Category: National Offend a Feminist Week

As a ‘Christofascist Godbag,’ I Need Some Civility Lessons From Melissa McEwan

Posted on Comments

Let me begin this response to Melissa McEwan by citing Ann Coulter, not because she is a woman — certainly not one of those “liberal women constantly talking about their vaginas suddenly pretending to be offended by the word ‘slut'” — but because Coulter dared to tell the truth about Max Cleland’s Vietnam war injuries.

Flashback to 2002 (and I should include a “trigger alert” for liberals traumatized by that year’s mid-term elections) when Cleland was running for re-election to the Senate in Georgia. His Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss hit Cleland hard for having insisted on union rights for Homeland Security employees, Democrats claimed this was an attack on Cleland’s patriotism and, because of Cleland’s status as a disabled Vietnam War veteran, when Chambliss won the election, “Democrats began citing Cleland’s lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes,” to quote Coulter.

Among those who worked to craft that false narrative was notorious liar Eric Boehler, who said “Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade” — which is a damned lie: Cleland was not wounded by hostile enemy action. His was not a combat injury, but inflicted by an American grenade that somebody dropped at at a division assembly area where Cleland decided to “have a beer with some friends.” Cleland himself never claimed to have been a hero, but liberals dishonestly did so, as part of a calculated strategy of playing the “chicken hawk” card against George W. Bush in the 2004 campaign.

Ann Coulter called this what it was — a lie — and when the usual suspects (Molly Ivins, Al Hunt, Joe Klein) reacted by trying to claim Coulter was impugning Cleland, Coulter let it rip in a memorably brutal February 2004 column that included this:

Liberals are not angry because I “lied”; they’re angry because I told the truth.
I wouldn’t press the point except that Democrats have deliberately “sexed up” the circumstances of Cleland’s accident in the service of slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush. Cleland has questioned Bush’s fitness for office because he served in the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam. . . .
Liberals simply can’t grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty — hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.

What the Cleland episode illustrated was how liberals shamelessly exploit victimhood for political gain, and never expect to be called out on it, because  then the liberals will accuse conservatives of being insensitive to victims. In her 2006 book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter explains how the “absolute moral authority” of Cleland, Cindy Sheehan and the so-called “Jersey Girls” (anti-war Democrat widows of men killed in the 9/11 attacks) was tantamount to a doctrine of infallibility: They’re victims, so you can’t argue with them.

Well . . . rape.

Can we just begin this part of the discussion by making clear that nobody is in favor of rape? Certainly, Republicans are not pro-rape, but maybe Juanita Broaddrick would have something to say about the Democrat policy on rape. (“Better put some ice on that.”) It should not be necessary to issue disclaimers like this — I’m also anti-burglary, anti-car-theft and anti-aggravated-assault — except that liberals have spent so much time trying to turn rape into a partisan issue. Exploiting rape to elect Democrats is acceptable (ask Todd Akin), but is grievously wrong when Republicans do it. In 1988, Democrat concern for Willie Horton’s victims Cliff and Angela Barnes manifested itself mainly as Mike Dukakis blathering on about his ACLU membership and liberals accusing Republicans of racism.

So when it was reported that Cleveland “house of horrors” rapist Ariel Castro is a registered Democrat, this was the kind of fact liberals were certain to ignore. The media was happy to have the Cleveland story (and the Jodi Arias verdict) as an excuse not to cover the Benghazi hearings, but now that we know the perpetrator was a Democrat, we’re likely to see a bit less coverage. And given how the media have spent the past four years endlessly trying to pin the Tea Party label on a mass murderer — from Tucson to Aurora to Boston — there must have been a huge letdown for liberals when they learned Ariel Castro is not a Rush Limbaugh listener. And, because this is National Offend a Feminist Week . . .

After checking to see whether Ms. Marcotte had indeed addressed that story (she hadn’t), I then decided to check on feminist writer Melissa McEwan. Marcotte and McEwan worked together briefly in 2007 on the John Edwards presidential campaign, a thought that always makes me smile when I think of this headline:

 Vote for Edwards, Godbag Christofascists!

As wretched as Marcotte is, it was McEwan whose penchant for obscene diatribes against Christianity did the most to get them fired from the Edwards campaign. The ironic denouement — Edwards being exposed as an adulterer, cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and siring a love child with a ditzy would-be documentary film-maker — ought to have been enough to give both Marcotte and Edwards second thoughts about how they had been blinded by their progressive ideology. But if feminists ever thought twice, they wouldn’t be feminists, would they?

Anyway, I checked, and McEwan had actually written about the Cleveland case, so I taunted her:

This was . . . ah . . . not an informed decision. McEwan responded:

No, Robert Stacy McCain, the reason this case is hard for me is not because Ariel Castro is a registered Democrat. The reason this case is hard for me is because I was raped by a man who not only raped me in my own home, but also used to take me to his home, at the end of a gun, and lock me in his basement, and hurt me there, too. It’s hard for me because, when his father found me, shivering and afraid, he told his son, “Tell her to make a pizza while she’s down there,” before he walked back upstairs and shut the door behind him. It’s hard for me because I was forced to make fucking dinner for the abuser who called me his girlfriend and his cruelly indifferent father.

So now my thoughtless error permits the narrative ju-jitsu, and my insensitivity to victims becomes the subject of the story.

Well, I’m willing to drop this and move on. Healey’s First Law of Holes, and all that. But neither am I going to be lectured about decorum by deranged hate-filled moonbats. So I’ve considered what arguments I might make if these fanatics decide to belabor the point.

Did I mention she’s crazy? No, but she did.

And it’s still National Offend a Feminist Week, you know.

 

Hope and Chains: #WarOnWomen Kidnapper Is Cuyahoga County Democrat

Posted on Comments

Amanda Berry (left); Ariel Castro (center); Gina DeJesus (right)

“If any of the brothers were a Republican, this news would have been trumpeted by the mainstream media as tangible proof of the Republican War on Women — a narrative invented by Democrat strategists and maintained by the media in a successful effort to defeat Republican candidates in the 2012 election cycle.
“However, when a real act of war on women is perpetrated by a Democrat voter in the manner that even the most zealous Democrat strategist couldn’t have dreamed up in their worst nightmares — involving abduction, imprisonment, rape, torture, malnutrition, beatings while pregnant, and killing babies — the media doesn’t think the party affiliation is relevant.”
— Oleg Atbashian, American Thinker, “Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat”

Let’s be clear: The fact that Cleveland “house of horrors” suspect Ariel Castro is a registered Democrat does not mean either:

  1. That all Democrats have rape dungeons in their basements;
    or
  2. That every resident of Cuyahoga County is a sexual predator.

These are illogical inferences, and quite possibly harmful stereotypes. Some violent sex offenders might sue you for libel if you accuse them of being Cuyahoga County Democrats. But what kind of monster would kidnap his daughter’s best friend?

Even while police and the FBI searched for DeJesus — who prosecutors now say was one of three women kept captive and repeatedly raped in Ariel Castro’s Seymour Avenue home — the accused kidnapper’s daughter was interviewed on America’s Most Wanted. …
Investigators now say that DeJesus was kidnapped that day by Arlene’s own father, who offered the girl a ride and then chained up Gina — along with his other victims, Michelle Knight and Amanda Berry — in the basement of the West Side house where they were held captive as sex slaves during years of horrific abuse. In an interview Thursday on ABC’s Good Morning America, Arlene Castro said she was “devastated” to learn that her best friend had been her father’s victim . . .

Read the whole thing at ViralRead, and while you’re at it, see if you can get feminist @AmandaMarcotte to notice this story.

Did I mention that this is National Offend a Feminist Week?

However, I must point out that investigators in Cleveland have cleared Ariel Castro’s brothers, Pedro and Onil, of any charges in connection with the rape case. So apparently they’re not kidnappers or rapists, but they might still be Cuyahoga County Democrats.

 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


If @AmandaMarcotte Made You a Sandwich, Would You Eat It?

Posted on Comments

“I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication . . .”
— Revelation 13:3-4 (KJV)

The title of the post is obviously a moot question — a far-fetched hypothetical — because Amanda Marcotte lacks any capacity for nurturing and is, in fact, quite vehemently anti-nurturing, as evidenced by her fanatical reaction to Mitt Romney’s recent speech:

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/330666505538768896

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/330666840235839488

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/330667360405032960

What did Mitt say to provoke Marcotte’s bizarre rant? He simply gave this advice to college seniors: “If you meet someone you love, get married. Have a quiver-full of kids if you can.” But Amanda Marcotte hates babies. She is such a bloodthirsty enthusiast for abortion that one imagines that she would have paid Kermit Gosnell for the opportunity to come to his clinic and help kill babies.

Amanda Marcotte is not “pro-choice.” She is pro-death.

Did I mention that this is National Offend a Feminist Week? Many other blogs have joined in recognition of this fifth annual event:

What sane person, male or female, could admire the heartless, hateful ideology of cruelty that Amanda Marcotte represents? Over the years, I have occasionally been forced to cope with silly arguments from silly people who think there is some kind of “moderate” or “mainstream” feminism — even, God help us, “conservative feminism” — but what these people don’t understand is that feminism is what it has always been, a radical doctrine of the extreme Left.

Feminism is founded on a lie — the false promise of an impossible egalitarian utopia — and its arguments are all dishonest. Feminism is at war with nature, its theories are hostile to human happiness, and its beliefs are symptomatic of an insane detachment from reality.

Rational humans are therefore not surprised when Amanda Marcotte erupts in fits of jabbering lunacy, nor are we shocked when a college feminist makes a hoax-threat to “hatef-ck” herself.

So we invite all bloggers to join us in celebrating National Offend a Feminist Week, because these monsters deserve to be offended.

Meanwhile, say hello to a hot chick in a bikini.

You’re welcome, America.





 

UPDATE: Gene Hackett connects the dots:

Amanda Marcotte immediately equates having babies with hatred, and by using the eugenics comparison, with death.

An ideology founded on falsehood will inevitably produce dishonest arguments leading to insane conclusions. Feminism is like some bizarre alternative universe, where no one has normal emotions or natural impulses and where the rules of logic do not apply.

 

A Festive Occasion!

Posted on Comments

National Offend a Feminist Week begins tomorrow and ends (as per tradition) on Mother’s Day, but why not start the party early, eh?

UPDATE: Thinking back to when it all began in 2009, I got misty-eyed with nostalgia:

Thank you, Daley Gator!

UPDATE II: Loyal reader Jeff in Walla Walla reminds us of another festive holiday occasion.

 

Rebecca Traister’s Idiocy: Too Late for National Offend a Feminist Week? UPDATE: She Keeps Losing Arguments With the Voices in Her Head

Posted on Comments

Instpundit brutally pimp-slaps a Washington Post columnist who evidently doesn’t understand that a succubus, by definition, cannot be “sex-averse.” Alas, National Offend a Feminist Week ends on Mother’s Day, and I didn’t see Rebecca Traister’s column (linked at Althouse) until the annual festival of patriarchal oppression had elapsed.

Sigh.

If only there were some good reason to bend the rules . . .

 




 

UPDATE: Who am I kidding, huh?

There may be other work to be done today — work for which I might actually get paid — but even if nobody hits my tip jar, this verbose bimbo is gonna get smacked around so bad, she’ll wish she’d never even thought about writing that witless screed. Just give me a few minutes to skim through and find the proper angle of attack. While you’re repeatedly hitting the “refresh” button in eager anticipation of the forthcoming viciously misogynistic updates, however . . .

C’mon: $5 or $10 to make it worth my while? Because nothing would so infuriate Rebecca Traister as to know that a shameless capitalist blogger is getting paid to heap more ridicule on her.

UPDATE II: While you’re waiting for me to unleash the hounds of patriarchal hell on Rebecca Traister, let’s point out that embittered humorless feminists are not a stereotype. They’re the unspeakably grim reality that is Michelle Goldberg on MSNBC:

Donald Douglas at American Power: “I’ve written about Michelle Goldberg many times. I was literally sickened when I read her book a few years back, which is a global manifesto for infanticide.”

UPDATE III: Still locking in coordinates for the targeted barrage. While you wait — and c’mon, $5 or $10 — I’ll provide you the guaranteed antidote to Viagra, Michelle Goldberg and Rebecca Traister in a 2008 “Blogging Heads TV” colloquy:

In their spare time, Goldberg and Traister probably volunteer at the local abortion clinic, taking turns plunging knives through the hearts of any infants who manage to survive the procedure.

UPDATE IV: OK, now working feverishly on the main response, and thanks to Shelly in New Mexico for hitting the tip jar. The rest of y’all, c’mon: $5 or $10, and I’ll try to earn it.

Meanwhile, ask yourself: Why can’t Michelle Goldberg or Rebecca Traister ever find anything to say about a case in which police are accused of ignoring pedophile sex-traffickers?

UPDATE V: Having pored over Traister’s self-consciously “intellectual” essay – studded with SAT words and other such aren’t-we-so-smart advanced-placement gestures – I see exactly what Professor Althouse meant by “a silly collection of words.”

There isn’t really an argument, except between Traister and her selected strawmen, or perhaps among the screeching voices inside Rebecca’s demon-filled head. (“My name is Legion” – somewhere, a herd of swine awaits.) Her intent is to celebrate the humor of various other liberals, to whom she attributes an aptitude she conspicuously lacks herself. No one has ever accused Rebecca Traister of being intentionally funny and, if “the personal is political,” her politics is either intensely secretive or utterly empty. Careful observers of Traister’s work cannot help but notice how guarded she is about herself, seeking always to have us focus on whatever idols she reveres or scapegoats she demonizes.

There is something about Rebecca that Rebecca doesn’t like (a self-loathing she externalizes by attacks on others), and her “feminism” is less a philosophy than an attempt to distract herself and others from her own emotional desperation.

One suspects she has a history of suicidal thoughts. What sort of anti-depressants has Traister been prescribed, and in what dosage?

It doesn’t matter: She is not funny, because there is nothing funny about her own lonely and joyless existence. For this plight, she somehow irrationally blames conservative Republicans she’s never actually met and who wouldn’t even know she existed — admit it, you had never heard of her before now — if she hadn’t committed that stupid miscomprehension of “succubus.” (Can the Washington Post no longer afford to employ college graduates as editors?) At any rate, here is the conclusion of Traister’s column:

The hairy harridan of yore isn’t totally vanquished. She’s too useful for the right. Without her, it becomes clear that Republicans are fighting not some made-up monster but women themselves. Contemporary activists who have recently replaced the yellowing cartoon of feminism with a living, breathing, nuanced version of what women’s liberation means in 2012 must keep fighting with humor and zeal if they ever want to finish off the old bat.
Perhaps someday they’ll even avenge her by hoisting a banner of their foes as fogeyish, woman-hating, humorless prudes and carrying it into future battles.

Unfortunately for Traister, she can never escape her own worst enemy, whose unforgiving gaze penetrates her every time she looks in a mirror.

Irony-Impaired Planned Parenthood Hosts Mother’s Day Fundraiser
UPDATE: New York Democrat Offers Another Ironic Suggestion!

Posted on Comments

Do they lack a sense of irony? Or have no sense of shame?

As families across the nation gather to celebrate Mother’s Day, others will gather to support the abortion industry. Never one to miss a fundraising opportunity, a New York affiliate of Planned Parenthood is hosting a Mother’s Day brunch to support the clinic. . . .
This is not Planned Parenthood’s first attempt to raise money through Mother’s Day. Year after year, the abortion giant encourages supporters to donate on behalf of their mothers. . . .
The organization responsible for the death of over 300,000 children annually has no right to be raising money in honor of mothers. Abortion steals motherhood from women.

Remember this: If you were born after 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared your life utterly worthless, without value, and deserving of no legal protection. That you are even alive to read this is therefore proof that God had some purpose for your life.

Why don’t you think about that? Ask yourself whether you, having miraculously survived despite the hatred of those who viewed your life with such vicious contempt, have a duty — indeed, an obligation of sacred honor — to speak up on behalf of those yet unborn.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.
— Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)

UPDATE: Democrat death-monger Kirsten Gillibrand wants you to honor Mother’s Day by giving to pro-abortion EMILY’s List. (Hat-tip: Life News and Jill Stanek.) Meanwhile, the author of the article about the Planned Parenthood brunch was excited to learn she’d been linked by Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s site.

UPDATE II: “Get out the Kleenex”!

 

RECENTLY:

 


Kate Beckinsale’s Ghastly Vagina of Death: Another Ex-Starlet Aborts Her Career

Posted on Comments

Formerly attractive actress Kate Beckinsale, before she
turned her vagina into a political statement.

Maybe you have heard of Kate Beckinsale, an actress who used to be considered attractive. In fact, when she was still young — about 15 years ago — guys who saw her nude scene in Uncovered widely regarded Beckinsale as “hot.” As recently as last week, if you had asked guys to name some reasonably good-looking actresses in their late 30s, Kate Beckinsale might have made the top 10.

Then she killed it.

Her vagina, I mean.

When Smitty took note of the “Funny or Die” video Monday — it wasn’t funny, and therefore, died — I didn’t immediately realize that the producers of that unfunny partisan political ad had actually got a moderately well-known actress involved in their miscalculated election-year slur. Then I read Wyblog and learned the shocking truth.

Judy Greer? Andrea Savage? Never heard of ’em. But Kate Beckinsale? Yeah, that name rang a bell in a “nice rack, pretty face” kind of way.

Why would an attractive, young and reasonably successful actress get herself mixed up in that feminists-mocking-Republicans crap? There is a reason that kind of stunt-politics stuff is monopolized by D-listers and over-the-hill has-beens like Ashley Judd.

If an actress is young and hot, the last thing in the world she wants is to get mixed up in politics. Young hot actresses in Hollywood are cast for roles based entirely on the fact that they are young and hot, and their box-office appeal can only be damaged by taking controversial stands on political issues. The people who buy movie tickets don’t care whether an actress is Republican or Democrat, as long as she’s got a nice rack and a pretty face. As Sam Goldwyn once said, “If you want to send a message, call Western Union.”

Few things are more annoying than a starlet who supposes that she is employed on the basis of her extraordinary talent. Congratulations, darling: You remembered your lines and hit your mark. Let’s just call the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences right now and nominate you for an Oscar in the “Best Rack” category, OK?

What happens with such people, I think, is that they get so used to being catered to and fawned over, they actually start thinking of themselves as superior beings, and imagine that we lesses mortals are actually in need of enlightenment from them.

So when Kate Beckinsale chose to turn her vagina into a political statement, she killed it. And by “it,” I mean her vagina, which by logical extension is ultimately what we refer to when we speak of an actress as having “sex appeal.”

Abortion is about death, Ms. Beckinsale, and by publicly enlisting your vagina on the side of death, you killed it. Christian Toto reminds us:

Beckinsale, who stars in the upcoming “Total Recall” remake, once said she couldn’t believe anyone would actually admit to being a Republican in the first place.

We come to bury Kate Beckinsale’s vagina, not to praise it. After having bared her young tatas in Uncovered, the notorious homewrecker stole another woman’s husband while he was directing her in a forgettable vampire picture nine years ago, when she was still young and reasonably attractive — before she killed her vagina.

So now the remake of Total Recall will star a once-attractive actress with a dead vagina. The critics might not notice, but we will.

 

UPDATE: Some progressive troll on Twitter decided to complain about “objectification,” which prompted me to respond:

When an actress stars in a POLITICAL AD about ‘MY VAGINA,’ don’t complain about “objectification,” OK?

The title of the Funny or Die video was, after all, “Republicans, Get in My Vagina.” That is to say, Beckinsale and her colleagues thought it would be “cute” to make their vaginas the point of the “joke.” And we can say nothing in reply except polite demurrals?

Nuh-uh. Homey don’t play that.

RECENTLY:


Which Is Worse: Gang-Rape or Racism?

Posted on Comments

British teens must be grateful their rapists weren’t victims of racism

“Individuals opposed to Party rule are selected as targets of disapproval, usually to the point of demonization. Criticism usually extends to allegations of personal corruption, wickedness, or barbarism. Terms used to vilify Party opponents are formulaic, seeming to draw from a lexicon developed for the purpose; there is little if any verbal creativity in criticism of Party-designated targets.”
— David G. Muller Jr., American Thinker, “A Leninist View of the American Media,” March 26, 2009

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself … she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Suppose you had to choose between living in two societies: One in which police are racists, or one in which teenagers are gang-raped. Believe it or not, this isn’t entirely a hypothetical question in England:

Police and social workers were last night accused of failing to investigate an Asian paedophile gang for fear of being perceived as racist, allowing them to prey on up to 50 young white girls.
The nine men from Rochdale were yesterday convicted of abusing five vulnerable teenagers after plying them with alcohol, food and small sums of money in return for sex.
However, the true number of victims, who were “passed around” by the gang, is likely to be nearer to 50, police have admitted.
Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have now apologised after they failed to bring the case of the first victim — Girl A — to trial following her cry for help in August 2008. . . .
Complaints to social workers and the police were ignored because they were “petrified of being called racist”, former Labour MP for Keighley Ann Cryer said. . . .
“This is an absolute scandal. They were petrified of being called racist and so reverted to the default of political correctness,” she said.
“They had a greater fear of being perceived in that light than in dealing with the issues in front of them.”
Girl A told police that she had been raped and provided DNA evidence from her attacker, however the CPS twice decided not to prosecute him.
The 15 year-old’s abuse continued and at its height she was being driven to flats and houses to be raped by up to five men a night, four or five days a week. She was singled out because she was white, vulnerable and under-age.

It is here necessary to explain that, while Americans usually employ the term “Asian” to mean East Asian — Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. — in Britain the term generally denotes immigrants from Pakistan, India or the Middle East. Thus, among the “Asians” convicted in the  gang-rape case were Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rauf, Mohammed Sajid, Adil Khan, Abdul Qayyum, Mohammed Amin and Hamid Safi.

Blogmocracy call them “Muslim scum who gang raped a 13 year old,” a description that CAIR would likely disapprove, but the question remains: What happens when fear of being accused of “racism” prevents the police from effectively enforcing the law?

We first called attention to this problem in England with a series of posts in November 2010:

Those posts concerned an entirely separate case in Derbyshire, where the accused included Abid ­Saddique, Mohammed Liaqat, Akshay Kumar, Faisal Mehmood, Mohamed Imran Rehman and Ziafat Yasin. Which is to say that we cannot dismiss these cases as isolated incidents, but must ask what underlying cultural factors are involved.

We are unlikely to get useful answers to such questions if the discussion is hemmed in by political correctness, where police and social workers — and yes, journalists — cower in fear of being accused of racism. And this leaves aside entirely the larger policy question of whether Great Britain (and other Western countries including the United States) are accepting immigrants more quickly than they can effectively assimilate them.

Two weeks ago, when two Muslim men were arrested in yet another British gang-rape case, I remarked, “You might be a right-wing extremist if . . . you think Rashid and Hussain represent an argument for stricter immigration policies.” Lots of ordinary people automatically make that mental connection, but most journalists are afraid even to take notice of this, except to abhor xenophobia, and to suggest or imply that anyone who thinks that way is in need of sensitivity training. Continue reading Which Is Worse: Gang-Rape or Racism? →