never commented on her sexuality despite being linked to stars of both sexes — but it appears as if Cara Delevingne is finally ready to open up.
The 22-year-old supermodel — whose last serious relationship was with bisexual actress Michelle Rodriguez — shared a picture of herself wearing a ‘We Are You’ T-shirt in honour of National Coming Out Day and added an enigmatic message.
She wrote: ‘Doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe it, we are one! Go get yourself one of these shirts right now!’
‘I’m late for National Coming Out Day but better late then never. Don’t be scared to be who you are. Please follow @iolovesyou and @selfevidentproject because #WEAREYOU.’
Cara’s message was posted on Monday, two days after National Coming Out Day but her ‘better late than never’ message has been interpreted by some fans to mean she was actually coming out.

Whoa! What the hell is happening here? You’re telling me that with 3.5 billion men on this planet, there’s not one of them interested in dating Cara Delevingne? Or are you telling me that, of these 3.5 billion men, not one of them is good enough for Cara Delevingne? Or are you telling me that Cara Delevingne is hopelessly dysfunctional?

Some background on Cara’s ex-lover, 36-year-old Michelle Rodriguez:

In July 2006, Rodriguez told Cosmopolitan magazine that she is not a lesbian, but had “experimented with both sexes.” In November 2006, her openly bisexual Bloodrayne co-star Kristanna Loken made comments to The Advocate that were widely interpreted by the media as an admission that the two were in a relationship. . . . In June 2007, the lesbian magazine Curve ran a cover story that claimed Rodriguez to be bisexual. . . .
In October 2013, Entertainment Weekly quoted her saying: “I’ve gone both ways. I do as I please. I am too curious to sit here and not try when I can. Men are intriguing. So are chicks.”

Anyway, after hooking up with the young supermodel, the bisexual Rodriguez then decided Zac Efron was more “intriguing,” but you know what they say: Once you go Rodriguez, you never go back.

So it appears that Cara is now “playing for the other team.”

Gentlemen, this is a crisis for the heteronormative patriarchy.

We could afford to shrug off a few lesbian celebrities — Melissa Etheridge, Jodie Foster, Ellen DeGeneres, etc. — and say, “Who cares?” But when Victoria’s Secret supermodels start deciding they’d rather be having dinner at the All-You-Can-Eat Seafood Buffet? This indicates an existential menace to our male-supremacist franchise.

Obviously, one of you guys is going to have to take one for the team here. Sure, I know, these supermodel types are “difficult,” high-maintenance, prone to dramatic outbursts and emotional instability. But unless and until Cara Delevingne is properly oppressed, she’s going to be causing trouble for Team Hetero. Ask Justin Bieber: Selena Gomez allegedly hooked up with Cara in St. Tropez. And Cara may be making moves on Suki Waterhouse. An international supermodel turned predatory lesbian? Something must be done, and you know what it is.

Patriarchy requires sacrifices, and a conversion/rehab job like this won’t be easy. Cara Delevingne is damaged goods. Heck, she probably doesn’t even know how to make a sandwich. But 5,000 years of worldwide male domination is at stake, and one of you guys has got to do this job. Good luck. Everyone here at Team Hetero headquarters is counting on you.

 

Stephen Collins Is Still Alive

Posted on Comments

There was a rumor last night that actor Stephen Collins committed suicide. The rumor proved to be false, but you can understand why there were rumors. His estranged wife secretly recorded Collins confessing to having molested at least three young girls:

Collins — who is in the middle of a nasty, prolonged divorce with actress Faye Grant — revealed to her in 2012 he had molested and/or exposed himself to several underage girls years before. Collins and Grant went to a therapist where she peppered him with questions about the incidents . . .
Grant taped the therapy session. . . .
You hear Collins flatly confess to molesting an 11-year-old New York girl — a relative of his first wife — saying, “There was one moment of touching where her hand, I put her hand on my penis.” He also acknowledges exposing himself to the girl “a couple of times” . . . he says when she was 11, 12 and 13.
Grant asks, “When you exposed yourself . . . did you have an erection?” He responds, “No, I mean, no. Partial, maybe I think.”
Grant then inquires about other girls. Collins mentions an L.A. girl who lived in their neighborhood, but says he tried righting the wrong by apologizing to her years later.
And then they talk about yet another girl. . . . We’re told this girl was also from New York and was between 12 and 13 at the time.

TMZ notes that some of Collins’ roles look creepy in retrospect. He starred in “the fantastically awful 1996 Lifetime movie ‘The Babysitter’s Seduction,’ Collins sleeps with his teenage babysitter (played by a 19-year-old Keri Russell).” CBS News reports this:

[Entertainment Tonight] has obtained the declaration from Stephen Collins’ wife of 27 years, Faye Grant. . . .
“I believe that Stephen used his celebrity status to engender the trust of the families of the children he molested,” Grant’s declaration claims. “I further believe that there have been other victims, but he has thus far only confessed to those three girls.” . . .
“The two victims in New York were apparently molested over the course of several years, from the ages of 10-14 years old,” Grant claims in the document. “My understanding is that all three of these victims are now over the age of 26.” Grant says that she believes one of the victims filed a sexual assault complaint in New York. . . .
The documents also claims that the 67-year-old actor’s mental state, “Stephen’s therapist subsequently disclosed to me that Stephen has narcissistic personality disorder with sociopathic tendencies.”

Estranged wife? Narcissistic sociopath? Hmmm.

Will Stephen Collins sue me for quoting court documents?

 

Don’t Do It, Ben Affleck!

Posted on Comments

Don’t make me take sides with Bill Maher!

Bill Maher and author and neuroscientist Sam Harris battled actor/director Ben Affleck on Real Time on Friday concerning Maher’s recent remarks criticizing Islam.
“Why are you so hostile about this?” Maher asked Affleck.
“It’s gross, it’s racist,” Affleck replied.
“It’s so not,” Maher insisted, though Affleck compared it to using the term, “Shifty Jew.”
“You’re not listening to what we are saying,” Maher insisted.
“You guys are saying, if you want to be liberal, believe in liberal principles,” Affleck said, referencing Maher’s monologue last week. “Like, we are endowed by our forefathers with inalienable rights, all men are created equal.”
Harris, who had complained about criticism of the Muslim religion being dismissed as Islamophobic, countered that liberals should be allowed to criticize bad ideas.
“Islam is the motherload of bad ideas,” Harris argued.
“Jesus,” Affleck said in frustration.
“That’s just a fact,” Maher said, backing Harris up. . . .
“It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia,” Maher said. “They will f*cking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Bill Maher is one of the worst human beings on the planet. He is vile, despicable, loathsome. But is Ben Affleck worse?

What’s going on here, I think, is a generation gap between liberals. Affleck (42) is younger than Maher (58), and that totally explains the difference in their worldviews. Affleck is one of these young fools who, with no useful memory of Cold War history, has no real concept of what an existential threat to civilization really means. Maher, wretched amoral swine though he is, at least is old enough to look back at the 1970s and ’80s and say, “Thank God for the Gipper.”