Category: Democrats

Berkeley Murder Suspect Pablo Gomez Harassed College Republicans Last Year

Posted on 2 Comments

 

Yesterday we reported about Pablo Gomez Jr., the radical activist at the University of California-Berkeley accused of murdering one woman and seriously stabbing another. The College Fix has video that shows Gomez harassing College Republicans at a campus event last September:

A Chicanx/Latinx Studies major, Gomez is involved with Berkeley’s Queer Alliance Resource Center and “is a senior climate action fellow at Alliance for Climate Education,” according to their respective Facebook pages.
Sharp-eyed College Fix readers may recognize the student as one of the activists who confronted the Berkeley College Republicans back in September. In the video, Gomez is shown grabbing their Donald Trump cut-out, telling them it’s “f*cked up.”
Berkeley CR President José Diaz had said at the time that the agitators demanded that the cut-out be removed “due to the perceived offensive nature that it represents towards them.”

 

Berkeley police have not discussed the motive for Gomez’s alleged murder of Emilie Inman and the stabbing of another women, who survived. However, it appears the murder victim did not know her killer:

“The suspect knew his initial victim (the woman who is still alive). After attacking her, he went to the house on Ashby thinking that an old friend/acquaintance still lived there. She had moved out over a year ago but the unfortunate second victim (who was killed) was there, studying. . . . She answered the door and the rest is history.”

Family and friends are mourning 27-year-old Emilie Inman:

On Monday, KRON4 spoke with friends of Emilie Inman, who describe her as an artist, musician, and teacher who impacted so many lives.
“It doesn’t really fully feel like she’s gone because her energy is in all of her friends and her family,” friend Robin Liepmin said. . . .
Liepmin found out about Inman’s murder on Facebook.
“Emilie was a really creative, beautiful individual, completely unique and just had so much light and so many gifts to bring to the world,” Liepmin said.
Inman worked at Sienna Ranch in Lafayette.
The organization describes itself as a family-owned business. Its focus is on youth families, environment, and community. . . .
Inman was a fifth and sixth-grade science instructor.
“She had a lot of aspirations, there was music, she loved kids, and she worked with kids specifically doing outdoor education, and she had a lot of faith in the youth, and just saw the youth as being one of the most important parts of making the world a better place,” Liepmin said.

The victim was a “beautiful individual” who “loved kids” and was all about “making the world a better place,” whereas Pablo Gomez Jr. is a queer activist who is all about hate. And stabbing women, allegedly.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!



 

 

3 Theses: PUAs, ‘Sexuality’ and Feminism

Posted on 1 Comment

My work output has been irregular since Christmas, but I’ve got thousands of words in draft that I mean to finish. However, today I’m babysitting my youngest grandson, and there are a few thoughts that have been accumulating in my mind during my research recently, and so I want to just lay them out while the boy is taking a nap.

1. Confidence and Competence

One of the basic ideas of pickup artist (PUA) discourse is how the young man can convey confidence in his approach to women. While a man’s deportment — his mannerisms, his posture, his way of speaking — are certainly important in how he is perceived by women, his superficial display of confidence is not likely to matter much if this display has no underlying basis in fact. Confidence must be sustained by competence. That is to say, external manifestations of positive self-esteem are false advertising, if a man does not have the kind of skills and accomplishments necessary to elicit admiration. If the object of studying PUA method is for the young man to learn how better to display himself — basically, learning to perform the external mannerisms of a high-status male — this will be most effective if he actually possesses high-status traits and abilities. A man who is physically robust, who has a good job, etc., may yet lack confidence in his interactions with females, so that while he is winning in many aspects of his life, he is a loser with the ladies. In such a case, he may be able to learn elements of “game” from studying PUA methods which help him add confidence to his pre-existing competence. On the other hand, if a guy’s an all-around loser, no amount of “game” is likely to help him. This was Elliot Rodger’s problem in a nutshell. His personality deficits were so extreme that it was futile for him to turn to “game” in an effort to solve his problem. While I think feminists were wrong to blame the PUA community for Rodger’s murder spree, his case does help illustrate the absurdity of thinking you can solve every difficulty in your life by getting advice off Internet forums.

2. What Do We Mean by ‘Sexuality’?

Plowing through books of feminist theory — to say nothing of the online lunatic asylum of feminist Tumblr — one notices a tendency to speak of “sexuality” as if it were a tangible personal essence. We may observe in feminist discourse a habit of treating women’s sexual feelings as more important than their sexual behavior. By contrast, feminists tend to analyze male sexuality strictly in terms of behavior, which is always interpreted as having a harmful effect on women. Feminist discourse never portrays male sexual behavior in a positive way, and as for male feelings, feminists have no regard for men’s subjective perceptions and are profoundly hostile toward men’s emotional needs. Because this prejudice is inherent in all feminist discourse about “sexuality,” the result is that feminism turns all discussion of sexual behavior into a deliberately one-sided lecture, an endless litany of male wrongdoing, to which males cannot respond without being accused of an indifference to women’s feelings. If the feminist says she feels that her ex-boyfriend’s behavior was abusive, skepticism is impermissible, because how can we argue about her feelings? Likewise, if the feminist says she was “offended” by something — a TV show, a joke someone told at the office, whatever — no argument is possible, because she is the sole judge of what offends her. Because feminism treats normal male sexual behavior as inherently wrong and harmful to women, and because feminism makes women’s feelings the only standard by which male behavior can be judged, feminist rhetoric about “sexuality” is a form of anti-male hate propaganda.

3. Is ‘Feminist’ a Synonym for ‘Bitch’?

The vulgar epithet “bitch,” denoting a woman with a hostile or antisocial personality — angry, cruel, dishonest, etc. — is popularly conflated with the word “feminist.” This is quite often done by feminists themselves, who seem to take pride in being perceived as bitches.

 

Anti-male hostility, which is what this “proud bitch” rhetoric seems to signify, is thus further confirmed as a core feminist value. Insofar as feminism in the United States is politically identified with the Democrat Party, therefore, it is necessarily divisive. Meryl Streep’s angry feminist sermon during Sunday’s Golden Globes was celebrated by Democrats, who have interpreted Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the presidential campaign as evidence that “misogyny” is rampant among American men. Therefore, to rally their electoral base against Trump, the Democrats encourage the “proud feminist bitch” mode of discourse which, it might be argued, actually inspires misogyny. Feminists habitually treat men with hostile contempt, and Democrats celebrate such anti-male attitudes as “progressive.” Yet as more and more women embrace the “proud feminist bitch” pose, men will become less likely to support “progressive” causes, or to vote Democrat, because the messengers who deliver the Democrat Party message are so implacably hateful toward males.

This was one of the weird realities revealed by #GamerGate. In one of my first conversations with Adam Baldwin about #GamerGate, he explained to me that most of the young men (and women) supporting #GamerGate were not “conservative” in any conventional sense of that word. These weren’t guys watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading National Review. Many of them were atheists and more or less progressive in their political orientation. However, they were fed up with the dishonest identity-politics shakedown racket which so-called “social justice warriors” (SJWs) were using against the videogame industry.

Well, my grandson will be waking up from his nap soon, so I don’t have time to connect all the dots, but if some of y’all want to post links to this article to your Reddit forums or wherever, I’d be grateful. Tonight’s the big game and we’ll be yelling “Roll Tide!” at the TV. Also, please remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

The cable company (through which I get my Internet hookup) hit me for $200 over the weekend, and I’m past due $300 on the electric bill, and “patriarchy” is really just a synonym for paying the bills.



 

 

Democrat @MJB_SF Hates White Men, Denounces ‘Stupid People’ in Midwest

Posted on 2 Comments

 

The Midwest is a “s–thole” full of “stupid people,” a place where “no educated person wants to live,” according to Melinda Byerley, a Democrat who lives in San Francisco. In a Facebook post and a series of Twitter messages Saturday, Ms. Byerley described residents of the Midwest as “violent, racist, and/or misogynistic” people whose “towns have nothing going for them.” The reason”the best and brightest” don’t want to live in the Midwest is because they would have to “sacrifice tolerance and diversity to do so,” Ms. Byerley said.

The full text of Ms. Byerley’s anti-Midwest rant:

One thing middle america could do is to realize that no educated person wants to live in a s–thole with stupid people. Especially violent, racist, and/or misogynistic ones. When big corporations think about where to put call centers, factors [sic], development centers, etc, they also have to deal with the fact that those towns have nothing going for them. No infrastructure, just a few bars and a terrible school system.
So if you want jobs, clean up your act and make your town a place that people like us want to live in. Add fiber internet. Make it a point to elect a progressive city council and commit to not being bigots.
I guarantee many of us would like to live a more rural lifestyle, or at least a less urban one, but we won’t sacrifice tolerance or diversity to do so. We especially don’t want to live in states where the majority of residents are still voting for things that are against their own interests just because they don’t want brown people to thrive.
the midwestern towns that fix this first, will attract investment in droves. It’s not just tax breaks and fiber. Corporations have to deal with the fact that the best and brightest would rather scrape by in SF than life in a huge house somewhere if it meant dealing with bigots and backwards ideologies every day.

 

Ms. Byerley is herself a native of the Midwest, who graduated from Illinois Wesleyan University in 1991 and later got an MBA from Cornell. Her Facebook profile shows Ms. Byerley was a member of the group “San Francisco for Hillary,” and her Twitter timeline includes numerous disparaging remarks directed toward white males.

 

Democrats supported the “Black Lives Matter” movement which incited race riots in Ferguson, Missouri, in Baltimore and in Charlotte, N.C. Democrats’ anti-white rhetoric alienated many voters during the 2016 campaign, and may have provoked violence last week in Chicago, where four black people kidnapped and tortured a white teenager and posted video to Facebook yelling “f–k Trump’ and “f–k white people.”

Exit polls show whites are a majority (71%) of the U.S. electorate and 57% voted for Trump. Despite evidence that their hateful rhetoric has damaged the Democrat Party, liberals like Ms. Byerley continue to promote messages that stigmatize white voters as “stupid people” who are “uneducated” and “racist” because they do not support Democrats.



 

RELATED:

 

Video Shows Democrat Hate Crime in Chicago: ‘F–k Trump! F–k White People!’

Posted on 3 Comments

 

Four young supporters of Barack Obama wanted to show the world what the Democrat Party stands for, so they kidnapped a mentally disabled young white man, bound and gagged him, and tortured him in a West Side Chicago apartment, livestreaming video of their hate crime on Facebook.

Police say they have arrested four 18-year-old suspects — two black males and two black females — in connection with the incident that Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson called “sickening.”

Police document shows suspect in this week’s Chicago torture incident.

One of the suspects, Brittany Herring, a/k/a Brittany Covington, had been arrested for larceny in October. This week’s atrocity occurred in the city where Obama once worked as a “community organizer,” where Hillary Clinton got 84% of the vote on Election Day, and where Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been mayor since 2011. Chicago is also a city where nearly 800 people were murdered in 2016, with more homicides than New York and Los Angeles combined.

 

The video torture of the young white man by black Chicago teens shouting “f–k Trump” and “f–k white people,” came in the wake of nearly two months of incitement by Democrats and their liberal media allies, after the Nov. 8 election in which Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Encouraged by sympathetic coverage from CNN and other liberal TV networks, Democrat protesters using the slogan “Not My President” have staged rallies denouncing white people as “racist” for voting Republican.

 

Chicago Democrats protested against Trump in November.

Since the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri, the Democrat-funded activist group Black Lives Matter has encouraged violence against police and against white people, inciting riots in Baltimore in April 2015 and in Charlotte, N.C., last September. In July, 11 Dallas police officers were shot by a terrorist named Micah Xavier Johnson who was inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement. The Dallas attack “was part of an ongoing wave of violent racial terrorism targeting American law enforcement” that included shootings of police in Tennessee, Missouri and Georgia.

In her recent book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, Heather Mac Donald described how false narratives promoted by the Black Lives Matter movement were “amplified by the media, college presidents, and the left-wing political class.” Despite clear evidence that the group’s protests were jeopardizing public safety and inciting crimes against police, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. In their book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama, authors Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan describe how the president’s public rhetoric has shown “a tendency to use race as a wedge to divide Americans,” politically exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin and the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

Democrats express their hatred of the president-elect.

Despite the racial violence Democrats have incited, and despite evidence that resentment of the Obama administration’s anti-white policies factored into Clinton’s November defeat, the liberal media continue promoting the Democrats’ anti-Trump/anti-white message. John Hinderaker at Powerline observed how the Associated Press attempted to conceal the racial politics of the Chicago atrocity, while Glenn Reynolds commented on the failure of most major media outlets to connect the dots of this racial hate crime: “If the races were reversed, there would be near-unanimous media efforts to blame Trump, and they wouldn’t be waiting until all the facts were in to do it.”



 

 

RELATED:

 

Unhinged by Hate: Georgetown Professor Harasses Trump Voter @AsraNomani

Posted on 1 Comment

 

The paranoid rage, anxiety and depression within the Democrat Party in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat has been most intense inside elite academia. At Yale University, students were reportedly traumatized by the election results, a Rutgers University professor was sent to a mental ward after his bizarre Twitter rant, and a Women’s Studies professor at the University of New Hampshire accused Trump supporters of “terrorism.” Universities have become insane asylums run by lunatics.

Georgetown Professor Christine Fair (left) lashed out at Asra Nomani (right).

Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair is, among other things, a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations, and also, a deranged hate-filed nutjob:

A Georgetown University associate professor had a month-long meltdown after a Muslim woman explained why she voted for President-elect Donald Trump.
Asra Q. Nomani, a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Nov. 10 explaining why she, as a Muslim woman and “long-time liberal,” voted for Trump. “I support the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage and climate change,” Nomani wrote. “But I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare.”
C. Christine Fair, a previously “friendly colleague,” went on a 31-day screed against Nomani spanning across Twitter and Facebook. According to Nomani’s Dec. 23 follow-up complaint to the university, the “Peace and Security Studies” professor called her a “wretch,” “clueless dolt” and a fame-monger.
Fair also compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and asserted that Nomani’s vote for Trump “helped normalize Nazis in DC.”

After weeks of enduring Professor Fair’s online abuse, Asra Nomani complained to Georgetown on Dec. 2, and the university took no action. Then on Dec. 23, Asra Nomani sent a lengthy letter detailing Professor Fair’s abuse, which clearly violates the university’s policies. What has Georgetown done? Nothing, as Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff observes:

Georgetown has taken no action to curb Fair’s attacks, and Fair has continued to launch them. . . .
I take no position here about whether Georgetown should try to rein in its vicious associate professor. The unhinged Fair does seem like a dubious choice to be teaching America’s future diplomats, but that’s Georgetown’s call.
My point is that there’s probably not a major university in America that would stand by while one of its professors spewed Fair’s kind of venom against a Muslim-American — venom that includes questioning the Muslim’s religious sincerity. Unless the target had strayed from left-liberal orthodoxy.

Georgetown University, like nearly every other institution of higher education in America, is controlled by left-wing Democrats, who use their institutional authority for partisan political purposes. It is impossible even to imagine a Republican being hired as a professor at Georgetown, but if there were an avowed GOP supporter on the faculty, can anyone imagine the university would tolerate such behavior by them? However, because Georgetown is run by Democrats, Professor Fair is permitted to abuse and harass her former colleague, Asra Nomani, with the complete approval of the university’s partisan administration.



 

 

Paranoid Democrat Cancels Annual Holiday Party, Blames Trump/Hitler

Posted on 3 Comments

 

“Henry Rosen has been a Dallas resident for nearly 40 years,” reads the caption at the Daily Kos column headlined, “Why Trump voters are not welcome in my house this holiday,” which is full-on paranoia:

My wife Alice and I are not having our after-the-holidays party this year. It’s a 20+ year tradition; a welcome respite for our friends following Christmas and Hanukah. Guests always say how much they appreciate a party after the holidays and having a chance to finally relax.
This year, however, I told my Alice that Trump voters were not welcome in my home. Living in Dallas, Texas, and given the conservative bent of our friends, that meant no party. . . .
I thought perhaps that Trump the President, might be chastened by the awesome responsibility he was about to assume – and leave behind the toxicity of his campaign rhetoric. Then, in rapid succession, three things happened that changed my mind.
First, Trump announced that Steve Bannon, of Breitbart infamy, would become a senior White House advisor. To invite such a purveyor of lies, hate and bigotry to work inside the hallowed gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was beyond the pale.
Then, my company’s COO, a Chinese American, told me how his small children were distraught, and in tears that morning. Children in their preschool had bullied them with comments such as: “your father is going to be killed because he didn’t vote for Trump”, and “you are going to be kicked out of the country”. This in Coppell, Texas, a wealthy suburb. These remarks were directed at third generation American citizens, by small children, obviously channeling their parents.
The next day, another friend relayed the anti-Semitism that was unleashed at Highland Park High School, ranked in the top 1% of all Texas public high schools. His son had become subject to taunts such as: “why don’t you go to Auschwitz?” and “take a shower, Jew boy”. These were teenagers, but we know where those sentiments originated. . . .

You can read the whole thing. The claim that Steve Bannon is “beyond the pale” is a dishonest myth created by the liberal media. To blame Trump for every rude thing said by schoolchildren is simply insane. What crimes could be blamed on Obama, if we were to say that presidents are responsible for every bad thing that happens during their tenure? Is Obama to blame for people having sex with dogs?

Democrats, who were perhaps not entirely sane before the election, have become completely unhinged in its aftermath. What can we expect from this growing epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome?



 

 

RELATED:

 

Having a Merry Trump Christmas, Because @Jillboard Hates Jesus

Posted on 2 Comments

Jillian Gutowitz, trying unsuccessfully to become popular on YouTube, July 2013.’

Jill Gutowitz (@Jillboard on Twitter) is a lesbian feminist Democrat from New Jersey who lives in Los Angeles, where she spent Election Night at a gay bar watching her entire world come crashing down in flames:

We thought we’d be able to ring in our first female president together. We were wrong. . . .
As my friends and I stood at The Abbey last night, watching our country slip through our fingers, we saw laughter turn to sadness, sadness turn to fear and finally, fear turn to pain. . . .
“He won,” I muttered as I burst into tears. . . . “How did this happen?”
I’ll tell you how it happened. 58 percent of white people voted for Trump; 53 percent of men, 42 percent of women. White people, what have you done? I had faith that our country was progressive and inclusive; that wasn’t realistic. This wasn’t fear; this was a white lash at the progress we’ve made. People aren’t scared, they are racist and misogynistic. . . .

A Democrat lost, a Republican won — unimaginable, to a 25-year-old lesbian feminist Democrat from New Jersey who was in middle school the last time (2004) a Democrat lost a presidential election.

 

 

This kind of rage/grief reaction by young Democrats is, to a great extent, a result of their having bought into a narrative of “progress,” believing themselves to be On The Right Side Of History and (incorrectly) thinking of the pre-Obama past as a Dark Age of Right-Wing Oppression.

Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have promoted this belief so relentlessly that, if you’re a half-educated 25-year-old, you might actually believe that America was a vast nightmarish concentration camp during the presidency of George W. Bush. Not until Jan. 20, 2009, with the swearing-in of President Obama, did our nation become “progressive and inclusive,” the lesbian feminist Democrat believes. When America failed to elect Hillary Clinton, this meant Jill and her friends in the L.A. gay bar were “watching our country slip through our fingers” and why? Because white people are “racist and misogynistic”!

If this election proved anything, it’s how much we hate women. This was an act of hate. This was selfish. And to those I know personally who voted for Trump; thanks for saying out loud that you don’t care about anyone but yourself. Nothing was at stake for you; our literal lives are at stake. It breaks my heart to see the swarm of wealthy, white men in red hats celebrating today — as if straight white men needed something more to celebrate. Trump gave these people an outlet to behave badly and now they’re being rewarded for their behavior. It feels like America is a social experiment that finally failed.

Jill, honey, we need to talk about your Kool-Aid addiction, OK? Because you’ve had wwaaaayy too much of it, and it’s not good for you.

Maybe you’re wondering why, Ms. Gutowitz, I decided on Christmas Eve to write about your absurdly over-the-top reaction to Donald Trump’s election. In fact, I’d never heard of you before yesterday, when by coincidence I stumbled onto something you wrote back in January:

Start Sleeping with the Same Sex
and Get On With Your Life
This is a call to arms. Straight people, I want you to stop daydreaming about boning your hot same-sex “girl crush” or “man crush” and just do it. I’m tired of your s–t. I don’t want to hear you say, “I totally could be gay but the only thing stopping me is licking a vagina.” Why you thinkin’ bout lickin’ a vagina, huh? Newsflash: lesbians don’t just sit around thinking about cleaning p–y off their face.
You think I wanted to be gay so I could lick vaginas? No. That’s not how it works. I found out I was gay cause I was having extremely close personal attachments to the same sex. So if you’re saying you’re feeling all the emotional sides of a lesbian relationship and you are sitting around thinking about licking a vagina…SEEMS PRETTY GAY.
I used to think the same thing as you: “I can’t go down on a girl!” Turns out, I’m super gay! Do you know how many excuses I’ve made for not being gay? . . .

Jill, you are mentally disturbed. You’re deranged, demented, bonkers, berserk, a few fries short of a Happy Meal and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

 

Rather than list every synonym for “crazy,” Jill, instead I’ll just let you describe yourself and your life:

I feel like a failure every day. . . .
I don’t like men. They’re mean and rude and I’ve almost always had purely negative experiences by them. . . .
I feel inadequate in everything I do. . . .
I’m not having sex because I’m scared of everyone. I think everyone is garbage.
I wish everyone was LGBTQ: we’re more understanding and open minded and kind. . . .
I feel like my insides are constantly withering and black and twisted and dying. I have anxiety. . . .
I asked my mom if she thought I was bipolar and she said “maybe.” I weaned myself off my anxiety medication over the last month because I was having more panic attacks than ever. I was more depressed than ever. . . .
I have a mental illness. I break down all the time. . . .
My romantic love has been almost unanimously unrequited. . . . I’ve never been fulfilled by a relationship. . . .
I used to believe in right and wrong. I used to believe in the idea of “deserving” something. Now I do not.

Jill, has anyone explained to you that spending too much time on social media is highly correlated to depression in young people? Online interaction becomes a substitute for doing anything useful or productive with your time. You start comparing yourself to other people, imagining yourself in some other life, and your actual life — you know, the one where you stay in your room all day, scrolling Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc. — seems even more pathetic when compared to the fantasy alternative in your imagination. So now we will return to your genuinely demented everybody-is-gay column from January:

I, like many in America, had a s–ty 2015, mostly because at the top of the year, I came out. It was f–king hard to deal with . . . because not only did I come out, but also I found out I was gay. It wasn’t a secret I was hiding since my pubes sprouted; it was something I discovered about myself in my 23rd year of life. I was mortified and embarrassed that I, a self-aware and anxiety-ridden Jew (only by blood), could go 23 years without knowing something about myself so crucial to my being. It was because I, like many people in America, dealt with years of internalized homophobia . . .

Oh, yes — “internalized homophobia”! Who invented this? Didn’t it come from the same Bad Idea Factory as “latent homosexual tendencies”?

Back in the Freudian heyday, when all the pop-psych talk was subconscious urges and “complexes” and how-do-you-feel-about-your-mother, the notion that one could harbor “latent tendencies” was one of those pseudo-diagnostic hypotheses that was impossible to disprove. Yes, I’m a middle-aged guy who’s been married 27 years and has six kids, but obviously I’m just overcompensating. Like the Kinsey Scale, the whole point of “latent tendencies” seems to have been to convince us that everybody’s at least a little bit gay. It’s a psychological con game, a sort of gay PUA hustle: “Now that we have determined you have ‘latent tendencies,’ what the heck, why not give it a try?”

Never try to pull that kind of cheap con on me. It insults my intelligence. So let’s get back to Jillian explaining her “internalized homophobia”:

As a kid, I was a tomboy. I was bullied for being boyish and I had no friends that were girls. So I was forced to adapt. I started dressing more “girly,” in the American vernacular sense of the word, but it was too late. I was already friends with all the boys in the school. None of them saw me as a sexual object like they did the girly girls. . . .
I spent high school being basically asexual and unaware of it. I liked boys because I knew I was supposed to. I didn’t have a boyfriend until my senior year and when I finally had one, I didn’t even like him, I just wanted a prom date. . . .

Pardon my interruption, Ms. Gutowitz, but didn’t you grow up in middle-class suburban New Jersey? Weren’t you a “good girl,” the bookish nerdy type, who mainly hung around with your fellow nerds? Weren’t you rather closely supervised by your parents, who emphasized the importance of doing well in school so you could go to college? There was no way you could have gone the tight-skirts-and-heels route, dressing like a jailbait hooker and hanging out downtown with the Bad Boys, right?

The awkward middle-class child, over-directed and over-supervised by well-intentioned parents, often drifts through adolescence without giving any sign of their inner angst. Making good grades, staying out of trouble — no external warning signals, but inside they feel like outcasts or misfits, and wonder why they can’t achieve the kind of popularity and social success that seems to come so easily to others: “What’s wrong with me?”

To which the correct answer is: Nothing, really. Continue reading Having a Merry Trump Christmas, Because @Jillboard Hates Jesus →

Hillary Is Madonna or Something

Posted on 2 Comments

Everybody wants to play pundit nowadays. The New York Times unleashed its arts writers on the most over-analyzed election in history:

“I was called a whore and a witch,” Madonna said on Friday in a searing speech about the sexism and bullying that women face in the music industry and the culture at large.
“Such a nasty woman,” Donald J. Trump interjected in October as Hillary Clinton pointed out holes in his Social Security plan during their final presidential debate.
Madonna and Mrs. Clinton: both trailblazers, both polarizing figures, and both attacked for actions, choices and behavior that are broadly accepted — even applauded — when done by their male peers. Madonna herself made a connection between the two women before her speech Friday, saying it was “really important to make a stand and speak my mind” about women’s rights after Mrs. Clinton’s loss in November.
Our pop music editor, Caryn Ganz, and deputy Culture editor and former political correspondent Patrick Healy looked at how Madonna and her speech put Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in fresh perspective. . . .

Go read the whole thing and ask yourself: Why?

Why does every liberal with access to a computer feel the need to share their “perspective” on this topic? Why do we care what Madonna says?

Isn’t the purpose of this kind of “journalism” essentially therapeutic?

Aren’t these New York Times writers basically grieving in public, and inviting their fellow liberals to console themselves about Hillary’s loss by saying, “All great women suffer the slings and arrows of misogyny”? By putting the whole election into “perspective” — a perspective where even millionaire pop stars and powerful politicians can think of themselves as victims of patriarchal oppression — the New York Times invites their affluent liberal readers to share in the sense of communal victimhood. Is the entire staff of the New York Times gobbling Prozac and Paxil? Are there any emotionally stable journalists employed there, or is the entire staff just one big group therapy session for depressed neurotics?