The Other McCain

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

In The Mailbox: 08.04.16

Posted on | August 4, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 08.04.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Crooked Hillary And CNN’s Carol Costello – How To Coordinate A Media Attack
Twitchy: Ain’t It Cute When Democrats Like Elizabeth Warren Pretend To Care About The Constitution?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: There Is No Such Thing As A Moderate Feminist
American Power: “Mentally Ill Norwegian-Somalian” Somehow Creates “Knife Bloodbath” In London’s Russell Square
American Thinker: Ghazala Khan Gets Media Respect. Patricia Smith Doesn’t.
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s (Naughty) Daily News
Da Tech Guy: Pat Austin – Louisiana’s Governor Edwards Breaks Promise To Support School Choice
Don Surber: Trump The Feeding Frenzy
Dustbury: Not Sure Where This Is Going
Fred On Everything: The Maya – Who Would Have Thunk It?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Crackpot Oberlin Professor Who Blamed Jews For 9/11 Put On Paid Leave
Joe For America: 15,000 At Trump Rally Missed By The Media
JustOneMinute: News Management
Pamela Geller: German Citizen May Face Charges For Insulting Muslim Munich Massacre Shooter
Power Line: A Month of Islamic Terror
Shark Tank: Are Clay County Residents Ready For A Democratic School Superintendent?
Shot In The Dark: Why Do Democrats Hate Black Teens?
STUMP: Investment Result Season For Public Pensions – Below Targets
The Jawa Report: Khizr Muazzam Khan Website? What Khizr Muazzam Khan Website?
The Lonely Conservative: Should Conservatives Found A New Party?
The Political Hat: Feminists, Have A Cigar
This Ain’t Hell: DNC Resurrects Ku Klux Klan
Weasel Zippers: Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Endorses #BlackLivesMatter
Megan McArdle: Eight Possible Fates For The Obamacare Exchanges


Category: Linkagery

‘Especially as a Woman of Color’

Posted on | August 4, 2016 | 63 Comments

 

The left-wing Democrats who operate the educational bureaucracy in America have hammered the “social justice” mentality so deeply into the psyches of young people that they don’t even recognize it as a ideology. Unable to think except within the formulaic boundaries prescribed by political slogans — “Equality!” “Progress!” “Diversity!” — the 21st-century Progressive Youth mindlessly invoke these amorphous concepts in banal clichés, seemingly unaware of any possible alternative worldview.

Last month at the annual Comic Con, there was a panel featuring the executive producer and several cast members of The 100, an apocalyptic science-fiction series on The CW network. The question was asked by a fan: “What does it feel like to be some of the best, most complex female characters on television for like you as an actor?”

To this, Eliza Taylor (who plays Clarke on the series) answered, “It is an absolute honor. I cannot tell you how many times I have played the dumb blonde slutty best friend of some guy, you know, that whole character. I’ve done that for 15 years now and [in The 100], I’ve been able to play someone smart and strong and responsible and worthy and . . . it gets me emotional because it makes me so happy I love that we’re in a day and age now where women can be portrayed that way.”

So, prior to the 21st century, no woman was ever portrayed as smart, strong, responsible and worthy, according to Ms. Taylor.

Next up was Marie Avgeropoulos, who plays Octavia on the show, who said, “I’m an auntie. I have nieces and nephews, so I’m just happy that they can watch TV and look up to me. I’m doing something positive, and inspiring . . . not just women, but you know, young boys as well, or just people in general. . . . Nowadays . . . I find young girls are looking up to the wrong kind of things. . . . My niece’s friends are wearing, and I was like, ‘Wow, I was not wearing that little of clothes at your age.’ So it’s pretty cool that we get to, you know, play warriors and really smart mechanics or doctors and, yeah, we have the best job ever.”

So, we are informed, The 100 — and other TV programming — is not entertainment, but is essentially didactic in purpose. It’s all about “inspiring” young people to emulate the values portrayed on TV.

Finally, the question went to Lindsey Morgan, who plays Raven on the series. She answered: “I personally am extremely grateful because as a woman, and especially as a woman of color . . .” Some women in the audience began whooping, and Morgan shouted: “Yeah!”

What? A “woman of color”? I looked at the video and wondered what this young starlet with the Total White Girl name “Lindsey” was talking about.
A quick check of Wikipedia: “Lindsey Marie Morgan was born in Georgia to George Morgan and Alice Burciaga, and raised in Houston, Texas. She is of Irish and Mexican descent.” Let us stipulate that, however “Mexican” Ms. Morgan’s mother might be, when your parents’ names are “George” and “Alice” and your surname is “Morgan,” it’s not as if your life story is some up-from-the-barrio struggling Chicana narrative. My brother-in-law’s mother is Mexican, but his surname is “Powers” and he certainly would never expect his two children — blue-eye white kids growing up middle-class in Ohio — to describe themselves as “people of color.” If Ms. Morgan’s maternal ancestry is slightly more apparent than that of my quarter-Mexican niece and nephew, it’s not so obvious that she’s likely ever to have been subjected to slurs, stereotypes or discrimination.

 

Right. If Donald Trump gets elected, Lindsay Morgan will be deported, or so we might be expected to believe from her “woman of color” rhetoric. Yet this is a typical expression of the same social-justice mentality that makes Eliza Taylor pretend that women on TV were never portrayed as smart, strong, responsible and worthy until The 100 debuted two years ago. Everything is about the Heroic Struggle Against Oppression, and TV series are just political sermons on behalf of the Democrat Party.




 

Category: Hollywood

Feminism Means Men Are Always Wrong: @SuzannahWeiss and ‘Kafkatrapping’

Posted on | August 3, 2016 | 56 Comments

Feminist rhetoric is an endless stream of anti-male hate propaganda — accusations that men are guilty of sexism, “objectification,” etc. — and yet, when any man calls attention to the insulting nature of these attacks, his objection is cited as proof that he is a sexist. Feminists actually expect men to agree that we are so vastly inferior that we need to be constantly lectured about how incompetent, selfish and stupid we are. Feminists believe that any man who defends himself against such hateful slurs has thereby demonstrated how ignorant he is of his guilt as an oppressor.

 

Three years ago, Suzannah Weiss graduated from Brown University with a degree in Gender and Sexuality Studies. Therefore, she knows everything. The rest of humanity is expected to sit silently in reverent awe while Ms. Weiss imparts to us her insights of superior wisdom.

6 Reasons “Not All Men” Misses The Point,
Because It’s Derailing Important Conversations

This was the title of a recent column by Ms. Weiss, making the important point that anything a man says to a feminist is always wrong.

Feminism requires males to be completely silent. No feminist ever wants to hear a word any man has to say. Anything a man does say to her will be condemned and cited as evidence of his sexist ignorance.

Consider, for example, the subject of masculinity. If you are a man, you might think you would be able to speak with some authority on this subject. However, you are a man, and therefore inferior, which is why you need Suzannah Weiss to enlighten you:

Whether you like it or not, if you are a man who has grown up in the United States or really any Western culture, you have picked up some aspect of toxic masculinity. This doesn’t mean you are a rapist, but it probably means you have been taught to objectify or underestimate women at some point. Own it. . . . If you believe you are the exception and the “good guy,” you’re probably not taking a hard enough look at yourself.

All men are guilty. You objectify women. You underestimate women. Your masculinity is toxic. There are no exceptions (because “Western culture”) and you are not a “good guy.” CONFESS YOUR GUILT!

This is a classic “kafkatrapping” tactic:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” . . .
My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all. . . .
Real crimes — actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals — are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Feminism is “designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy” males, and the so-called “feminist man” is one who, having internalized the demands of his accusers, confesses his guilt and acquiesces in his own destruction.

This is why “not all men” is unacceptable to Suzannah Weiss:

When women talk about experiencing sexism or feeling unsafe, it has become a cliché for men to respond with “not all men.” . . . When we shift the discussion from the oppression of women to the protection of men’s images, we undermine the very real problems women and men face. . . .
[T]oo often, the phrase “not all men” is used to invalidate women’s claims about gender inequality or make men feel less uncomfortable about their privilege. In that case, it’s not really serving a purpose, and it’s silencing women.

The subject of all feminist discussion is “the oppression of women.” No matter how privileged she may actually be, the feminist always believes that she is oppressed. Who is responsible for oppressing her?

“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969

“The class separation between men and women is a political division. . . . The role (or class) system must be destroyed. . . .
“Men . . . are the enemies and the oppressors of women. . . . Both the male role and the female role must be annihilated. . . .
“The pathology of oppression can only be fully comprehended in its primary development: the male-female division. . . . The sex roles themselves must be destroyed.”
— “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles,” 1969, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)

“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981

“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

From the very beginnings of the Women’s Liberation movement in the 1960s, feminists have been quite emphatic about the nature and causes of their oppression — man is the enemy, and all women are victims. This is why feminism requires male silence: The enemy can never be allowed to deny his guilt, to explain or defend himself or otherwise “shift the discussion from the oppression of women,” as Suzannah Weiss says. She attended an elite university (annual tuition $49,346) where her feminist professors taught Ms. Weiss that her victimhood is an undeniable fact, and that all males are complicit in her victimhood. She recites a litany of offenses (“12 Signs Your Date Is Sexist”) as a condemnation of any man who disagrees with her radical ideology. Men who dispute her insulting accusations about their “toxic masculinity,” etc., are accused by Ms. Weiss of “silencing women” (???) even while she dishonestly disavows the fundamental tenets of feminist theory:

When feminists talk about gender inequality, we are not blaming men.

(Then who is to blame for this “inequality”?)

In fact, many men would probably rather live in a society where gender roles did not exist.

(No such society has ever existed, nor will it ever exist in the future.)

When people say “not all men,” they’re assuming that feminism is making claims about men as a group, which it isn’t.

Yet feminists have always made “claims about men as a group” and certainly a Gender and Sexuality Studies major from Brown University like Suzannah Weiss must know this. The class “Introduction to Gender and Sexuality Studies” (GNSS 120) is a prerequisite to all other classes in this program, and an online syllabus for that class (as taught by Professor Denise Davis in spring semester 2014) indicates that Catharine MacKinnon was required reading, along with lesbian feminists Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. The assigned reading by Rubin, her 1982 essay “Thinking Sex,” incidentally contains a defense of child pornography and pedophilia (or “cross-generational intimacy,” as Rubin calls it in a footnote) that favorably cites NAMBLA:

For over a century, no tactic for stirring up erotic hysteria has been as reliable as the appeal to protect children. The current wave of erotic terror has reached deepest into those areas bordered in some way, if only symbolically, by the sexuality of the young. . . . In February 1977, shortly before the Dade County vote, a sudden concern with “child pornography” swept the national media. . . .
The laws produced by the child porn panic are ill-conceived and misdirected. They represent far-reaching alterations in the regulation of sexual behavior and abrogate important sexual civil liberties. But hardly anyone noticed as they swept through Congress and state legislatures. With the exception of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, no one raised a peep of protest. . . .
The experiences of art photographer Jacqueline Livingston exemplify the climate created by the child porn panic. An assistant professor of photography at Cornell University, Livingston was fired in 1978 after exhibiting pictures of male nudes which included photographs of her seven-year-old son masturbating. . . .
It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.

According to Gayle Rubin, child pornography and pedophilia are not a problem; the problem is the “erotic terror” and “stigma” caused by people who do not “sympathize with actual boy-lovers” — and Rubin’s essay was required reading in an introductory course for Gender and Sexuality Studies majors at Brown University (annual tuition $49,346). Somehow, we are expected to believe, Suzannah Weiss never noticed the perverse radicalism promoted by her professors at Brown, so that she can invoke plausible deniability as to what feminist ideology actually involves. Nevertheless, she has vowed never to shave her legs again:

The problem was, shaving my legs never felt natural. . . .
I put up with the physical discomfort of shaving all the way until college because I couldn’t tolerate the potential social discomfort of having legs that stood out. But as I became more aware of the excessive standards our society imposes upon women’s appearances, I grew angry that something as benign as body hair had caused me so much concern. The ideal of smooth legs was about pleasing men . . .
I stopped shaving once and for all around my junior year of college, and surprisingly, nobody has (at least openly) objected. One boyfriend even told me he liked my natural legs because they showed I thought for myself rather than blindly following conventions. . . .
One great barometer of how much a man respects women is whether he believes they have an obligation to look aesthetically pleasing to him.

You see? Society “imposes” these “excessive standards” on women because this is “about pleasing men,” and feminists believe it is wrong for women to make any effort to “look aesthetically pleasing” to men.

Given her implacable hostility to “pleasing men,” what sort of man do you suppose would find Suzannah Weiss attractive? Or vice-versa?

My First Love Came Out as Transgender
By Suzannah Weiss
“I don’t feel comfortable in the male gender role.”
When John* first told me this on a walk through the woods during college, I thought it described a common feeling. Didn’t we all defy gender stereotypes in some way or another?
I imagined what he might be referring to, and they were all things I adored about him. He loved animals, attentively caring for his pet guinea pig and buying lobsters just to set them free in the water. He had meaningful friendships with girls, who viewed him as a confidant. He was close with his mother.
But when he brought it up again as we sat on the bed in my dorm room, it had a more serious tone. “I really need you to know, I don’t feel like a man.” . . .
To my relief, months passed without him bringing up his gender again. Yet he grew distant, calling me less often and acting sullen without telling me why. When he showed up uninvited at my dorm one afternoon and told me we needed to talk, I had a hunch what was happening.
“Are you breaking up with me?” He let out a slow sigh. “But you love me.” He told me he didn’t anymore. We were totally different people, he said. . . .
“Since I was very young, I felt uncomfortable living as a male,” he wrote. “I would ride my bike to Walmart to buy girls’ clothing. I felt so ashamed and confused about why I did this.”
He went on to explain that he had always confided in me about everything except his gender identity because he didn’t want to impose his struggles on me. “I hope you understand that I need to transition to live a happy life, and that I do and always will love you,” he continued.

Suzannah Weiss probably thinks this is a coincidence, but it’s not. Normal men are attracted to normal women for normal reasons, but feminists are not normal women. Men who find feminists attractive . . . Well, why?

If gender “embodies” sexuality, as Catharine MacKinnon asserts, so that men and woman are “made into the sexes as we know them” according to “the social requirements of heterosexuality,” then we would expect the most masculine men to be considered most attractive by women. This in turn would make masculinity a factor highly correlated with men’s heterosexual success. As a logical consequence, such men would have no incentive to waste their time and resources pursuing women who make no effort toward “pleasing men.” The obverse correlation is that the most feminine women would be most attractive to men and, being able to choose among many would-be suitors, could require men to devote time and resources to their effort to please her. Thus, the “power” that MacKinnon attributes to sexuality works both ways, although any individual’s ability to wield this power is directly correlated to their own attractiveness which is a function of how successfully they embody “gender” according to the “social requirements of heterosexuality.”

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Although one can use MacKinnon’s analysis to understand the relationship between “gender” and sexuality, the feminist purpose of MacKinnon’s analysis is to destroy that relationship, in order to deprive men of the “power” by which women are allegedly oppressed under a system of “male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”

Understanding what feminism is, we therefore are not surprised when women who embrace this destructive ideology report difficulties in their relationships with men. A woman who achieves happiness within the “social requirements of heterosexuality” — the feminine woman who succeeds in forming a relationship with a masculine man, and who enjoys the normal results of such success — has no more incentive to alter the system than does any man who is similarly successful and happy.

It is only the misfits and outcasts, the disgruntled, the maladjusted and the neurotic, who find in feminism’s utopian project of androgynous “equality” a vessel for their antisocial resentments. Quite predictably, the women who are most fanatical in their devotion to this warped ideology are those who are most unhappy with “gender stereotypes,” women who suffer from feelings of inadequacy (or inauthenticity) in heterosexual relationships and who actively dislike masculine men. Feminism offers women sour-grapes rationalizations for their failures, and also justifies their vindictive impulses toward males as “social justice.”

What kind of man is attracted to feminist women? Suzannah Weiss’s experience with her college boyfriend who did not “feel comfortable in the male gender role” is quite instructive in this regard. No honest man with any sense of self-respect would tolerate the kind of insulting rhetoric that feminists habitually use to describe men. Who finds hate attractive?

There are 3.5 billion women on this planet, most of whom do not consider “pleasing men” to be oppressive. Most women enjoy pleasing men, just as men enjoy pleasing women and, if our “gender roles” are at times difficult, successful performance of these roles is undeniably rewarding.

Ah, but we are forbidden to say so! No heterosexual man is allowed to speak on his own behalf, because feminists have claimed a monopoly over all discussion of “gender” and sexuality. We must be lectured by Suzannah Weiss — she whose “first love” was a boy who liked dressing up as a girl — and don’t you dare accuse her of hating men. Nor should you raise the issue of Suzannah Weiss’s mental health, her history of eating disorders, her body-image issues, or her pathological hatred of children:

Ever since I was a kid myself, I’ve held the conviction that I didn’t want kids. I found baby dolls creepy and real-life babies irritating. . . .
Children never appealed to me the way they do to many. I love animals, but human infants just seem like tiny, screaming, pooping aliens to me. I’ve also read enough parenting articles to understand the stress of child-rearing, not to mention pregnancy and childbirth — all to create a human being who may not even grow up to like you. It seems like too big a gamble.
On top of that, I wouldn’t make a good parent. . . .
I’d hope none of the men I date operate under this assumption that all women instinctually like kids. . . . I’ve realized it would be a waste of time to date someone who wants kids.

Feminism always leads to the Darwinian Dead End, and yet these failures consider themselves the only people qualified to talk about sex. Pay no attention to that old married guy with six kids . . .




 


Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 08.03.16

Posted on | August 3, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 08.03.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Thanks to everyone who bought stuff through my Amazon links last month!


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Another Unforced Error For Trump
EBL: The Media And Mrs. Clinton
Michelle Malkin: Not All US Muslim Soldiers Are Equal
Twitchy: Stump The Spox! Josh Earnest’s Refusal To Answer This Iran Question Speaks Volumes


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: A Tale Of A Miserable Beta Divorce
American Power: Howard Kurtz – The Media’s Coverage Of Donald Trump is Insane
American Thinker: Why The Establishment Can’t Grasp The Nature Of Islam
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Hump Day News
Da Tech Guy: Khizr Khan’s Law Firm Web Site Goes The Way Of Hillary’s E-Mails
Don Surber: Hillary’s Meltdown At The DNC
Dustbury: Dildo, Dildo Duck
Jammie Wearing Fools: “Korryn Had A History Of Problems With Anger And Erratic Behavior”
Joe For America: Obama Administration Pays $400 Million Ransom To Iran For American Prisoners
JustOneMinute: If You’re Not Nervous About The Upcoming Election…
Pamela Geller: Washington DC Policeman Charged With Aiding ISIS
Power Line: Black Lives Matter – From A Lie To A Revolution
Shark Tank: Over 6500 Democrats Now Republicans In 4th Judicial Circuit
Shot In The Dark: What An Incredibly Novel Idea!
STUMP: Ohio Public Pensions – Point, Counterpoint, And Meeppoint
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Cold War II
The Lonely Conservative: The Prophet Meets Our Government At Work
The Political Hat: Democratic Authoritarianism In Turkey
The Quinton Report: Baltimore – #10 Most Liberal City
This Ain’t Hell: Eighth Circuit Will Not Review Janos’ Case Against Kyle
Weasel Zippers: Wikileaks’ Assange Claims He Has E-Mails Showing Hillary Sent Weapons From Libya To Syria That Armed ISIS
Megan McArdle: No One’s Actually Talking About Immigration


Tom Kratman’s A State Of Disobedience
Shop Amazon – Now 100+ Dash Buttons

Category: Linkagery

Feminist @SuzannahWeiss Hates All Men, So Why Would She Ever Date a Man?

Posted on | August 2, 2016 | 65 Comments

 

“Never Take Advice From Feminists” is a smart rule. Unless your goal in life is to become a Crazy Cat Lady, there’s not much expertise to be had from feminists, so why would anyone listen to Suzannah Weiss?

12 Signs Your Date Is Sexist —
Because ‘You’re Not Like Most Girls’
Is Not A Compliment

That’s the headline on a column Suzannah Weiss published in April, and it’s full of the “anecdote-as-evidence” method of feminist argument:

Anyone who has been simultaneously feminist and single knows that the struggle is real. It’s hard to spot sexists when you’re dating. . . .
A guy I was dating once . . .
I once met a guy on OKCupid . . .
I once had a date . . .

The problem with this is, how do we know it’s true? Suzannah Weiss is a feminist and all feminists are liars. Who are these guys? Do we have their names? Could we contact them to verify what Suzannah Weiss says about them? Or are they fictional characters like “Haven Monahan”?

Why should we believe that Suzannah Weiss has ever dated men at all? Is there any actual evidence of these alleged dates? Has any man ever stepped forward to admit he dated Suzannah Weiss? Of course not.

Everything Suzannah Weiss tells us about her sex life is unverified — there are no documents, no witnesses, no names or dates we can check — and yet she expects to be regarded as an expert authority on the subject.

5 Myths Sex-Positive Feminism Can Perpetuate
About Women Who Don’t Do Casual Sex

8 Myths About Vaginal Orgasms That
Persist Even in Feminist Circles

9 Questions I Ask Myself Before Having
Sex That Might Help You, Too

5 Liberating Reasons Why I’ve
Broadened My Definition of ‘Sex’

7 Toxic Sex Messages I Wish Had Been
Debunked Before I Became Sexually Active

All of this supposedly expert advice is coming from a 20-something who only graduated from college two years ago and, I repeat, where is the evidence that she has any experiential basis for offering this advice? Have we seen any affidavits from her ex-boyfriends that would support the idea she knows what she’s talking about? Doesn’t the absolute silence of Suzannah Weiss’s (alleged) sexual partners seem somewhat suspicious? Here she is, constantly talk talk talking about sex sex sex, and not a single guy has ever gone on record to admit having sex with her?

Ah, but she’s got a surefire way to weed out sexists:

If you want to know . . . if your date is a feminist, try bringing up current events that relate to women’s issues (a distaste for Donald Trump is a good sign; a distaste for Planned Parenthood is not) or describing your own feminism and seeing how they react.
Sometimes you’ve got to kiss a few sexist frogs before you find a feminist prince, but they’re out there.

WHAT IS HIS NAME?

Who is this “feminist prince” that Suzannah Weiss assures us is “out there”? All she would have to do is to name one guy she’s dated, and we could contact him to verify her claims to sexual expertise. Instead, what we have is nothing but her word for this and, considering that she writes for the notorious anti-male hate site Everyday Feminism, I am highly dubious of Suzannah Weiss’s claim that she has ever dated any men at all.




 


Category: Sex Trouble

Lesbian Divorce: Comedy or Tragedy?

Posted on | August 2, 2016 | 40 Comments

For a month in early 2004, the city of San Francisco rushed ahead of state and national law and began performing same-sex weddings. By the time a court injunction stopped the ceremonies, some 4,000 couples had been married, although the legal status of their unions hung in limbo for many years thereafter. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but that measure — like similar constitutional amendments in 30 other states — was voided by the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell decision.

 

During that 2004 gay-wedding spree in San Francisco, writer Cheryl Dumesnil married psychologist Tracie Vickers. The couple subsequently manufactured two sons by having Ms. Dumesnil artificially inseminated, a story that was told by Ms. Dumesnil in her 2013 book:

Love Song for Baby X is the moving and humorous story of a lesbian couple’s struggles with infertility as they attempt to become parents, set against the backdrop of the marriage equality movement.
While poet Cheryl Dumesnil suspects she’ll confront some formidable obstacles on her path to parenthood, she is nevertheless unprepared for what she actually encounters, including navigating the maze of the high-tech fertility business, the emotional conundrum of pregnancy loss, and the gathering steam of the marriage equality movement.
Love Song for Baby X follows Cheryl and her unlawfully wedded wife through four conceptions, three miscarriages, a temporarily legal wedding during San Francisco’s Winter of Love in 2004, a stint as poster children for the marriage equality movement, and finally the arrival of their longed-for son—after twenty-five hours of labor. Along the way Dumesnil fails often (and comically) in her attempts to cultivate inner peace.

 

Alas, these “poster children for the marriage equality movement” were already on their way to divorce before last year’s Supreme Court decision:

For ten of the past eleven years, my family stood on the front lines of the marriage equality movement. Starting with my marriage to Tracie — with our firstborn attending in my belly—at San Francisco City Hall, during the Winter of Love 2004; through the ups and downs of California’s Proposition 8 campaign; to the celebration of our legal marriage, with our two children as witnesses, in 2008; to this final SCOTUS decision — we have marched, campaigned, donated, and spoken with media, domestic and international, radio, film, and print.
And now marriage equality is the law of the land.
And Tracie and I are starting divorce proceedings. . . .
When Tracie and I first decided to separate a year ago, I felt an acute sense of failure. This is a common stage in the divorce process. The “till death do us part” societal expectation, along with the individual hopes and dreams newlyweds carry into marriage — they can lead people to experience divorce as a deep, personal failure. A few months after Tracie and I separated, that feeling of failure faded to the background, but the SCOTUS announcement brought it back, front and center. . . .
I feel not only as though I have failed to realize my own hopes for my marriage and family, but also that I’ve failed to uphold the “happy, healthy lesbian family” image that has helped open the hearts and minds of the American public to LGBT people.

So, her family was all about “image” — a political public-relations stunt.

Ms. Dumesnil bragged three years ago that she had “built a reputation for dropping well-reasoned, camera-ready sound bites” in favor of gay marriage. Also, Ms. Dumesnil wrote columns about how unnecessary it is for children to have fathers, and I’m sure it did wonders for her sons’ self-esteem to learn that, as males, they have no reason to exist. Males are useless and irrelevant — right, mom? Oh, and then her son came home crying because a girl was mean to him at school:

I don’t know what it’s like to be a boy — what it’s like to be raised in a culture that shames you for feeling vulnerable, alienates you for not excelling in certain activities, or presumes you are a violent species. . . .
But sometimes the learning curve is steep, like when my son was being bullied by a girl . . . at school. . . . I knew she said mean things to him. I knew she had shoved him a couple times. But it wasn’t until I saw tears in my son’s eyes that I really got it: she was bullying him, he was asking teachers and playground supervisors for help, and no one was stepping up for him.
Why? Gender.

No, ma’am — it is feminism that is responsible for the anti-male prejudice in our culture, and if you hadn’t spent all those years so distracted by your campaign to destroy the traditional family, perhaps this problem facing your sons would have been as obvious to you as it is to the rest of us. But when your “happy, healthy lesbian family” image is more important to you than anything else, it’s easy to overlook all the unhealthy and unhappy stuff hidden behind the public-relations façade.




 

Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

Yes, Hillary Is the Devil

Posted on | August 2, 2016 | 37 Comments

 

Donald Trump talking about Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton: “If he would have just not done anything, go home, go to sleep, relax, he would have been a hero. She’s the devil. He made a deal with the devil.”

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton

In The Mailbox: 08.01.16

Posted on | August 1, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Marilyn Mosby Left Baltimore A Lot Worse Than She Found It
Michelle Malkin: Check Out The Raging, Glaring Hypocrisy Of Open-Borders Dems
Twitchy: Large Group Of Protesters Gather At City Hall Park In NYC, Want Law Enforcement ABOLISHED


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Kevin Rudd And The Graveyard Of Journalism
American Power: Clinton Retakes Lead In CNN Poll, 52-43
American Thinker: The Coming Election Fraud
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
Da Tech Guy: Nate Silver Officially Declares It’s Time For Democrats To Panic
Don Surber: Paragraph Explains Why Illegal Aliens Matter
Dustbury: In Lieu Of Actual Life
Fred On Everything:
Jammie Wearing Fools: Shocker – WaPo Fact Checker Gives Hillary Four Pinocchios For Shamelessly Lying About Her Illegal E-Mails
Joe For America: Military Leaders Blow Lid Off Obama’s Plan To Rig Elections
JustOneMinute: OMG I Blame Trump!
Pamela Geller: Hillary Took Cash, Was Director Of Company That Sponsors ISIS
Shark Tank: Nude Pictures Of Melania Trump Published
Shot In The Dark: Not For Turning Into Revisionism
STUMP: A Pause For Puerto Rico While The Hits Keep Coming
The Jawa Report: At Last! Anjem Choudhary Headed To Prison!
The Lonely Conservative: The Bright Side Of Having No TV
The Political Hat: El Archipielago De Gulag
The Quinton Report: O’Malley Ally Politicizes Flood Deaths
This Ain’t Hell: Hacksaw Ridge And Desmond Doss
Weasel Zippers: Navy Celebrates Diversity, Names Ship After Gay Sexual Predator Harvey Milk
Megan McArdle: Clinton Should Find Her Warmer Side. Please. Soon.


The Medic: Miracle On Hacksaw Ridge
Shop Amazon Devices – $50 Off Fire HD 10

Category: Linkagery
« 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