The Other McCain

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

Words Mean Things: @kate_manne and the Elastic Definition of ‘Misogyny’

Posted on | July 12, 2016 | 64 Comments

“I worry that the word ‘reason,’ being as heavily masculine-coded as it is, functions as a kind of buzzword.”
— Kate Manne, Ph.D., January 2016

Misogyny is “the system which operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women‘s subordination, and to uphold male dominance,” according to Cornell University Professor Kate Manne. Thus, a sentiment — misogyny actually means hatred of women — is transmogrified into a “system” through the magic of feminist rhetoric.

“Misogyny” is one of those slanderous insults that feminists fling around so habitually and haphazardly as to be meaningless, the way “rape culture” now means almost anything a heterosexual man says or does. Yet no man can object to such insults, nor protest against this slander, without bringing upon himself the suspicion of guilt. The anti-male propaganda of feminist rhetoric is part of a psychological warfare strategy, one which routinely employs “Kafkatrapping” tactics, where denying the accusation is considered proof of guilt. Males exist only as demonized scapegoats in the feminist imagination, as I have explained:

Feminism provides an analytical framework within which almost any aspect of male behavior can be viewed as “problematic” — yet another example of misogyny, “male entitlement,” etc. — so that every man the feminist encounters is viewed as a suspect, a likely perpetrator of sexism, and she is a detective on the case, gathering evidence to indict him.

Feminism condemns all men as complicit in patriarchal oppression, and nothing so conclusively proves a man’s active role in this conspiracy as when he commits the crime of disagreeing with a feminist. The paranoid circularity of Feminist Logic™ is so obvious that it is frightening to think that Cornell University (annual tuition $49,116) would hire a fanatical ideologue like Kate Manne for a tenure-track position, but let’s read more of Doctor Manne’s definition of “misogyny”:

[M]isogyny is primarily a property of social systems or environments as a whole, in which women will tend to face hostility of various kinds because they are women in a man’s world (i.e., a patriarchy), who are held to be failing to live up to men‘s standards (i.e., tenets of patriarchal ideology which have some purchase in this environment). Because of this, misogynist hostilities will often target women more selectively, rather than targeting women across the board. And individual agents may harbor these hostilities for numerous different reasons; the full psychological explanation of their attitudes and actions will also vary widely. Such hostilities may alternatively have their source in the actions, practices, and policies of broader social institutions. What these hostilities are required to have in common is the above social-cum-structural explanation: i.e., roughly, they must be part of a system that polices, punishes, dominates, and condemns those women deemed to be an enemy or threat to the patriarchy.

If you encountered an ordinary person spewing such gibberish — mumbling to themselves at a bus station about “misogynist hostilities” — you’d figure them for a kook on the brink of a psychotic breakdown. However, Kate Mannes has a Ph.D. from MIT, so her gibberish will be published in a book by a major university press. Among other targets, Doctor Mannes takes aim at Heather Mac Donald:

Finally, there is no conflict between social progress for women and misogynist aggression towards them, contra Heather Mac Donald. Progress and misogyny are perfectly compatible. As each of my main examples in this paper has suggested in their own way, and as my analysis predicts, the former may be precisely what engenders the latter, in the form of backlash. That is, women may be resented and punished precisely because they are achieving rapid progress in certain areas. Some women‘s success in hitherto male-dominated roles, as well as their abandonment of traditionally feminine-coded forms of care work, would be predicted on my account to make them the targets for misogynist aggression. And this is what we find. Misogyny often stems from the desire to take women down, to put them in their place again. So the higher they climb, the farther they may be made to fall because of it. But the women who rise up and the women who fall down may not be identical. The glass ceiling may be broken; but then, there may be smack-down. And some women may be hit by the shards of glass following others escalation.

In other words, the more women succeed, the more men hate women, so that no matter how much actual equality may be achieved, there will never be a point in the future when feminists stop claiming to be victims.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t — feminism is a lose-lose proposition all the way around, with increasing hostility between men and women as the necessary byproduct of “progress.” Why? Because modern feminism is derived from Marxism, i.e., “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Feminists simply substitute patriarchy for capitalism as the oppressive system to be destroyed in the prophesied revolutionary apocalypse that will usher in a future egalitarian utopia. Nothing good ever comes from such radicalism, but Doctor Manne teaches philosophy, not history, so the blood-stained record of Marxist-Leninist regimes in the 20th century does nothing to deter her dreams of dictatorial feminist power in the 21st century. And speaking of feminist dictators . . .

Hillary Clinton is a victim of misogyny, according to Doctor Manne: “When Hillary Clinton behaves as other politicians do, or changes her positions, she is perceived as more dishonest and as having less integrity.” Accusations of wrongdoing against Hillary “are feeding into gendered tropes and stereotypes as old as misogyny itself — e.g., of the woman who can’t be trusted, and to whom we hence don’t have to listen,” according to Doctor Manne. Just as no one can criticize Barack Obama without being accused of racism, now the Clinton campaign is planning to make the 2016 election a litmus test of sexism, and Doctor Manne has published a 5,000-word opus in The Boston Review that depicts Donald Trump as the living embodiment of misogyny:

Trump’s blunt kind of misogyny is a good place to start in understanding the general phenomenon. It is so crude, shameless, and unapologetic that we run little risk of getting lost in its nuances. But we must ask the natural next question: What happens to misogyny when it acquires a little subtlety or goes underground and manages more by way of plausible deniability?
The answer, all too often, is that it is transformed into moralistic forms — which are not . . . historical artifacts. What unites these varieties of misogyny, past and present, and moralistic and non-moralistic alike, is that they enforce the patriarchal order by lifting men up and taking down women. . . .

Four thousand words later, Doctor Manne concludes by wondering whether some “progressive” men will join the misogynistic backlash:

It is not difficult to see why misogynistic aggression might coexist with progressive commitments. Many white men, including those who espouse egalitarian and progressive values — even those who pride themselves on being good feminists — have recently experienced a loss of power and status relative to nonwhites and white women. Some are in denial. And some are angry. Some are lashing out in grief cloaked in outrage.
The strength of these forces will become clearer in November. I confess that I am not optimistic about the outcome. Electing Trump would strike a major blow for patriarchal restoration. Misogynistic social forces are hence pushing in this direction. And if Clinton does win, she will have to govern in the face of a revanchism intensified by Trump’s defeat. Another fear is that the least privileged and most vulnerable women will bear the brunt of the trickle-down aggression.
We will see soon enough. But insofar as there is a distinctively modern strain of misogyny, it is this: the backlash to women’s social progress and to feminism.

What? Does the professor mean that Republicans complaining about Trump are against “patriarchal restoration”? As a leading spokesman for misogynistic social forces, this is very disturbing to me. If the GOP isn’t going to do its part to enforce the patriarchal order, who will?

At least I’m not one of those pathetic progressive dudes “who espouse egalitarian and progressive values” and “pride themselves on being good feminists” while they suffer “loss of power and status,” etc. Equality is impossible, social justice is a mirage, and Progress Is the Root of All Evil.

Of course, nobody who hopes to get tenure at Cornell University would dare speak such blunt truths, and Doctor Manne finds herself surrounded by male faculty members who never dare say a word against her feminist ideology. Their timorous silence probably leads her to suspect that her male colleagues are all secretly plotting to uphold their dominance and enforce her subordination. One reason paranoia is so typical of academic feminism is simply because no one on campus is permitted to dissent. Every member of the faculty and administration at an Ivy League school like Cornell is expected to sing from the Diversity Hymnal, and if any of them privately harbor doubts about “egalitarian and progressive values,” they know they would be persona non grata on campus if they ever gave voice to any skeptical opinion toward feminism. Yet surely not everyone at Cornell shares Doctor Manne’s fanatical zeal, and her ideology tells her that “even [men] who pride themselves on being good feminists” are apt to join the “backlash to women’s social progress.” So who is this Judas at Cornell who will betray her? Which member of the faculty may even now be secretly sabotaging Doctor Manne’s path to tenure?

 

Madness looms as fear haunts the feminist imagination. Last year, an academic philosophy journal rejected one of Doctor Manne’s articles, which caused her to erupt in a memorable Facebook conniption:

I received a rejection notice from a journal yesterday. This is a pretty routine occurrence in this game, admittedly. Acceptance rates are notoriously low in philosophy; well under five per cent in the top journals. So you have to learn to accept the rejections themselves gracefully. And much as you slightly dread reading the reports, they can be valuable, even invaluable, in making the paper better. They can help to expose unclarities in your claims, gaps in your argument, etc. But sometimes, they simply confirm that you are fighting a losing battle.
This referee report was one such. The reviewer complained about my use of feminist terms and concepts throughout the paper — e.g., “hegemonic dominance”, “messages that are not only false but oppressive,” and “hermeneutical injustice,” being the specific phrases which they listed as objectionable. And they went on to remark more generally that “the rhetoric of the ms. is such that it will, I think, (1) turn off some readers and (2) distract from the author’s argument. The author brings in some concepts and language which, whatever their merits, seem dubious to many of us in the analytic tradition.”
As a feminist philosopher in the analytic tradition, this is a very disappointing reaction to encounter. Many of us — me included — take the above terms and concepts to be standard, useful, and indeed vital, stock-in-trade. And the people who the reviewer feared would be so “turned off” by the language as to be “distracted” from my argument seem to include the reviewer themselves, ironically. They not only managed to completely miss, but handily illustrated, my central point in the paper. The point being that if one espouses politically marginalized views within philosophy, then one is disproportionately likely to be dismissed, disparaged, silenced, or even excluded from the discipline altogether. One is less likely to be given a platform in leading journals, for one concrete example, in view of which one is of course less likely to be able to earn a living wage, let alone get tenure.
Taken alone, my experience is just one data point, of course. But recent work by Sally Haslanger, among others, strongly suggests that it is not anomalous. Feminist philosophy is virtually absent, and plausibly systematically excluded, from top journals, she argues.

You see? Feminism is “politically marginalized” and Doctor Manne is a victim — dismissed, disparaged, silenced and excluded! — of misogyny.

She’s only three or four years away from tenure now, so her dreadful ordeal on the “publish-or-perish” treadmill will soon be over. And if Cornell votes against tenure for Doctor Manne?

Federal lawsuit, guaranteed. She’s probably got a massive cache of evidence already. Every email or text message from any of her faculty colleagues that could plausibly be interpreted as “sexist” is stored somewhere, in anticipation of a future Title IX claim against Cornell. Why are feminists so common in academia and so rare in the private sector? No major business could survive in this litigation-happy country if managers didn’t carefully screen applications to make sure they don’t hire any woman with Gender Studies classes on her college transcripts. Any involvement in campus “activism” is likewise a red flag in the hiring process. The activist mentality represents a potential threat of lawsuits claiming “discrimination,” “hostile work environment,” etc., and companies would go broke paying settlements if they hired kooks who use social-justice jargon like “hegemonic dominance.”

This is the real tragedy of elite education in the 21st century. Parents pay $49,116 a year to send their kids to Cornell, hoping that an Ivy League education will qualify their child for successful careers, and instead the kids are being indoctrinated in bizarre “progressive” nonsense that renders students incapable of functioning in the real world. Honestly, what parent would want their child to turn out like Alanna Bennett, who went to Oberlin College (annual tuition $50,586) and ended up ranting about Ghostbusters at BuzzFeed?

“Hey, how’s your daughter doing?”

“She’s got an apartment and a cat and a job writing for BuzzFeed.”

“My condolences.”

Redefining words — so that “misogyny” is now simply a synonym for something a feminist dislikes — won’t change reality. What it will do is make it more difficult for allegedly “educated” people to understand why the world doesn’t conform to what they have been taught by the ideological commissars who control higher education in this country.




 

Category: Education, Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 07.12.16

Posted on | July 12, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.12.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Why I Want Crooked Hillary To Lose – Notorious RBG
Twitchy: Feel The Love As College Democrats Push Pathetic New Power Couple


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: The NYT And The Left Have Blood On Their Hands
American Thinker: Obamacare And The Private Practitioner, 2016
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Shadow War by Sean McFate
Da Tech Guy: Pat Austin – Report From Louisiana – Outside Agitators, Go Away!
Don Surber: Austin Bay Made My Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: Of Course – Five Shot At Baltimore Murder Victim Candlelight Vigil
Joe For America: Top Democrat Official Assassinated In Washington, DC
JustOneMinute: Lots Of News
Pamela Geller: France’s Head Of Intelligence – “France Is On The Verge Of Civil War”
Shark Tank: Rubio Says He Won’t Accept Presidential Nomination From Convention Floor
Shot In The Dark: Memories And Memory Holes
The Jawa Report: Feel The Bern! Sanders Sells Out, Endorses Hillary – Youth Shocked!
The Lonely Conservative: The Latest On The “Free The Delegates” Movement
The Political Hat: The Ultimate Tool Of The Patriarchy? Carbon Fiber!
The Quinton Report: Bob Ehrlich Called Out By Federal Prosecutors
This Ain’t Hell: Out Of The Pool, Tourists!
Weasel Zippers: Obama Defends Black Lives Matter At Funeral Service For Slain Dallas Police
Megan McArdle: The Public Option – It’s Baaaack!


Countdown to Prime Day – Free Gift with $50 Purchase
Shop Amazon Fashion – Extra 25% Off Men’s Suits & More

Category: Linkagery

Criminal Who Killed Two at Courthouse Was a Great Guy, Says His Ex-Wife

Posted on | July 12, 2016 | 36 Comments

Cop-killer Larry Gordon in happier times.

Two bailiffs, Joseph Zangaro, 61, and Ronald Kienzle, 63, were killed and Berrien County Sheriff’s Deputy James Atterberry Jr. were wounded at a Michigan courthouse Monday when a prisoner tried to escape:

Larry Darnell Gordon, 44, of Coloma was apparently attempting to escape and tried to take hostages inside the Berrien County Courthouse when he shot and killed two bailiffs and wounded a deputy. . . .
“A preliminary investigation reveals that Larry Darnell Gordon disarmed one of the officers who were escorting him to a court hearing inside the Berrien County Courthouse,” Berrien County Sheriff Paul Bailey told reporters at a 9 p.m. Monday press conference. “After shooting the officers, Gordon briefly attempted to take hostages while other bailiffs and police officers in the courthouse engaged Gordon and he was shot and killed.”

Gordon, 44, had a criminal record dating back to 1992, when he was charged with robbery but copped a plea to a misdemeanor. In 1998, Gordon “pleaded guilty to felony fleeing a police officer and misdemeanor operating while intoxicated,” according to WZZM-TV, and in 2013, Gordon pleaded guilty to “second-offense misdemeanor driving while intoxicated or impaired and to felony theft from a building.” In April this year, Gordon was charged with very serious crimes — armed first-degree criminal sexual conduct, first-degree criminal sexual conduct during a felony, felony kidnapping, felony assault with a dangerous weapon and misdemeanor aggravated domestic violence — that could have put him in prison a long time. Despite this, his ex-wife said Gordon was a swell guy:

Gordon’s ex-wife, Jessica Gordon, 39, said Larry Gordon did it because he feared he would never be released and wanted to see his 6-year-old daughter.
“Larry was not a violent person,” she said Monday at the home they shared. “The only thing I can think of is that he was completely terrified, and people do things out of character when they’re scared. With all my heart I believe he was trying to get home to see Cheyenne (his daughter).” . . .
“He probably found out how much time he could potentially be looking at and wanted to get out to see us,” she said. “He thought he would die in prison.” . . .
She said she still loves him and that Tuesday would have been their 10-year wedding anniversary. She said they had been a couple for 19 years, and Cheyenne turns 7 on Saturday.

What struck me about this was how it echoes the narrative that the media always feed us whenever a black criminal gets shot by cops, or when a Muslim goes on a one-man jihad attack — oh, he was an honor student, and he loved his family, blah blah blah. So here we have a white guy who commits an atrocity and, yeah, his ex-wife wants to assure us that Larry Gordon was “not a violent person,” despite the numerous felonies he was accused of committing. Are there any activists on TV claiming that Larry Gordon was a victim of social injustice? No, because he was a heterosexual white male, and social justice rhetoric tells us that heterosexual white males are oppressors who benefit from “privilege.”

Larry Gordon was a thug, just like Michael Brown was a thug, and yet the media don’t seem to understand this. The media are always eager to buy into a prefabricated victimhood narrative — the innocent black man wrongly targeted by racist police — and facts be damned.

Don’t jump to conclusions and don’t believe everything people tell you — this is basic Journalism 101 stuff, and yet time after time, we see the media get bamboozled by professional “activist” types who peddle tales about innocent victims of racism, sexism and homophobia. No one can deny that such prejudices actually exist and cause real harm, but the media need to be sure they have the facts before they start turning the news into social justice sermons. Larry Gordon wasn’t a black guy or a gay guy or a transvestite like Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, so this incident at the Berrien County Courthouse is just a one-day crime story. Instead of having a “national conversation” about some kind of oppression, the media will quickly forget Larry Gordon.

Just a dead white criminal. Nothing to see here. Move long.

 

Category: Crime, Media Bias

Butt-Hurt Jeb Bush Blames the Pope?

Posted on | July 12, 2016 | 18 Comments

Moaning on MSNBC about his defeat in the GOP primaries — his campaign spent $34 million for nothing — Jeb Bush needed a big scapegoat:

Asked about his final days on the campaign trail, Bush reflected on the South Carolina primary during which he was in a three-way tie behind Trump with Sens. Marco Rubio (FL) and Ted Cruz (TX). Recalling South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s endorsement then of Rubio, Bush said “it clearly hurt.”
In addition to Haley’s endorsement of Rubio, for whom Bush was once a mentor, Bush also went on to blame the Catholic Church, saying, “the Pope intervening in American politics didn’t help.”
“[The Pope] was talking about basically open borders at a time when the whole Trump phenomenon was to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. [The Pope] literally goes to the border for a massive mass,” Bush said. “I don’t think he should be intervening… I don’t think he understood he was intervening in our political affairs.”

Where does blaming the Pope fit in the Kübler-Ross “five stages of grief”?

 

Category: No More Bushes, Republicans

In The Mailbox: 07.11.16

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.11.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Ninety Miles From Tyranny: News From The Future – The Failure Of Hillary’s Great Leap Forward, 2017-2020
EBL: Should The NRA Be Championing The Cause Of Philando Castile?
Twitchy: Man Who SWATted NRA Head Sentenced To Two Years


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: How Many People Have To Die Because Of #BlackLivesMatter?
American Thinker: The Law Is Dying Because Morality Is Dying
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Ghosts Of War by Brad Taylor
Da Tech Guy: John Ruberry – If All Black Lives Matter, Then Why No Protests In Crime-Ridden Areas?
Don Surber: Keep Calm And Remain Adult
Jammie Wearing Fools: Pathetic Clinton Blames “Negativity”, Not Her Criminal Behavior, For Low Approval Ratings
Joe For America: America Now Entering The Stone Age?
JustOneMinute: Sunday Morning
Pamela Geller: Head Of DIA Fired For Calling Our Enemies Radical Jihadis
Shark Tank: Prominent Democrats Want Debbie Wasserman Schultz Out
Shot In The Dark: Obama’s Dumbest Idea Yet
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Facebook Safe And Welcoming To Everyone
The Lonely Conservative: Condolences And Prayers For A Dear Friend
The Political Hat: The Perfect Confluence Of Political Correctness And Jihad
This Ain’t Hell: That “Decorated Veteran” With An “Assault Rifle” In Dallas
Weasel Zippers: Minneapolis Cops Working Lynx Game Walk Out Over Player Comments, #BLM Warmup Jerseys


Amazon Prime Day – Fire Tablet Lowest Price Ever, Just $33.33
Amazon Prime Day – Kindle Paperwhite $30 Off

Category: Linkagery

Man-Hater @AlannaBennett Promotes #Ghostbusters as Feminist Revenge

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | 67 Comments

 

Alanna Bennett is the kind of selfish feminist who attends elite Oberlin College (annual tuition $50,586) and then spends the rest of her life angry because nobody gives her as much pity as she feels she deserves.

“As a professional writer, my life now is stuffed with privileges I’ve longed for since I found out they existed. . . . And yet: The money I make barely covers a life in New York and my student loans.”
— Alanna Bennett

Yeah, it’s terrible that somebody put a gun to your head and forced you to attend Oberlin, because obviously Oregon State (annual tuition $10,107) wasn’t good enough for a Special Snowflake™ like yourself.

Feminism is motivated by anti-male revenge fantasies, providing selfish women a chance to bask in applause for their deliberate acts of cruelty. Feminists consider it “courageous” to inflict harm on males, which is why Alanna Bennett knew she would be praised for urging women to cause “male tears” by supporting the feminist Ghostbusters remake:

 

The new Ghostbusters remake is hate propaganda, promoting the fundamental feminist belief that males are useless, stupid and/or evil.

Like all feminists, Alanna Bennett hates men, and it is therefore not surprising she hates movies with heterosexual themes.

 

Was anyone surprised that Alanna Bennett tweeted out images of kissing her girlfriend (a “non-binary” “queer” feminist) during BuzzFeed’s LGBT Pride celebration? (Are there any heterosexuals employed at BuzzFeed? If so, are they afraid to admit they’re heterosexual?)

Rather than being honest about her man-hating motives for supporting the feminist remake of Ghostbusters, however, Alanna Bennett insisted that it was critics of this project who were motivated by “hatred.”

 

In other words, if you don’t like seeing old movies hijacked by feminists and turned into anti-male propaganda, you’re a hater. As I’ve explained, the whole project is just a feminist political statement:

The message of the all-female cast is simple: Males are useless, because girl power saves the day!
Sometimes I’ve called this “Lesbian Ghostbusters” because it was predictable, from the moment the project was announced, that this new movie would emphasize a familiar “Third Wave” feminist theme of males as either (a) incompetent idiots or (b) evil oppressors. Like so many recent feminist movie projects, the new Ghostbusters aims to pass the “Bechdel Test,” which originated with lesbians who did not want to see either male heroes or heterosexual romance in movies.

Keep in mind that I wrote that without knowing anything more about the new Ghostbusters than could be learned by reading a couple of reviews. However, if you understand what “Third Wave” feminism is about (Feminism Is Queer), the implicit premise was obvious enough. And, as Matt Zion’s “rage review” shows, my prediction was right:

“They make Chris Hemsworth . . . he’s an idiot. They make him an idiot. Then they have the guy who delivers the Chinese food to them — it’s a running gag throughout the movie — he’s terrible at his job and he’s an idiot. And then the villain is not an idiot, he certainly is very intelligent, but he’s creepy, weird and he’s just antisocial. . . . Every man is portrayed like a complete a–hole. The mayor is an a–hole. . . . They go to like a rock concert or something, and the guy who is in charge of that . . . he’s an a–hole. Every man in this movie is an a–hole. . . . Basically, it was a man-bashing film.”

Twenty-first century feminism is about demonizing and silencing males, teaching young women to despise men as either irrelevant or dangerous.

Alanna Bennett‘s mind is completely warped by her vicious hatred of men. Because feminists are psychologically incapable of relating to males in a normal way — they are “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31) — they consider it “hate” for any man to defend himself against the relentless slander of feminism’s anti-male rhetoric. This means that any man who disagrees with feminist ideology is a sexist. This is a “Kafkatrapping” tactic, where denying the accusation is cited as proof of your guilt.

Because she is a feminist, and therefore views males as inherently inferior, Alanna Bennett considers all male opinions invalid. So the fact that men don’t like the new Ghostbusters is as irrelevant to her as any other male preference or belief, except insofar as her anti-male belief system means that this wretched movie is good because men don’t like it.

Anything men hate is good, and anything men like is bad — this is a fair summary of the basic feminist worldview, the anti-male political ideology around which Alanna Bennett has organized her life. Therefore, no matter how awful the new Ghostbusters actually is, it must be praised!

 

You see that Alanna Bennett is emotionally invested in this anti-male propaganda film. Feminists demand the new Ghostbusters be praised, in the same way Goebbels demanded praise for Triumph of the Will.

“If you look at the argument of a lot of these reviews [of the new ‘Ghostbusters] that have come out, there are so many of them that are like, it’s not good or it’s average, but it’s going to do so much for women. Go see it.”
— Matt Zion, “Ghostbusters 2016: How Every Man Is An Idiot Or An A–hole”

This bizarre attitude — requiring that a mediocre movie must be praised, because it is politically incorrect not to like it — reminds me of Lysenoism under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Facts don’t matter to an ideologue like Alanna Bennett, whose commitment to feminism is an all-encompassing loyalty. The feminist is a True Believer, fanatically devoted to the movement, and ferociously hostile to the male enemy.

 

What is sad about such women is how their anti-male beliefs function as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because feminists like Alanna Bennett are so profoundly prejudiced against men, smart men avoid them. There are 3.5 billion women on this planet, and most women actually like men. Therefore, no intelligent guy with any sense of self-respect would waste his time hanging around an ax-grinding man-hater like Alanna Bennett. Because the only men who ever hang around feminists are stupid (or perhaps, desperate), it is easy for women like Alanna Bennett to believe there are no intelligent or virtuous men in the world. Feminism acts as a sort of force-field of hatred that drives good men away.

 

It’s a good thing she likes her cat. At least she won’t be lonely.

“The fanboys rallied against the project and it turns out . . . those f–kers were right.”
— Ed Whitfield




 

 


Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

FLOP! New Feminist ‘Ghostbusters’ Toys Already on Clearance Before Movie Opens

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | 65 Comments

 

 

The question about the feminist remake of Ghostbusters now seems to be not whether the movie will fail, but how bad its failure will be:

Toys for the new movie are already on clearance shelves in stores across the country.
While Sony and many media outlets would have you believe that the early criticism of the new movie is coming from a small minority of mouth-breathing woman haters, in reality the majority of the fandom is extremely put off by the reboot. . . .
To give the toys the benefit of the doubt, part of the poor sales could be in part due to young boys not wanting to play with female action figures and girls just not playing with action figures much at all. But whatever the reason for the clearance, it certainly is strange that toys for a yet-to-be released film are already getting shooed off the shelves.

Is it “sexism” to admit that boys and girls are different? Are we now so intimidated by political correctness that people are afraid to say that sexual role-reversals usually produce unhappiness and failure? Is it misogyny to say that feminist “gender neutral” ideology is simply wrong?

If the new Ghostbusters proves to be “a disaster of biblical proportions,” what should we expect Hillary Clinton’s presidency to be? How long before feminism ruins America and we end up on the clearance rack?




 

 

Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

Why Does CNN Hate Police?

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | 12 Comments

 

CNN’s role in creating the Black Lives Matter movement cannot be ignored. Back in 2012, it was CNN that turned the Trayvon Martin case into such a national media carnival, and after George Zimmerman was acquitted, the network went scouting around for other “social justice” sagas to exploit for ratings. This led eventually to CNN’s 24/7 saturation coverage of the Michael Brown shooting. Focusing the media spotlight on Ferguson caused riots there, and then CNN covered the riots.

Civil disorder is good for CNN’s ratings, apparently, so network executives are trying to cause as much civil disorder as possible.

People get shot all the time in America, but CNN only pays attention to shootings that fit a certain narrative. The endless carnage of black-on-black violent crime? Not newsworthy, according to CNN. More than 300 people have been shot to death in Chicago so far this year, and more than 250 of the victims were black, but CNN ignores that bloodshed, because it can’t be exploited by “social justice” activists blaming racist cops.

“So what I think is very important for you to understand just like there are rogue cops who shoot black people for sport.”
— Angela Rye, CNN, July 8

“Turn off your TV!” I want to shout at people who let themselves get worked into a frenzy over this stuff. “Cable news is making you crazy!”

No one ever seems to question the basic editorial decisions behind this kind of coverage. More than 100 people were shot last week in Chicago, but that’s just another average week in Chicago. Because this happens routinely, it is not news, and nobody cares:

Chicago, for all intents and purposes, is a “gun-free zone.”
But all the state and city regulations associated with firearms in Chicago have failed to produce a safe city, and these are the policies that President Obama and Secretary Clinton wish to extend to the rest of the country.

The streets of Chicago are covered in blood:

Weekend gun violence in Chicago pushed the number of people shot in the city this year to around 2,100, about 700 more than this time last year.
A total of 43 people were shot in the city over the weekend, four of them fatally. Nineteen of those were shot during an 11-hour stretch Friday night into Saturday morning, including two men wounded on a crowded sidewalk outside a taco restaurant in Wicker Park, according to police.
Late Saturday, a 21-year-old man was killed and a 15-year-old boy was wounded as they played basketball in Ogden Park in Englewood on the South Side, police said.
Between Friday into Saturday morning, two men died and at least 17 others were wounded; another man was killed and 15 people were hurt from Saturday morning to early Sunday; a fourth man was killed and seven were wounded in shootings Sunday afternoon and evening.

While the death toll in Chicago is strictly local news, CNN continues exploiting “social justice” for ratings and also, partisan politics:

Hillary Clinton wasted little time in assigning responsibility for Thursday’s shooting in Dallas that left five police officers dead — blame whitey!
“I’m going to be talking to white people, we’re the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries coming from our African-American fellow citizens,” Mrs. Clinton told CNN Friday. “Clearly, there seems to be a terrible disconnect between many police departments and officers and the people they have sworn to protect.”
Exactly what “legitimate grievances” motivated cop-hating gunman Micah Xavier Johnson were not specified by the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Nor did Mrs. Clinton explain why reports of wrongful police actions in Louisiana and Minnesota should have led to bloodshed in Dallas, where the police chief is a black man and law enforcement officials have striven to build trust in the community. Yet the former Secretary of State’s misplaced concerns were not disputed by the interviewer Wolf Blitzer, whose network’s bias is so blatant that Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in this year’s primary campaign revived the longstanding Republican claim that CNN is an acronym for “Clinton News Network.”
Being pro-Clinton requires CNN and other establishment media outlets to conform their coverage to fit whatever narrative serves the “permanent campaign” mode that Democrats have maintained since Bill Clinton was inaugurated more than 20 years ago, after he received a mere 43 percent of the vote in the three-way election of 1992. Liberal journalists have never ceased singing along with the Fleetwood Mac tune that was the Clinton campaign theme song, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,” expressing their shared hope that the future would bring eternal Democratic control of the federal government. . . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: CNN, Crime, Hillary Clinton, Racism
« 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