The Other McCain

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

‘A Mad Scramble for Victim Status’

Posted on | September 10, 2016 | Comments Off on ‘A Mad Scramble for Victim Status’

 

Christina Hoff Sommers is old enough to remember the 1960s, and must be amused by the absurd protests that erupt whenever she appears on university campuses. Back in the day, when students rioted over the Vietnam War and the governor sent in the National Guard, it was a serious thing. Nowadays? Fat white girls shouting “racist” at a speaker they don’t like — this is difficult to take seriously and yet, because young people themselves take this quite seriously, it requires our attention.

Dr. Sommers spent years in academia, teaching at the University of Massachusetts and Clark University. During a recent interview with North Dakota State University Professor Clay Routledge of Psychology Today, Dr. Sommers elaborated her critique of modern feminism:

Women are not children. We are not fragile little birds who can’t cope with jokes, works of art, or controversial speakers. Trigger warnings and safe spaces are an infantilizing setback for feminism — and for women. . . .
There is a theory behind the culture of victimhood: It’s called “intersectionality.” This theory posits that racism, sexism, classism, ableism, etc. are interconnected, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing. Together they form a “matrix of oppression.” This matrix is not visible to all of us because elites disguised it via manufactured concepts. Examples include “reason,” and “evidence,” which are supposedly objective, but are in fact can be masculinist, heterosexist, and colonialist “ways of knowing.” . . . However, the theory, following Foucault, teaches that “marginalized others” have access to other ways of knowing, and therefore to deeper, more authentic truths about human reality. They can share that knowledge by speaking about their lived experience while in a safe space. But to provide this kind of safety, members of privileged groups, i.e. white, able-bodied, cis-gendered middle class men, must keep quiet. It’s no wonder there is a mad scramble for victim status on many campuses today. It confers authority and prestige.

You can read the whole thing. My disagreement with Dr. Sommers, as I’ve explained several times over the years, is that she insists there is something called “feminism” which is worth defending, and that the feminist movement has been hijacked by radicals. By contrast, my opinion — and I have provided abundant evidence to justify this view — is that radicals didn’t “hijack” the feminist movement, because they were the ones who built it. Feminism was always inherently radical, intolerant of dissent, and destructive in its goals. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and therefore must be opposed with unflinching determination. This was the stance that made the late Phyllis Schlafly such a heroic figure in conservative history. Despite her own heroic courage and brilliant scholarship, Dr. Sommers’ effort to save feminism from itself is ultimately doomed. Feminism is a cult, and university campuses are the sacred temples of the feminist cult, so that anyone on campus who expresses skepticism toward the cult’s ideology is denounced as a heretic. “Hate speech” is the new blasphemy.

Student protesters accuse Christina Hoff Sommers of ‘hate speech.’

Feminism is a species of mental illness, as I have explained:

For more than two years, I have been urging conservatives to begin Taking Feminism Seriously. When I was assigned to cover the DC SlutWalk protest for The America Spectator in August 2013, I saw first-hand and at close range the kind of delusional madness that has taken hold in the minds of young women under the influence of so-called Third Wave feminism. While it can be argued that Second Wave feminism (i.e., the radical Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1960s and ’70s) was similarly insane, Third Wave feminism has taken this lunacy beyond every hitherto imaginable limit.

If ever there was any hope that feminism could be reformed, to become a movement that rational and responsible adults could support, that hope was long ago eradicated by the fanatics who lead the movement, including the hundreds of radical professors who are paid to indoctrinate some 90,000 students annually in Women’s Studies programs on more than 700 campuses nationwide. It is these students — irrational extremists trained in the movement’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology — who become feminist leaders, acting as commissars who enforce unwavering adherence to the movement’s quasi-religious hate doctrines.

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
— Pat Robertson, 1992

Every single word of that is as true today as it was in 1992, and certainly Dr. Sommers is aware of the lesbian witchcraft aspect of feminism, considering that her high-school best friend Miriam Simos grew up to become the lesbian feminist witch known as Starhawk. Claims of “access to other ways of knowing, and . . . deeper, more authentic truths,” as Dr. Sommers says, are why feminism is essentially a religion.

“Right now, today, as of writing this, I identify as queer. But I didn’t always. And no, I’m not referring to that awkward, uncomfortable time in my life where I knew that something felt ‘off,’ but I couldn’t quite place it, and so I paraded around in the charade of ‘straight.’ I mean that a few years ago, I identified as homoflexible. And before that, a lesbian. And even before that, bisexual.”
— Melissa Fabello

Melissa Fabello hates men so much that she is now managing editor of Everyday Feminism, a site dedicated to abolishing heterosexuality by promoting LGBTQIA feminism. She condemns heterosexual men as perpetrators of “the male gaze,” “rape culture” and “male sexual entitlement” and boastfully identifies herself as a “patriarchy smasher.”

Ms. Fabello’s outspoken contempt for males is an attitude that is now obligatory in the movement. To quote the title of a recent textbook by Women’s Studies Professor Mimi Marinucci, Feminism Is Queer, and the movement’s implacable hostility toward heterosexual men requires an intensity of devotion that can only be described as religious zealotry.

Melissa Fabello preaches the transformative gospel of her feminist faith:

I often joke with people that feminism has been like a born-again religion for me — that once I found it and let it into my life, my entire perspective shifted in such a way that suddenly, everything made sense — and that I feel compelled to spread that gospel.
See, because when I first started discovering feminism, I realized how many of the bad things that have happened in my life, big and small, have been part of a larger social system. And coming to understand that it was never my fault or about me individually gave me space to start an immense healing process.
And when intersectional feminism found its way into my life, I was even more enamored: Not only did feminism explain what had gone wrong in my own life and the lives of other women, but it explained essentially every awful thing in the world. . . .
Because feminism has changed everything — has regenerated every cell in my body so that I am a completely different person with it than I was without it.
And I’m thankful for that every single day.

Facts and logic mean nothing to fanatics like Melissa Fabello. Feminism’s cult followers are devoted to a satanic doctrine of radical hatred.

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.




 


Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 09.09.16

Posted on | September 9, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 09.09.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Milo Explains The Alt-Right To CNBC
Twitchy: Who Gets To Tell President Obama The Bad News On North Korea?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #17 – The Unicorn Episode Plus Weekly Links
American Power: Mao Died Forty Years Ago; China Still Struggles With His Monstrous Legacy
American Thinker: The D.C. Gaslight District
Animal Magnetism: Rule 5 North Korea Friday
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Debt to Pay by Reed Coleman
Da Tech Guy: Screwtape Applauds Sister Jane Marie Klein
Don Surber: Whither The Democratic Party After Clinton?
Dustbury: Tebow Still Unbowed
Jammie Wearing Fools: The Science Is Settled – Most Doctors Say Granny Clinton’s Health A Serious Concern
Joe For America: Two Women Marry; Half A Year Later, Police Discover Their Nasty Secret
JustOneMinute: Dash To Dumb, World Class Olympic Edition
Pamela Geller: Three Muslim Women Arrested In Paris For Planning Attack On Railway Station
Power Line: Colin Powell’s E-Mail To Hillary Casts Her In Even Worse Light
Shark Tank: Trump, Clinton Tied In Florida
Shot In The Dark: The Raj
STUMP: Kentucky Pensions Update – Governance Woes
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – No Jews=Ethnic Cleansing
The Political Hat: Socialist On The Run
This Ain’t Hell: Elisa Lazzarino Argues Military Service Is Indentured Servitude
Weasel Zippers: Bill Clinton Mocks “Coal People” Of Kentucky, West Virginia For Supporting Trump
Megan McArdle: You’ll Miss What You Don’t Use On The New IPhone


Today’s Digital Deals
Woot! Deals
Shop Amazon – The Handmade Baby Store

Category: Linkagery

Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

Posted on | September 9, 2016 | Comments Off on Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

 

In 1999, Maggie Gallagher published “The Age of Unwed Mothers,” in which she conclusively demonstrated that the panic about teenage pregnancy (“kids having kids”) was fundamentally misguided. Contrary to what the media and politicians were telling Americans, teenage motherhood had significantly declined since the 1960s, and what had actually changed about motherhood was the decline of marriage rates for young women. Gallagher showed that the astonishing increase of unwed motherhood — now 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women — was largely a phenomenon involving women in their early 20s.

 

Teen motherhood is not a pathology. In fact, the highest rates of teenage motherhood in recent U.S. history were during the 1950s, the Golden Age of “Family Values.” The birth rate for females ages 15-19 was 96.3 per thousand in 1957, and is now a measly 26.6 per thousand. In “The Age of Unwed Mothers” (which you absolutely must read, if you’ve never read it before), Gallagher pointed out that statistics about “teenage pregnancy” had been consistently misrepresented in the media so that births to young adult women (ages 18 and 19) were conflated in the public mind with a negative stereotype, i.e., the 15-year-old girl who was doomed to be a high-school dropout and pass on to her child a legacy of poverty.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their agenda, however, so the scare campaign about teenage motherhood has been leveraged to promote sex education in schools. Am I the only person in America who sees how redundant “sex education” classes are in the 21st century?

If kids have questions about sex — e.g., “How does pregnancy happen?” — it doesn’t require much skill to Google it. Insofar as teenagers have a problem with sex, it is not because of a lack of information, but a lack of virtue. The basic function of human reproductive organs is not exactly a mystery, and requires no more than a day or two to explain in an eighth-grade biology class. However, teaching kids the Latin names for what’s in their pants (“scrotum,” “labia,” etc.) is less important than teaching them how to keep their pants on. What kids need to be taught are lessons about courtesy, morality, and personal responsibility.

What most Americans don’t realize is that the push for sex education in schools is directly connected to Planned Parenthood’s agenda of promoting contraception and abortion, to reduce the U.S. birth rate as part of deliberate program of population control funded by major tax-exempt foundations and implemented worldwide by the United Nations. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” but is a matter of historic fact best explained in Donald Critchlow’s 2001 book Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. John D. Rockefeller III and Hugh Moore were among the most influential proponents of what can fairly be described as an anti-motherhood crusade that led to both the development of the contraceptive pill and the legalization of abortion. Considering how contrary this was to the moral and religious beliefs of most Americans, the population-control movement set about to undermine those beliefs with a propaganda campaign, fostering a myth that reached its apogee with the 1968 publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich wrongly predicted worldwide mass starvation as a result of overpopulation, based on a fallacy of limited resources.

It was this misguided neo-Malthusian anti-baby agenda, rather than any concern for “women’s rights,” which was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood and the politics that led to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. As part of this campaign, Planned Parenthood lobbied for sex education programs to indoctrinate children with beliefs and attitudes that conform to and support the population-control agenda. When parents complained about what their children were being taught about sex at taxpayer expense, defenders of these programs claimed sex-ed classes were necessary to prevent teenage pregnancy. If this “education” is based on falsehood, guess what happens when these programs are implemented?

The lifelike dolls are meant to teach teenage girls what it’s like to raise an infant, warts and all. As part of high school sex-ed programs around the world, teachers give infant simulators to their female students, who care for the robots over the course of a few days.
The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”
“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”
Collins might have been onto something. In fact, according to a study published [Aug. 25] in the journal Lancet, putting a robot baby in the hands of 13- to 15-year-old Australian teens seemed to backfire.
Girls who participated in the virtual infant parenting, or VIP, program were more likely to become pregnant or have an abortion by their early 20s than those who did not, the authors found.
The Australian VIP program is similar to the RealCare babies — formerly, Baby Think It Over dolls — supplied by the U.S.-based company Realityworks. Researchers in the United States had previously criticized the Baby Think It Over dolls, but this marked the first randomized control trial examining the dolls’ efficacy. During the study, 1,267 girls took part in the VIP program, while a comparison group of 1,567 did not.
The trial period represented three years’ worth of robot interventions, from 2003 and 2006, involving 57 schools in Australia. The authors report that 8 percent of the girls who cared for infant dolls had at least one baby by age 20, whereas only 4 percent of the control group did; similarly, 9 percent of the VIP group had at least one abortion, compared with 6 percent of the non-doll group during that time.

You can read the whole thing. As someone who has extensive experience in the field of child care — with six children now ranging in age from 13 to 27 — I have long criticized these robot-baby programs, not because they might encourage pregnancy, but rather because babies are not robots. Children are not objects, but flesh-and-blood human beings.

Caring for our own flesh-and-blood offspring is both a matter of natural instinct and an entirely rational activity, once we understand the benefits of having babies, which no robotic doll can teach. You may not believe, as I do, that children are quite literally a blessing from God, yet the direct personal benefits of parenthood should be obvious to any young person who has the foresight to ask, “What will happen to me when I get old?” Do we want to be lonely, unloved and forgotten, or to be cherished, respected and cared for? This consideration alone should suffice as an incentive to have children, but beyond the purely selfish motives, having babies (and raising them with good values) also provides a benefit to society.

If you think there are “too many” people in the world, you are thinking of people too generally. Are there too many intelligent people in the world? Are there too many well-educated people, too many highly skilled people, too may hard-working people in the world? Are there too many kind people or too many honest people in the world? Most people who are literate enough to read this article probably think of themselves as above-average people, and rightly so. If you are a person of superior quality, doesn’t it make sense that you would have high-quality children? After all, a person as superior as yourself would be a very shrewd judge when it comes to selecting a spouse, so that your child would benefit from the superior qualities of both parents. And since you would instill excellent values in your children, teaching them to live according to the highest moral and ethical principles, the entire world will benefit from your decision to have a baby. Or six babies, as the case may be.

 

Contributing six superior quality offspring toward making the world a better place is not, however, my only philanthropic endeavor. I’m also busy explaining scientific truth to the blog-reading masses. For example, I’ve explained that feminism causes herpes, and now I’ve got some more scientific truth for you: Robots don’t have babies.

In fact, robots don’t have sex. Oh, sure, some people seem suspiciously enthusiastic about the idea of “sex robots,” but ask yourself, “Who is having ‘sex’ in that scenario?” (Hint: Not the robot.)

Really, it’s just robot-assisted onanism. Does anybody really need that kind of assistance? I rather doubt it. However, this technology does give feminists new opportunities to engage in paranoid outbursts: SEX ROBOTS WILL TURN MEN INTO MISOGYNIST MONSTERS! Of course, feminists already think all men are misogynist monsters, so this is not really anything new, not even in terms of blatant hypocrisy (because every feminist’s ideal boyfriend is a Hitachi Magic Wand.)

The best kind of sex is the old-fashioned kind.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Feminists hate God even more than they hate men, and feminists hate babies almost as much as they hate God. Basically, feminists hate life, so it’s probably better to have sex with a robot than to have sex with a feminist. At least a robot won’t give you herpes or accuse you of rape.

 

Remember: “PIV is always rape, OK?”




 

Category: Abortion, Contraceptive Culture, Marriage, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 09.08.16

Posted on | September 8, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Commander-In-Chief Forum Last Night Was A Preview Of The General Election Debates To Come
Michelle Malkin: Sicko Terrorist Lynne Stewart – Still Hating Cops
Twitchy: Rep. Flores Says IRS Commissioner Koskinen’s Got To Go


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: What Happens When Society Puts The Pussy On A Pedestal
American Power: An Emerging Alliance Between Neocons And Hillary?
American Thinker: Obama’s Iranian Cash Laundromat
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily News
Da Tech Guy: A Conservative Respite In Flyover Country
Don Surber: Trump May Dump Three Cabinet Positions
Dustbury: One Minute To Autodestruct
Fred On Everything: Darwin Unhinged – The Bugs In Evolution
Jammie Wearing Fools: NYPD Says Hillary Was Wearing “Invisible” Earpiece To Get Coaching During Live NBC Town Hall
Joe For America: If Hillary Is So Healthy, Why Is She Traveling With A Neurologist?
JustOneMinute: A Climate Change Tour De Force At The Times
Pamela Geller: Cruz Accuses Obama Of Laundering Money For Iran
Power Line: Director Comey’s Strange Memo To FBI Employees
Shark Tank: Veteran Calls Out Clinton On Her Handling Of Classified Info
Shot In The Dark: The Diversity Scam
The Jawa Report: Another Chapter In The Epic Struggle Of Muslims To Decide Who Is The Wrong Kind Of Muslims
The Lonely Conservative: Changing Things Up A Bit
The Political Hat: The Ultimate Tool Of Oppression For The Gender Binary? Zoos!
This Ain’t Hell: Khalimov Becomes ISIS Minister Of War
Weasel Zippers: Starbucks CEO Says Hillary Needs To Be The Next President
Megan McArdle: Don’t Make Colleges Pay For Student Loan Defaults


Today’s Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals: Great Deals On Used & Open-Box Products
Shop Amazon Devices – All-New Fire HD 8

Category: Linkagery

Woman Killed After Being Assaulted by Heterosexual White Male. No, Wait …

Posted on | September 8, 2016 | 1 Comment

Reginald Moise (left) is charged with killing Tiarah Poyau (right).

The feminist narrative that blames sexual violence on white male “privilege” doesn’t match the latest evidence in New York City:

An all-American college student was fatally shot in the face at the J’Ouvert festival in Brooklyn for having the nerve to tell a man to stop grinding against her, police sources said Tuesday.
St. John’s University student Tiarah Poyau, 22, was walking the pre-West Indian Day Parade route with three pals early Monday when she was accosted and told the man, “Get off me,” according to a source.
Her friends, who were walking ahead of her around 4:15 a.m., then heard a shot and saw her fall at Empire Boulevard and Franklin Avenue. Poyau had been shot in the eye “at close range,” the source said. . . .
The boozed-up 20-year-old thug who shot her was nabbed Tuesday morning while drunkenly driving on three wheels and with a Caribbean flag wrapped around his bloody hand, according to police.
Before his bust, suspect Reginald Moise told pals, “I think I shot somebody on the parade route. I didn’t know the gun was loaded,” sources said.
Moise, who has five sealed prior arrests, first fled to his girlfriend’s Crown Heights apartment after shooting Poyau, according to police sources. . . .

Black Lives Matter doesn’t care about Tiarah Poyau, because she wasn’t shot by a white cop, and Reginald Moise isn’t a “privileged” Ivy League frat boy, so the feminists don’t care, either. Progressives only care about certain victims of certain crimes, and this isn’t one of those crimes.

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Crime, Feminism, Racism

How Does Hillary Plan to Defeat ISIS Without Using U.S. Combat Troops?

Posted on | September 8, 2016 | 3 Comments

 

During a “Commander-in-Chief” forum Wednesday with Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton claimed U.S. troops won’t be needed to defeat ISIS:

“We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again and we are not putting ground troops into Syria,” the Democratic presidential nominee, who has consistently said she does not want to put ground troops into Iraq, said during a forum on national security on NBC News.
“We’re going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops.”
Clinton’s remark came in response to a question from an Army veteran who asked the former secretary of state how she would determine when and where to deploy troops overseas, particularly when it comes to fighting ISIS.
“We have to defeat ISIS,” Clinton said. “That is my highest counterterrorism goal. And we’ve got to do it with air power, we’ve got to do it with much more support for the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS.
“We have to squeeze them by continuing to support the Iraqi military. They’ve taken back Ramadi, Fallujah, they’ve got to hold them. They’ve got to now get into Mosul. We’re going to work to make sure that they have the support, they have special forces, as you know, they have enablers, they have surveillance intelligence, reconnaissance help.”

There are currently about 300 U.S. Special Forces in Syria, and about 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, so let’s not pretend that we don’t already have Americans in harm’s way, OK? The way Hillary just casually mentions “support,” “surveillance,” etc., ignores this reality. Likewise, her vague assurance that “the Arabs and the Kurds” and “the Iraqi military” will suffice to defeat ISIS raises the question, “Why haven’t they already defeated them?” It’s been nearly three years since ISIS established its Islamic “caliphate” in northern Syria, and they’re still there. While ISIS has suffered recent defeats in Iraq, they maintain their stronghold in Raqqa and — contrary to Hillary’s assertion — President Obama and Turkey’s President Erdogan recently discussed the possibility of a joint U.S.-Turkey operation to destroy ISIS in Raqqa.

Well, it depends on what your definition of “ground troops” is, perhaps. Hillary probably means to say we won’t be committing entire Army corps or Marine divisions against ISIS, but we definitely have troops on the ground — in May, some of our Special Forces were spotted with Kurdish forces within 18 miles of Raqqa. Honestly, if Obama would commit a battalion of Army Rangers to the fight, I’d bet they could capture Raqqa in a matter of weeks, if not days. I’m sure Col. Evans and his boys would enjoy a nice “live-fire” exercise, wiping out ISIS in one quick operation.

Excuse my nitpicky criticism of Hillary’s no-ground-troops talk, but as the father of a soldier, I resent the implication that U.S. Special Forces — the finest soldiers on the planet — are not “ground troops.”

Meanwhile, as a matter of mere politics, Donald Trump totally won Wednesday’s forum, and Hillary looked like an idiot, as usual.




 

Category: Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Military, Syria

In The Mailbox: 09.07.16

Posted on | September 7, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
First Street Journal: CNNMoney Says The General Public Doesn’t Know WTF About The Job Market And Labor Force
Proof Positive: 50 First Press Conferences
Louder With Crowder: MOST (Inadvertently) OFFENSIVE VIDEO EVER!
EBL: Terrorist Lawyer Lynne Stewart – Out Of Prison Early, Still Hates Cops, Still Calling For Revolution
Michelle Malkin: Got National Anthem Hypersensitivity Syndrome?
Twitchy: Donald Trump Jr. Trolls Hillary With A Visit To Her Super-Secure IT Provider


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: It Doesn’t Matter If Trump Wins Or Loses
American Power: Glenn Greenwald Complains That Leftist Media Protect Hillary Clinton
American Thinker: Sharia USA
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Hump Day News
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – Wasted Days
Don Surber: They Know Her Crimes, But Do Nothing To Stop Her
Dustbury: Collateral Damage, You Are
Jammie Wearing Fools: Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Close
Joe For America: Wikileaks Reveals New Hillary Bombshell To Drop Next Week
JustOneMinute: Buyers And Sellers
Pamela Geller: Leaked Documents Show Soros Group Spent $600K To Mainstream Pro-Refugee Attitudes
Power Line: How Left-Wing Is Facebook?
Shark Tank: Senate Democrats Block Zika Virus Funding – Again
Shot In The Dark: Wetterling
STUMP: Public Pensions Issues – Volatility Kills
The Jawa Report: Questions To Ponder, also, War Porn! Turkish Boomerang Edition
The Political Hat: Barack Obama Is A Foreign Policy Pantywaist
The Quinton Report: Bacon Fire Shuts Down Interstate
This Ain’t Hell: Mayor Rahm Emanuel Thinks Chicago Needs Tougher Laws
Weasel Zippers: Amy Schumer Boosts Trump – Promises To Move To Spain If The Donald Elected
Megan McArdle: Amazon Wants To Deliver Stuff Too? That’s Weird


Kindle Daily Deals
Digital Music Deals
Shop Amazon Fashion – Men’s Suits Under $100

Category: Linkagery

Update From The Patriarchy™

Posted on | September 6, 2016 | 1 Comment

The Patriarchy™ had a busy day, as today was grandson Alexander’s first birthday, which he spent with me. My daughter-in-law is back in college pursuing her nursing degree, and now her oldest boy (James, who will soon turn 3) is old enough for the preschool program at the college, so it’s just me and Alexander four days a week. Today I had him for almost eight hours, but he took a nap for two of those. Here’s a little video — nothing in particular happening, just him playing on the living room floor:

Is that an explanation for my lack of blogging today, or just an excuse? Never mind.  While I was busy today with McCain 3.0, Ace of Spades was absolutely destroying Lena Dunham in a rant so brutally hard you could cut diamonds with it. Really, I don’t want to spoil it for you by quoting too much, but at one point, Ace calls feminism “a self-justifying, ego-stroking fake ‘politics’ which is no politics or philosophy at all but just a series of wildly inconsistent self-validations, a pseudopolitical hash of self-justifications united only by the basic theme that they should have whatever they want and should not have whatever they don’t want.”

To which I can only add, “Amen! Preach it, brother!”

The proximate cause of Ace’s glorious rant was, of course, the ridiculous reaction of Lena Dunham to being seated next to New York Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. at a celebrity event in New York. Beckham was busy looking at his phone and ignoring her and so, in her warped mind, Dunham decided this NFL superstar was dissing her.

 

Let’s just state the obvious: Odell Beckham Jr. is 100% USDA Prime Beef. He was a first-round draft pick in 2014, and in each of his first two NFL seasons, he had more than 90 catches with total receiving of more than 1,300 yards. Against the Cowboys in 2014, Beckham had a Dallas safety hanging all over him when he made an absolutely insane one-handed catch for a touchdown that was instantly acclaimed “Catch of the Year.” The man is a phenomenal athletic specimen and there are probably no less than half a million women in New York City who, if they ever got within arm’s length of this 23-year-old millionaire, would strip naked and break down in tears begging him, “Do me, Odell! Do me right here, right now! I want to have your babies!” Lena Dunham, by contrast . . .

Well, she bears an unfortunate resemblance to a potato.

Don’t accuse me of “fat-shaming” here, because (a) being a Southern boy, I don’t mind a gal with some more cushion for the pushin’ as they say down home, and (b) losing weight wouldn’t solve Lena’s problem.

The girl is just psychologically damaged, and even if she looked as good as Kate Upton, she’d be nothing but a nuisance to any man who ever became involved with her. On the other hand, if she looked like Kate Upton, some guys might put up with it, but Lena Dunham doesn’t have what it takes to make guys tolerate her craziness. Not only is she ugly, but she’s also bitter about her ugliness, and if you were Odell Beckham Jr., you wouldn’t bother talking to Lena Dunham, either. Read more

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin