The Other McCain

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

‘Gender’ Madness: How Far It’s Gone

Posted on | April 17, 2016 | 42 Comments

Michael Walsh at PJ Media calls attention to this video in which Joseph Backholm of the conservative Family Policy Institute interviewed students at the University of Washington about gender-neutral restrooms:

Generally speaking, I don’t watch YouTube videos and seldom recommend them, but you definitely need to watch that one.

At about 0:45, he interviews a girl who says, “You know, whether you identify as male or female and whether your sex at birth is matching to that, you should be able to utilize the resources.” Next, Backholm asks a girl: “So if I told you that I was a woman, what would you respond to that?” She answers, “Good for you! Like, OK, yeah!”

HELLO! YOU’RE CRAZY!

What part of “crazy” do I need to explain here? When did our nation’s universities cease to teach biology and instead begin indoctrinating young people in what can only be described as sexual Lysenkoism?

The University of Washington’s Q Center (“Queering a World Class Education: Centering Trans/Formational Space”) describes itself as “a fierce primarily student run resource center dedicated to serving anyone with or without a gender or sexuality.” While the center claims to celebrate “all sexual and gender orientation, identities, and expressions,” it ignores anyone at the university who might happen to be normal.

Being normal means you are privileged, whereas the crowd of weirdos at the university’s Q Center are oppressed by virtue of their weirdness. One’s location within the privilege/oppression dynamic is all that matters for young people in social-justice indoctrination centers like the University of Washington, where parents send their children to undergo taxpayer-funding training for their future careers as progressive activists.

Transgender madness is “strong delusion” (II Thessalonians 2:11), which flourishes in 21st-century academia because it is now impermissible to speak truth on university campuses. You will be condemned as a bigot is you assert that men and women are different, and that these differences are a matter of biology. This was why Lawrence Summers was purged from the presidency of Harvard University a decade ago after he asserted that there are “innate differences” between men and women.

Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — has become Official Truth in academia, and no criticism of these lunatic ideas is permitted on campus. Everyone in the administration and faculty of the 21st-century university is required to embrace this ideology, and speech-code policies are enforced to ensure that students are never exposed to any other concepts. Feminism Is Queer, as Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci declared in the title of her 2010 Women’s Studies textbook, and the queering of feminism has had predictable consequences. In fact, Professor Marinucci recently announced a new edition of her textbook:

In the years since Feminism Is Queer was first published in 2010, feminist and LGBTQ activism has increased and evolved at an incredible rate. With the current third wave of feminism and gay rights issues steadily dominating mainstream media, Mimi Marinucci’s innovative concept of queer feminism that unites natural allies, queer and feminist theory, is more vital than ever before.
This updated and expanded edition explores with the relevancy of queer feminism to a new generation of feminist activists and offers a way to both understand gender, sex, and sexuality while fostering solidarity between allies for women’s and LGBTQ rights. Bringing this comprehensive introduction to gender and queer theory up to date are examinations of the latest developments in feminism and queer theory, including new forms of both feminism and antifeminism developing out of online communities, as well as the growing significance of transgender experiences in mainstream media. An essential guide for anyone with an interest in gender or sexuality, this new edition will be indispensable to those wanting to stay current on the vital role that these intersecting disciplines play in contemporary LGBTQ and feminist movements.

Considering what is taught in classrooms, is anyone surprised to learn that the University of Washington offers a “Queer Mentoring Program,” which “provides a safe, affirming, and exciting environment” where the student’s “sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression is supported and celebrated by an educated and experienced mentor”?

The director of this taxpayer-funded program at the University of Washington is Jen Self, “a renaissance queer . . . and anti-oppression educator” who describes her career as “queer activism.” Among the accomplishments listed on Professor Self’s curriculum vitae is a 2011 conference presentation entitled, “Queering Queer Space: Making the case for Critical Feminist & Queer Methodologies in Social Work via Discourse and Spatial Analysis of Homonormative Whiteness.” This was actually the topic of her Ph.D. dissertation:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) college centers emerged in the early 1970’s in response to student, faculty, and staff activism and demands for safe and protective spaces from heterosexism and homophobia. Despite 40 years of practice, however, little research has been conducted about these spaces. Recognizing the importance of lgbtq campus centers and the political and identity struggles within the movement that created them; this dissertation addressed this gap in research knowledge. Specifically, the study aimed to: (1) interrogate the power and influence of the leadership of lgbtq centers (directors and other primary leaders) via the exploration of the ways in which dominance in the form of “homonormative whiteness” is interrupted, disrupted, resisted, and (re)produced discursively and spatially through lgbtq campus-based centers; and (2) examine tensions that arised as directors and programs operationalize social transformation praxis models while maintaining their core purpose of safety and respite from heterosexism and homophobia. To explore these issues, I undertook a modified extended case study of six campus centers. The case study data included in-depth interviews with directors and center leaders, researcher observations, photographs, and hand-drawn maps produced by center leaders. The methodological approach was broadly critical and interpretive: specific analytic strategies included critical discourse analysis (spatial and dialogic). By examining the role of lgbtq center leadership discourse and center space in the (re)production and resistance of homonormative whiteness, this study contributes to several bodies of literature: (1) center development and practice; (2) intersectionality and praxis within student and community centers; and (3) social justice within higher education.

When I say that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, this is what I mean: Anyone can examine the “queer activism” Jen Self conducts at the University of Washington and see that it is insane, but no one on campus can say so.

This Official Truth is imposed on students at taxpayer expense, and dissent is effectively criminalized by laws and policies that treat disagreement as illegal “discrimination” or “harassment.” Under the totalitarian campus regime enforced by feminist hegemony in academia, the Official Truth of gender theory can never be criticized or questioned.

“Feminism is about redefining our social value system.”
— Anita Sarkeesian, 2015

“Feminism is about change. It challenges the existing pattern of relations between the sexes. . . . In doing so, it necessarily takes issue with the customs and practices of existing societies.”
— Anne Phillips, Gender and Culture (2010)

“Sexism is the belief system that supports patriarchy: the rule of men over women. . . .
“Sexism relies on heterosexism. . .
“Political strategy must be based on a clear analysis and the goal of eliminating heteropatriarchy if we are to eliminate heterosexism.”
— Joy A. Livingston, “Individual Action and Political Strategies: Creating a Future Free of Heterosexism,” in Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia, edited by Esther D. Rothblum and Lynne A. Bond (1996)

Perhaps the reader perceives how current controversies are the result of policies implemented over the course of decades by activists whose credentials, motives and methods no one dared to criticize, for fear of being accused of sexism, homophobia or other prejudices.

Criticism of feminist gender theory has been effectively prohibited on most university campuses for more than a decade, and very few college-educated Americans under 30 have ever encountered any informed opposition to the “queer activism” that is now conducted at taxpayer expense on most campuses. No professor at the University of Washington would ever describe male and female as biological categories that typically produce “innate differences” in appearance and behavior, differences that are recognized (not “constructed”) by society because this normal pattern of difference is beneficial to men and women alike.

It is quite literally insane to pass laws or enforce policies imposing a “gender-neutral” policy for public toilets and gymnasium locker rooms in order to accommodate the delusions of transvestite weirdos. Men are not oppressed by being excluded from using the women’s restroom, and men who want to engage in a masquerade of womanhood are mentally ill perverts whose deviant fetishism poses a danger to society.

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

Truth is “the proper and sufficient antagonist to error,” but feminists now exercise such authority in higher education that truth has been “disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate,” and no one is “permitted freely to contradict” feminism’s dangerous errors.

+ + + + +

The Sex Trouble project began in 2014 and reader support is vital to this research into radical feminism. Contrary to what feminists claim, patriarchy is usually just another word for “paying the bills.” And remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Never doubt God answers prayers. Thanks in advance.




 

RECENTLY IN THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

 


Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Last Weekend In The Tax Mines

Posted on | April 16, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Deadpool
Animal Magnetism
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
90 Miles From Tyranny

Crazy #ShoutYourStatus Tweets Reveal What Feminists Want to Teach Your Kids
Downtrend
Regular Right Guy
Politically Off-Target
The Political Hat
Batshit Crazy News

‘Obsessed With Sex’?
Living In Anglo-America
PRone
Neoreactive
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Saturday Night With The Twins
The Pirate’s Cove
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

The ‘Male Feminist’ Problem
Regular Right Guy
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 04.11.16
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox: 04.12.16
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 04.13.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Jeff Serves Up A Trump Rant Of Justice
Batshit Crazy News

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN!
Batshit Crazy News

About Those ‘Huddled Masses’
Batshit Crazy News

Yes, ‘Gender’ Is About Sex
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Trump Trolls His ‘Christian’ Chumps
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 04.15.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (13)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (12)
  3.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! There will be no FMJRA next week since I’ll be away from the home computer doing anime convention things in Minnesota.


Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Store
Shop Amazon – Grow Your Garden

Category: FMJRA Award

The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity

Posted on | April 16, 2016 | 66 Comments

 

“Women are an oppressed class. . . . We identify the agents of our oppression as men.”
— Redstockings Manifesto, 1969

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972

“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

“It is the system of heterosexuality that characterises the oppression of women and gives it a different shape from other forms of exploitative oppression. . . .
“Sex roles originate from heterosexuality. . . . Sex roles must be created so that no human being of either gender is fully capable of independent functioning and heterosexual coupling then seems natural and inevitable.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution (1990)

“Men affirm male superiority through use of the penis as a weapon against the female. . . .
“Because men want women’s sexual services for themselves only . . . men make women’s heterosexuality compulsory.”
— Dee Graham, et al., Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
— Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

“Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice.”
— Anita Sarkeesian, 2015

Why does a man love a woman? What makes women attractive to men? If you are a woman who is interested in men, questions like this may be worth considering, and perhaps heterosexual men could tell you something about this subject. However, if you’re a feminist, you never want to hear anything a man has to say, especially not about sex. Feminists believe men know nothing about sex. Everything men say or do about sex is bad and wrong, according to feminist theory, which condemns heterosexuality as an oppressive “institution” forcibly imposed on women by the social system of male domination known as patriarchy.

According to feminist theory, all social and behavioral differences between male and female (i.e., “gender”) are artificially created by patriarchy in order to oppress women, to subjugate them under a systemic hierarchy of injustice enforced by male power.

When I say that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, some readers may suppose that this is merely hyperbole, just as some readers may suppose that the sources I quote are “extreme” examples of an obscure “fringe” feminism. Yet anyone who cares to investigate further will discover that, however “radical” this anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology may have been in an earlier era, it has now become so mainstream within academic feminism that no other perspective on human sexual behavior is ever expressed by the faculty in university departments of Women’s Studies. This transformation of feminism has been accomplished over the course of decades, but has especially accelerated since the 1990s, by which time many radical feminists had obtained Ph.D.s and tenured professorships.

 

Consider the example of Sheila Jeffreys, who was a leader among the Leeds Revolutionary Feminists whose 1981 tract Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism was at that time considered the ne plus ultra of radicalism. In 1991, however, she was hired as a professor at Australia’s University of Melbourne, where she taught until her retirement in 2015. Her books, including Anticlimax (1990), The Lesbian Heresy (1993), The Spinster and Her Enemies (1997), and Beauty and Misogyny (2005) are widely cited and, although Professor Jeffreys enjoys playing the martyr, claiming that she has been ignored or demonized by the feminist mainstream, her influence is not insignificant. Guardian columnist Julie Bindel is a huge admirer of Professor Jeffreys, and one may find her repeatedly cited as a source in the 2015 anthology Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism, edited by Miranda Kiraly and Megan Tyler. Being a British-born academic at an Australian university may make Professor Jeffreys unfamiliar to American readers, but as she herself has pointed out, in the preface to a new edition of Beauty and Misogyny issued in 2015, the Internet is fueling a worldwide resurgence of radical feminism.

Feminism: No More Fun, No More Games

This online phenomenon spans the English-speaking world — Great Britain, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. — and the use of social media and blogging platforms like Tumblr has helped spread radical ideology far beyond academia. The controversy known as #GamerGate, for example, has centered on feminist critics like Anita Sarkeesian, who condemns as “objectification” any portrayal of women in videogames that might appeal to heterosexual men.

 

Demonizing men’s admiration of women’s beauty (the “male gaze”) is one way in which heterosexual masculinity is “problematized” in feminist rhetoric, which seeks not only to inspire women to view men contemptuously, but also to make men ashamed of their own desires. Sarkeesian’s description of feminism as seeking “the collective liberation of women,” a movement that is “not about personal choice,” is consistent with her anti-heterosexual agenda. If some women express their “personal choice” by seeking to attract the “male gaze,” and if these women do not feel a “collective” solidarity with anti-male hatemongers like Sarkeesian, they are not feminists. Unless women share her rage against “offensive” depictions of heterosexuality in videogames and other media, Sarkeeskian’s rhetoric implies, they are not feminists, because they are collaborating with the male oppressor.

One of Sarkeesian’s earliest tastes of fame was when she did a video about the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl,” a stock character in certain movies:

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a cute, bubbly, young (usually white) woman who has recently entered the life of our brooding hero to teach him how to loosen up and enjoy life. While that might sound all well and good for the man, this trope leaves women as simply there to support the star on his journey of self discovery with no real life of her own.

Understand that this phrase — “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” — was coined by a male film critic, Nathan Rabin, to describe a character played by an actress I never liked (Kirsten Dunst) in a 2005 movie (Elizabethtown) I never saw. Therefore I have no more interest in defending this film than I do in defending videogames. It has been many years since Hollywood made any movies I really liked, and my interest in videogames ended with Pac Man, feeding quarters into the machine at the Red Rooster Pub when I was in college more than 30 years ago. However, because I majored in drama and studied dramatic theory, permit me to point out something obvious: Just as every sentence has a subject, so must every story have a protagonist. If the hero is a heterosexual male, then by definition his love interest is female, but insofar as this is a story about him — which is what being the protagonist means, after all — well, of course this female is ancillary, her role to “support the star on his journey.”

What inspired Nathan Rabin to complain of about this, I can’t say, having never seen the movie in question, but you see how for Sarkeesian, the problem is that this female character having “no real life of her own” is somehow an expression of misogyny. The failure of the writer/director (Cameron Crowe) to give Ms. Dunst’s character a more in-depth biography, according to Sarkeesian’s interpretation, is cited as further evidence of women’s oppression under heteropatriarchy ( as if further evidence were needed). You see how, in criticizing movies as allegedly “sexist,” Sarkeesian (and other feminist critics) are actually criticizing men — not only the male writers, directors and producers behind these films, but also any man who enjoys them, and in general, the behavior and attitudes of real-life men that these movies are intended to dramatize.

How does this help explain why men who like videogames react so harshly to Ms. Sarkeesian’s criticism of their hobby? The raging fury of #GamerGate reflects an intuitive understanding that Sarkeesian’s criticism of “objectification” is actually a condemnation of male sexuality. Guys like good-looking women, and so the makers of these games give guys what they like. This makes guys happy, and Sarkeesian doesn’t want guys to be happy. Like all other feminists, Sarkeesian’s goal is to abolish male happiness. Sarkeesian’s attitude — anything that makes men happy must be wrong — is so typical of feminism, and feminist attitudes have become so commonplace, that most people do not even question it, in the same way that most people who saw Elizabethtown probably didn’t feel offended by the shallowness of Kirsten Dunst’s character. Maybe it was a lousy movie, but was it a social injustice?

OK, do you suppose the average guy who spends a lot of time playing videogames is going to write a persuasive essay rebutting Sarkeesian? It’s absurd to expect such a thing. You don’t learn to write persuasive essays by logging endless hours playing League of Legends. Well, do we expect these gamers to do what I’ve done, spend upwards of $1,500 acquiring dozens of books of feminist theory and history, then spend hundreds of hours reading these books in order to develop an informed critical analysis of feminist ideology and rhetoric? Of course not. So while these videogame guys correctly interpret Anita Sarkeesian’s work as profoundly insulting to themselves as men, very few of them are prepared to confront Sarkeesian with a well-informed rebuttal. Instead, these guys just call her ugly names or otherwise “harass” her, as she is wont to complain.

Sarkeesian claims that this “harassment” is “silencing” women, but has she ever debated any man who disagrees with her? No, Sarkeesian and her feminist allies strive to exclude their opponents from academia and media, to silence feminism’s critics and, most especially, to ensure that no heterosexual male will be allowed to defend his own point of view. Any man who musters the courage to step forward to argue for the legitimacy of the heterosexual man’s perspective is automatically condemned for daring to say anything in his own defense.

Sexual Anarchy: Bellum Omnium Contra Omne

What kind of women do men like, and why do they like them that way? Or what can a young woman do to increase her chances of romantic success with men? Good luck finding answers to such questions in a world where men are effectively forbidden to speak on their own behalf.

 

According to feminist theory, male sexuality is inherently oppressive to women, and there is no reason why women should attempt to understand or sympathize with men. Feminists condemn any expectation that women naturally desire heterosexual relationships, and therefore might wish to make themselves appealing to males. Heterosexuality is “an institution of male domination,” as Sheila Jeffreys and her colleagues declared in 1981, and it is an “illusion that heterosexuality is the norm,” as Professor Shaw and Professor Lee more recently declared in their popular Women’s Studies textbook. The penis is a “weapon against women,” as Professor Graham explained, women are victimized by “the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality,” according to Professor Jackson, and masculinity causes “sexual violence . . . a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power,” according to Ms. Wooten.

“Fear and Loathing of the Penis,” as I have dubbed the fundamental message of feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology, has fueled the phony “campus rape epidemic” hysteria on university campuses. If you take feminist rhetoric seriously, you must believe 1-in-5 college girls are victims of sexual assault and, because fewer than 1-in-5 male students are expelled, these heinous crimes usually go unpunished. Should you express doubt that this “epidemic” is as widespread as feminists claim, or point to cases where accusations of sexual assault on campus have been proven to be hoaxes, feminists will call you a “rape apologist.” It is dangerous even to make the most common-sense remarks about this situation. If you point out that a lot of these cases seem to involve drunken hookups, suggesting that maybe young women should be careful how much they drink and who they hook up with, you will be accused of “victim-blaming.” Feminists now exercise hegemonic authority over discussion of sex. Feminists decide what the facts are, and also decide what arguments are permissible, and this means that the only ways a male can participate in the discussion of sex are (a) sitting in mute silence, (b) accusing other men of sexism, or (c) engaging in self-denunciation.

 

What has happened, it seems, is that our culture has descended so far into moral decadence and social anarchy that there is no longer any mutually understood script by which young people navigate their romantic lives.

What do they want and how do they go about getting it? Three or four decades ago, the differences between men and women were understood in a rather simple fashion — men wanted sex, women wanted love, and this was the basis of negotiation for each party to gain by voluntary exchange. Were men more emotionally vulnerable than they liked to admit? Sure. Were women more lusty than they liked to admit? Sure. In general, however, it was understood that women had a greater investment in the emotional aspects of love and romance, whereas men’s interests were . . . uh, more pragmatic, you might say. Perhaps we could interrogate the “is”/”ought” distinction here, but why bother? Whether or not this was how things should be in an ideal world, this was how things actually were in the real world, and most people coped with it somehow.

That pragmatic approach to male/female relationships, however, seems to have become inoperative after two generations of social upheaval, which has not only swept away the Judeo-Christian moral code, but has also destroyed nearly all hope that when boy meets girl, they might fall in love, and proceed toward the kind of happily-ever-after conclusion that was once celebrated 24/7 by pop music on Top 40 radio. Young people who grow up in fragmented families — where Dad never bothered to marry Mom, or where they divorced after a kid or two and then remarried to create networks of step-parents, step-siblings and half-siblings — seem to have very little romantic idealism. Many of today’s youth believe there is no such thing as moral virtue as regards sexual behavior, and the only “ideals” which concern them are maximizing their own pleasure, boosting their own ego, and enhancing their social status. The sex scene on the 21st-century university campus looks rather like bellum omnium contra omnes, the Hobbesian “war of all against all,” a chaotic and ruthless competition with no recognized rules of conduct.

Feminism cannot solve this problem, mainly because feminism has played such a large part in causing this problem. We find feminists advocating shameless promiscuity — “I’ve gone down and dirty with strangers,” Jaclyn Friedman boasts — while simultaneously scapegoating men for every predictable consequence of such behavior. Feminists launch social-media campaigns to announce the sexual diseases they’ve contracted through heedless fornication (intending to end the “stigma” of these diseases) and then complain about “harassment” when everybody laughs at the stupidity of their arguments. And, of course, the alleged “campus rape epidemic” is entirely men’s fault, as if drunken teenagers who stumble into bed together at 2 a.m. could be expected to conduct a careful point-by-point negotiation of “affirmative consent.”

Much of feminist rhetoric is a form of psychological warfare against men, employing a propaganda tactic in which atrocities (e.g., Rodger Elliot’s murder spree in California) are used as an indictment of all men. “Toxic masculinity!” screamed the feminists. “Misogyny! Male entitlement!” Suddenly, every young guy who ever read a pickup artist (PUA) web site in an attempt to improve his luck with the ladies was deemed complicit in murder. The SPLC even branded pickup artists as hate criminals.

This atrocity-as-representative tactic — where the very worst thing any man ever does is attributed to all men collectively — is simply a method of hate propaganda. Using this kind of irresponsible rhetoric, we could demonize almost any group and justify any measure to punish them. Are lesbians teachers committing sexual crimes against students? Ban lesbian teachers! Or better yet, abolish public schools!

Here’s a headline: “Girl goes on one date with a guy, chooses not to hook up, and gets sent an insane text rant.” This guy named Endri traveled a good distance for a first date with Arielle, a girl he met via the dating app Tinder. After meeting him in person, Arielle decided Endri was creepy, so their date did not progress to, uh, intimacy, and Endri then went berserk, sending a series of foul and abusive text messages to the girl.

Now, from my perspective, the moral of the story is, “Never use Tinder, or OKCupid, or any other kind of online dating service.”

All such services are for creeps, weirdos and losers, because if they had anything going for them, they could meet somebody in real life, and wouldn’t be cruising for dates on the Internet. Is that generalization unfair? Perhaps, but after you hear a few of these horror stories (“Hit It and Quit It on Tinder”) it only takes a little common sense to see why dating apps are a bad gamble. Just “swipe left” on the whole thing.

However, queer feminist Melissa Fabello has other ideas:

“This is most men”? Seriously?

No, maybe this is “most men” of the kind a woman is likely to meet if she’s still unmarried past 25. As I’ve explained previously, the good guys tend to get coupled up at a young age. They might change girlfriends a few times before they get married, but they usually don’t spend too long “on the scene.” A woman who is still single at 25? Good luck finding a real quality guy who doesn’t already have a serious girlfriend.

The median age at first marriage in the U.S. is about 26, and most couples marry after at least a year or two of dating, so if you’re in your mid-20s and aren’t married yet, why? Is it because “most men” are jerks? Or is it because all of the quality guys are either (a) already married or (b) in a serious relationship?

Am I willing to believe that “most men” Melissa Fabello has dated are selfish jerks? Yes. Am I willing to believe that women are unlikely to meet Mister Right on Tinder? Yes, again. But does it make sense to blame this on “male sexual entitlement”? On “patriarchy”? No and no.

If these men have a sense of “sexual entitlement,” why? Where did Endri get the idea that he can find a girl on Tinder, drive all the way to New Jersey to meet her and expect to get sex right away? Maybe because such trysts quite commonly happen that way nowadays? It takes two to tango, and if any substantial number of girls are hooking up with random dudes via dating apps, why should we blame the random dudes if they start taking this kind of casual sex for granted?

Why Do Winners Win? Because Losers Lose

No, Ms. Fabello, I don’t doubt that dating life is miserable for most single women. However, based on my own extensive experience and observation — having been married 26 years, with six kids, two of whom are already married and another recently engaged — I have some definite opinions as to why things are as bad as they are, but no feminist cares what a man has to say about such matters, you see? God forbid any woman should ask a man’s advice about why her romantic life is a disaster.

Women must only take advice from feminists! Because if women ever start listening to advice from men, why, the patriarchy will win!

Well, ma’am, the joke’s on you. The patriarchy always wins. No matter how feminists try to change the game, winners win and losers lose.

Speaking of losers, take a look at Feminist Tumblr where a mentally disabled 24-year-old lesbian Scorpio occultist has this observation:

I’ve been thinking about how I rarely ever hear any female-attracted men mention that they love women. As in, one of them just bursting out in how much they adore women.
I’ve legit heard many more gay men say that they really love women (Platonically, of course) than any straight man or even bi man. I think I’ve heard like. Three female-attracted men mention how much they love women in a way that’s actually loving, like genuine love. In my entire life, not just tumblr.
Instead… I hear SO MANY female-attracted men say how stupid women are, how ridiculous we are, how even repulsive we are to them when we’re not serving them as pretty f–kholes and even while they’re using us like that they can still spew how much they hate us. And yes, this includes MGA men, I’ve seen it in pretty much the same fashion.
However, in society, men’s attraction to women is seen as healthy, as natural, as normal, as good.
But whose attraction to women is universally seen as gross, predatory, repulsive, creepy, unhealthy?
Women’s.
And the thing here is that, there isn’t a day in lesbian tumblr in which I don’t see at least ONE post being reblogged by all the lesbians I follow about how much they love girls, how amazing, how beautiful, how great, sexy, strong, adorable, breathtaking, fun, admirable women are. We literally can’t shut up about it when we feel we’re safe enough to express it.
When I thought I was bi I remember bi/pan-girl tumblr being similar.
It’s already sad enough that society at large (Including straight women) thinks of us as being the gross predatory ones.
But the real saddest thing is that we believe it too. We’ve been taught that all our lives and it’s so hard to unlearn it. I still can’t truly unlearn it even though I know all this in a rational way.

Well, if this is so, why is it that men don’t praise women? Isn’t it because feminism more or less forbids men from expressing their love for women? Isn’t it because every time a man opens his mouth to say anything at all about women, feminists scream at him to shut up? What is it possible for men to say about women that feminists will not denounce as “objectifying,” “harassment,” “misogyny” or otherwise wrong? Feminists cannot permit men to praise good women. No man may express admiration for women’s beauty, nor praise women whose manners are gracious, whose conduct is virtuous, whose character is godly.

My wife? No, feminists would never say a good word about my wife, or permit me to praise my wife’s many excellent qualities, because my wife is a Christian, and feminism is implacably opposed to Christianity.

It was Mary Daly who celebrated the feminist movement as “the Second Coming of female presence not only as Antichrist but also as Antichurch,” as a “rising woman-consciousness” to destroy the “Christocentric cosmos.” Mary Daly was an influential professor, so if she declared feminism to be the Antichrist, who am I to disagree?

“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
— The Exorcist (1973)

The Radical Theology of Feminism produces such demon-possessed creatures as a mentally disabled Scorpio occultist lesbian, and the same satanic philosophy also produces despicable liars like Anita Sarkeesian.

An honest enemy is less to be feared than a false friend, which is why I can at least respect Professor Sheila Jeffreys, who has never attempted to conceal her all-encompassing hatred of men, whereas dishonest feminists like Anita Sarkeesian pretend that they are victims of harassment, misunderstood and misrepresented by “misogynists.”

We live in an evil age, and feminism is among the greatest of evils. Men cannot even be allowed to praise the virtue of their own wives, nor can any man ever expect praise for his own virtuous conduct. Feminists only ever praise perversity. Feminists celebrate vice and corruption.

Sexual Fluidity: Queer, Straight,
And Anything Else You’re Feeling
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

5 Ways to Bring Feminism to Your Education
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

4 Myths About Virginity
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

Fantasy vs. Reality:
Lesbian Sex in Pornography
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

 

Lesbian and Bisexual Women in the
Media — Or the Lack Thereof
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

5 Efforts Toward Creating
a More Feminist Classroom
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

Your First Time: A Sexual Guide for Girls
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

Our Vulvas, Ourselves
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

 

Five Locker Room Myths
About Penises Debunked
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

5 Common Fears That Stop People
From Calling Themselves Feminists
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

How To Start Loving Your Vagina
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

 

More than a year ago, describing the “queer feminism” that Melissa Fabello promotes at her site Everyday Feminism, I said this:

This exotic 21st-century rainbow of queer feminism is to sexuality what Baskin-Robbins is to ice cream, offering 31 flavors of abnormal perversion to those seeking escape from the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix that define oppression under patriarchy.
Now everybody is an oppressed victim, except normal people, because whatever feminists are, they are never normal people.

Selah.

 

+ + + + +

Thanks to the many readers whose contributions have supported the Sex Trouble project. Your prayers are always deeply appreciated.




 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 04.15.16

Posted on | April 15, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: John Kasich – The Early Years
Louder With Crowder: Buzzfeed Rebuttal – 27 “Racist” Questions…Answered
EBL: Why Russians Like Putin, And What That Says About Our Elections
Da Tech Guy: Historical Ignorance On A National Scale – Income Inequality
The Political Hat: Feminist Whores – Feminist Slavers Of Women
Michelle Malkin: The Wall Street Journal’s Stupid Berlin Wall Meme
Twitchy: There’s Nothing Wrong With John Kasich’s Advice On How To Avoid Rape
Shark Tank: Tim Tebow Being Asked To Run For Congress


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Feeling The Bern Of Reality
American Thinker: A Murder Provides A Lesson In Evil At The University Of Texas
Conservatives4Palin: Judge Refuses ACLU Demand To Force Catholic Hospitals To Perform Abortions
Don Surber: Left Uses Dildo Case To Skewer Cruz
Joe For America: “Christian” Obama Silent As “Religion Of Peace” Erases Christianity From Middle East
JustOneMinute: The Ongoing Power Of Ignorance
Pamela Geller: Muslim Migrant Men Pose With Pre-Teen Kufr “Girlfriends” On Social Media
Shot In The Dark: Open Letter To Samantha Bee
STUMP: Tax Day Tribute – Think The IRS Would Be Happy With 80% Of What’s Owed?
The Jawa Report: Wanted Liberian Warlord Mohammed Jabbateh Found!
The Lonely Conservative: Want To Dump Drudge? There Are Alternatives
The Quinton Report: Kathy Szeliga Rides Motorcycle In New Ad
This Ain’t Hell: “Today, The Vast Majority Of Marine Corps Aircraft Can’t Fly”
Weasel Zippers: Obama Meets With Rappers And Hip Hop Stars On Criminal Justice Reform
Megan McArdle: Dining Out On Empty Virtue
Mark Steyn: Where The Streets Have No Jokes, Continued


Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Store
Shop Amazon – Grow Your Garden

Category: Linkagery

Trump Trolls His ‘Christian’ Chumps

Posted on | April 14, 2016 | 123 Comments

by Smitty

Hot Air has the audio clip. It’s a relatively obvious troll. It underscores the notions that either (a) Trump isn’t even slightly serious about the job for which he’s purportedly campaigning, or (b) if there is a serious bone in his body, it’s dislocated from any real competence.

I’m actively curious as to how anyone with even the tiniest bit of ‘Evangelical’ leaning could possibly support Trump. If you want to study a religion that cleaves closer to Hammurabi, as Trump appears to do here, have a glance at what Islam teaches.

Category: Donald Trump, Religion, Republicans

Yes, ‘Gender’ Is About Sex

Posted on | April 14, 2016 | 28 Comments

 

Melissa Fabello will once again be the subject of my attention in a long post I’ve been writing this week, but her romantic holiday in Paris is something she has not bothered to explain at length, whereas we already have extensive testimony as to her “queer feminist” credentials.

“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

As I say, there is a long unfinished draft that I mean to get finished at some point, but right now I don’t have time. My daughter-in-law will soon bring my two young grandsons for me to supervise and care for, and my patriarchal duty will necessarily intrude on my writing schedule. Therefore, I will quickly suggest what the apparent heterosexual resolution of Ms. Fabello’s lifelong adventures in queerness may mean.

When I began my in-depth exploration of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — it was immediately apparent to me that (a) Professor Judith Butler’s argument assumed as its tacit premise feminism’s opposition to heterosexuality, per se; and that many adherents of so-called Third Wave feminism had either (b) failed to recognize this premise, or else (c) were being less than honest about what “gender theory” actually implies and where its application as policy is likely to lead.

Professor Butler shrewdly couches her arguments in opaque jargon and asks provocative questions to which the answers are never clearly stated, but which the intelligent and careful researcher can easily intuit. How many times, for example, can an author cite radical lesbian Monique Wittig without being accused of advocating lesbianism?

“A materialist feminist approach to women’s oppression destroys the idea that women are a ‘natural group’ . . .
“Lesbian is the only concept I know of which is beyond the categories of sex (woman and man). . . . For what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man, a relation that we have previously called servitude . . . a relation which lesbians escape by refusing to become or to stay heterosexual. . . . [O]ur survival demands that we contribute all our strength to the destruction of the class of women within which men appropriate women. This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression.”
— Monique Wittig, “One Is Not Born a Woman,” 1981

Let anyone consult Professor Butler’s 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity and see how often she cites Wittig. Furthermore, the reader should contemplate what “the Subversion of Identity” means in the context of lesbian feminism. Many radical feminists have been critical of Professor Butler’s work, but is it not possible that the subtlety of her feminist attack on “identity” has eluded their comprehension? Any reader familiar with the sources cited by Professor Butler — not only Wittig, but also Adrienne Rich, Gayle Rubin, Esther Newton, Teresa de Lauretis, Eve Sedwick, Diana Fuss, et al. — recognizes that she takes for granted all feminist arguments made against heterosexuality. It was simply unnecessary, in 1990, for Professor Butler to cite such outspoken lesbian-feminist enemies of heterosexuality as Charlotte Bunch, Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye and Joyce Trebilcot. By the time Gender Trouble was published, there were enough such radicals among the tenured faculty of Women’s Studies that once Professor Butler invoked “gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality” (on the second page of her 1990 preface), all of her academic readers could be expected to nod in recognition: “Yes, we see exactly where she’s coming from here.”

For some reason, however, I keep encountering young feminists (and also young opponents of feminism) who do not understand this. Feminist theory did not begin with Judith Butler, nor is the ostentatious weirdness of a self-described “queer” feminist like Melissa Fabello anything new.

As I have pointed out at length in my book Sex Trouble, and in the continuing series of writing here that I intend to incorporate into the revised and expanded second edition, the “Lavender Menace” of lesbian feminism erupted publicly less than two years after the emergence of the Women’s Liberation movement in 1968. That first surge of gaudy radicalism faded from public consciousness after the mid-1970s (as Professor Alice Echols explains in her 1989 history Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975), so that by the mid-1980s “feminism” was widely viewed as the idea of smart, stylish women trying to “have it all,” combining career, marriage and motherhood. This idea was popularized by Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown in her 1982 bestseller Having It All: Love, Success, Sex, Money … Even if You’re Starting With Nothing. What was overlooked, generally, was that Brown herself never had children, and she was married to a wealthy film producer, David Brown, a partner of Richard Zanuck. For a millionaire’s wife to be considered a feminist expert on “having it all” is highly ironic to those familiar with modern feminism’s Marxist origins.

Meanwhile, however, radical feminists were burrowing into academia, publishing in journals like Hypatia, and their weird ideas about “gender” and “sexuality” didn’t attract widespread notice until, in 1995, the Beijing Conference put lesbianism front and center. (See Ara Wilson’s contemporaneous article in the feminist journal Signs, written from a pro-lesbian perspective.) Despite the headlines and controversy surrounding Beijing, it seems that few conservative critics understood the full significance and probable consequences of this. Academic feminism was increasingly dominated by professors whose hostility toward heterosexuality was a matter of both theory and practice.

By the 1990s, therefore, much of what was being taught in universities about men, women and sex was being taught from a radical perspective that condemned heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” to quote one of Charlotte Bunch’s comrades. Professor Daphne Patai was one of the few people in academia who saw the danger in this and tried to call attention it. First, in Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies (co-authored with Professor Noretta Koertge), Professor Patai examined the problem of what was being taught in Women’s Studies classes. Next, in an excellent 1998 book I have often recommended, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Professor Patai took direct aim at anti-male hatemongers including University of Cincinnati Professor Dee Graham. It was Professor Graham’s 1994 book Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives which inspired the infamous radical feminist blogger Witchwind to proclaim “PIV is always rape, OK?” and “No woman is heterosexual.” These were the declarations that in turn inspired my research into feminist theory, and here we are more than two years later.

Do not doubt that I have greatly enjoyed mocking Melissa Fabello’s style of “queer feminism.” However, beyond my mirthful pleasure, we must confront a serious problem — Feminism Is Queer, to cite the title of a Women’s Studies textbook by Professor Mimi Marinucci. That is to say, both Radical Wind’s anti-male radicalism and Ms. Fabello’s bizarre confusion — changing her identity from bisexual to lesbian to “homoflexible” and now to “queer” — are endorsed and advocated by Women’s Studies programs. Academic feminism is now in favor of every form of sexual behavior except normal sexual behavior.

Whatever type of deviant sexuality a woman may choose is OK with the professors, just so long as she avoids those patterns of behavior that might lead to (a) finding herself a husband and (b) having babies.

“Sex is compulsory in marriage. . . . It is clear that the compulsory nature of sex in marriage operates to the advantage of the male. . . . The enslavement of women in marriage is all the more cruel and inhumane by virtue of the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.”
— Sheila Cronan, 1970

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, 1988

Well, my grandsons just arrived, so I’ll have to quit this now, but I do wish Ms. Fabello would stop complaining about “harassment” long enough to write something honest about Third Wave feminism. Selah.




 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

About Those ‘Huddled Masses’

Posted on | April 14, 2016 | 67 Comments

 

Mark Steyn takes aim at Emma Lazarus:

UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, who insisted that there’s no difference between the once supposedly unassimilable Irish Catholics and East European Jews and the new Pushtun goatherds and Mogadishu hoodlums. It’s one of the curious aspects of self-proclaimed “multiculturalists” that they are, essentially, uniculturalists: they think everybody’s the same.
But sometimes history doesn’t repeat itself — and Emma Lazarus’ lousy poem is an even lousier guide to social policy.

Was her poem “The New Colossus” really that bad? No, I think the problem is in the interpretation, in the same way that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has become a problem. In the minds of some people, among them Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a python that swallows whole the rest of the Constitution, including the First and Tenth Amendments, so that the entire purpose of the federal government, according to this view, is to impose “equality” everywhere.

In his 1993 book Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution, the late M.E. Bradford noted the way in which people conflate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so that phrases like “all men are created equal” and “the pursuit of happiness” attain in their minds the force of law. Jefferson’s expressions of lofty ideals, which some shallow minds never study carefully in their historic context, are then smuggled into the Constitution where they fornicate with the phrase “a more perfect Union,” thus breeding a bastard child — a mandate that the teleological purpose of the federal government is to make America “more perfect,” which is to say more “equal,” and also to guarantee “happiness” for everyone. Trying to get liberals to understand what’s wrong with this bastardized idea of the Founders’ intent is nearly hopeless. Justice Kennedy has obviously ceased to give a damn about the Constitution, so that the late Antonin Scalia went to his grave absolutely correct, and yet on the losing end of the crucial 5-4 majorities in Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Well, what does this have to do with Emma Lazarus? In the same way a few phrases from the Declaration get smuggled into the Constitution by liberals, so also have a few phrases from Lazarus’s famous poem about the Statue of Liberty attained legal authority in shallow minds. Peter Brimelow made a point of this in his excellent 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster. How is it that poetic phrases and the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty have become practically the only things so many people know about U.S. immigration policy?

Much like the problem with the Fourteenth Amendment, it seems impossible to get liberals to confront actual facts about immigration.

For all their blithe chatter about “critical thinking,” The Smart People™ don’t seem to do much of it. If a fact contradicts whatever is currently the Democrat mania, liberals always find some reason to dismiss this fact as irrelevant, or else to explain it away as having a liberal meaning, opposite to an obvious common-sense interpretation.

Here, let us cite “The New Colossus” in its entirety:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Now, what is “the imprisoned lightning”? Liberty, which Lazarus correctly identifies as the great principle of the American nation. And why were the “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” — the immigrants aboard ships steaming into the “air-bridged harbor” of New York — “yearning to breath free”? Do we know anything about these “ancient lands” of “storied pomp” from which these “Exiles” had come in search of their adoptive “Mother”? And what of Liberty herself, as symbol of the nation that extended this “world-wide welcome”?

Liberty and History, Policy and Poetry

It so happened that the Statue of Liberty was given to the United States by the citizens of France in 1776, commemorating the centennial of the Declaration of Independence. Considering that France had been our ally in the War of Independence against England, this gift was meant to remind Americans of France’s friendship and, considering that the French had recently gotten their imperial butts kicked in the Franco-Prussian War, France certainly could expect to need help from its friends going forward. This bit of historical context, you see, gives us a rather more cynical understanding of what the Statue of Liberty was really all about. Within 40 years of this gift, French soldiers would be bleeding to death under German machine-gun fire on the battlefields of World War One, into which America was inexorably drawn. And of course, again in World War Two, it became America’s job to save those “ancient lands” of “storied pomp” from the menace of German militarism.

Was any of that in the mind of Emma Lazarus when she wrote her poem “The New Colossus”? Of course not. She was a poet, not a diplomatic strategist, nor was she advocating any change in U.S. policy. She wrote her poem in 1883 — after the statue had been raised on an island in the harbor — which was almost the exact middle of the 80-year span, roughly 1840 to 1920, that Brimelow calls the “Era of Mass Immigration.” This era began at a time before the advent of steamships and locomotives, when America was still expanding its frontiers westward. It was not until U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) that California and the Southwest were added to our national territory, so that these vast expanses of sparsely populated western lands beckoned for settlers. You see that the “Era of Mass Immigration” got underway at a time when there was an organic demand for additional population here in the “Mother of Exiles,” and the vast expansion of U.S. industry — coal, steel, textiles, etc. — during subsequent decades meant that Liberty had a tremendous need for those “huddled masses.”

What about the “ancient lands” from which these exiles arrived? Well, in 1883, the ships that Emma Lazarus saw streaming into New York harbor past the Statue of Liberty contained a lot of Greeks and Italians. Indeed, the erstwhile empires of Greco-Roman fame had a lot of “storied pomp,” as did the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, both of which were even then teetering toward their final destruction in World War One. The contrast between the decadent empires of Europe, and the land of Liberty — a “mighty woman with a torch” — was certainly worthy of a poet’s notice, but the historian and the statesman must consider the sources of this contrast. Why had ancient Greece and Rome gone downhill? Why was Russia so backward and its government so despotic? Why was the Hapsburg dynasty unable to sustain harmony among its polyglot subjects? None of those questions interested Emma Lazarus who, although an excellent writer, was not a student of political, military or diplomatic history, the schools of statesmanship. We have no reason to believe Emma Lazarus was especially adept at economics or any other subject necessary to a study of immigration as public policy and, in fact, there is evidence that she was quite ignorant of U.S. policy circa 1883.

Whereas her poem has Liberty proclaiming “world-wide welcome” in New York harbor, on the West Coast, a policy of excluding Chinese and Japanese immigrants was being enforced in California — the “Yellow Peril” and all that — and Liberty herself was at that time not much interested in the “huddled masses” of black people, either as immigrants or among the former slaves who had quite recently gained their freedom from chattel slavery. In the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes had become president in exchange for an agreement by Republicans to end the military enforcement of Reconstruction in the South. In effect, the North gave its tacit assent to Jim Crow in the South, in order to maintain Republican control of the White House. Furthermore, as Southerners then and since have taken pains to point out, the treatment of black people in the North was not exactly in keeping with the lofty sentiments of “equality” and “liberty” that were so often invoked when Republicans waved “the Bloody Shirt” in election campaigns. Schools in the North were generally segregated, and black residents in Northern cities were mostly quite poor and restricted to living in certain neighborhoods, and there were few if any black immigrants responding to Liberty’s “world-wide welcome” in 1883. There was no shortage of outright racism in New York and other Northern cities at that time and, particularly in New England, the Republican Party gained votes by the tremendous ethnic and religious hostility toward Irish Catholics among the Yankee descendants of English Puritans.

All of that historic background as to the politics and policy of the United States circa 1883 is absent from the minds of those idiots (useful or otherwise) for whom the stirring poetry of Emma Lazarus has been transmogrified into a mandate for an open-borders immigration policy.

Every sound principle of statesmanship argues against this absurd idea that America should make “world-wide welcome” its policy, without any exception or numerical limit, and yet poetic sentiment has somehow replaced statesmanship as the basis of policy discussion.

‘Truth Is Great and Will Prevail’

What we suffer from most is an unwillingness to speak frankly, either about the reality of American history, or the nature of the problems we face in the present, or about the likely future consequences if we do not soon do something to solve these problems. As I have often reminded readers here, there are five A’s in “RAAAAACIST!” and a fear of being smeared as such tends to inhibit the honesty of conservatives when dealing with issues like this. Yet we have seen over and over, especially in the Obama Era, that conservatives will be labeled racists — excuse me, “RAAAAACIST!” — no matter what they say or do.

Another major problem is that conservatives, mindful of protecting the reputation of the Republican Party, are unwilling to tell the truth about the GOP’s actual history. Of course, Democrats have their own bogus propaganda version of history, hiding their long record of supporting slavery and Jim Crow, but it does not help the Republican Party for conservatives to flinch from the truth of their own past. There is a huge and significant difference between virtue and self-righteousness, and that difference can be summarized in a single word, honesty. Conservative spokesmen need to stop worrying so much about maintaining and enhancing their personal reputations, and instead focus on telling the plain truth, no matter how unpopular the truth might be.

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

If we wish to preserve “the imprisoned lightning” of Liberty, you see, we need to tell the truth, and we need to start asking the right questions. Who are these “huddled masses,” and does Liberty need quite so many of them today as she needed in 1883? Are all the “wretched refuse” equally eligible for this “world-wide welcome”? Is it possible that, by permitting a floodtide of illegal immigration, America could lose Liberty herself?

Thank God for Mark Steyn, himself an immigrant, who is willing to ask tough questions and to provide truthful answers. We now find ourselves confronted with the spectacle of the “ancient lands” of Europe being drowned by an endless tsunami of Muslim immigration. Jean Rapail’s 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints is being acted out in front of our eyes on a daily basis — at least, if we are paying attention to what is actually happening in Europe — and only a fool could fail to recognize what this might mean for America. Whether we are concerned about the astonishing wave of Mexican immigration and radicals who envision the Reconquista of Atzlan, or the enclaves of Palestinians, Pakistanis and Somalis scattered around various U.S. cities, it is obvious that the current immigration system is a complete failure, and advocates of so-called “comprehensive” reform are likely to make the problem even worse.

Nowadays, it seems, the “huddled masses” are not the immigrants, whose alleged “rights” are celebrated by the influential elites in both major parties. Rather, the “huddled masses” in 2016 are American citizens who find that almost no one in power, not even among those who claim to be “conservative,” will defend the rights and interests of our own people.





 


Category: Immigration

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN!

Posted on | April 13, 2016 | 52 Comments

How Caitlin Dewey can be employed as a reporter is astonishing. The Washington Post has no moral or journalistic standards at all, but it’s still hard to believe they published Dewey’s factually challenged, dishonest and completely one-sided smear on #GamerGate:

This horrifying and newly trendy
online-harassment tactic is ruining careers
There are literal textbooks for online harassment, the original dating back to 1999. These “ruin-life” guides include tactics from doxing and SWATing to placing endangering or annoying ads in online classifieds.
As popular as those techniques remain, however, online harassers have learned that they can cause far more damage with a slightly less flashy and more methodical approach — you might even say the “hottest new trend” in harassment is opposition research.
The latest high-profile victim is Alison Rapp, formerly a spokesperson for Nintendo of America. Rapp has been in the crosshairs of an online mob since fall, when Nintendo changed several female characters in American versions of its games to make them less sexual. . . .
In between deconstructing her Amazon wishlist, surfacing anonymous social accounts and circulating copies of her undergraduate thesis, the self-styled investigators also found evidence that Rapp was working a mysterious second job — for which she was fired from Ninetendo on March 30. . . .

IT’S NOT “HARASSMENT”! THE “SELF-STYLED INVESTIGATORS” ARE DOING WHAT USED TO BE CALLED “REPORTING,” YOU IDIOT! HOW ABOUT YOU TRY DOING SOME REPORTING INSTEAD OF SMEARING HONEST PEOPLE TO ADVANCE YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA?

Who “ruined” Alison Rapp’s career, Ms. Dewey? Alison Rapp, that’s who.

You have published zero evidence that being “in the crosshairs of an online mob” was the reason for Rapp’s firing, Ms. Dewey, nor have you apparently undertaken any effort to determine (a) whether Rapp was peddling her ass on the Internet, (b) whether this alleged ass-peddling was the cause of her firing, and certainly not (c) whether it was the “online mob” that reported this alleged ass-peddling to Ninendo. What you have done, instead of actually reporting the story, is to repeat the tendentious claims of the SJW crowd, contending that #GamerGate is about nothing except “harassment,” “misogyny” and general all-around Wrongthink.

You are lazy, Ms. Dewey, and it is a great mystery how you have managed to convince the editors of the Washington Post that you are worth whatever they’re paying you. By my count, you’ve had nine bylines in the past three weeks, and if your absurd thinly-sourced “reporting” about the Alison Rapp scandal is typical of your work, I can’t imagine what you’re doing with all your spare time. Meanwhile, Cynthia Than at Inc. magazine shows what real reporting looks like:

Alison Rapp, a product marketing specialist at Nintendo, has been fired after protests from gamers, parents, and anti-child-abuse activists drew attention to a paper she wrote in college. The essay, which can be found on her LinkedIn profile, is titled, “Speech We Hate: An Argument for the Cessation of International Pressure on Japan to Strengthen Its Anti-Child Pornography Laws” and argues for the legalization of child pornography.
Jamie Walton, president of the Wayne Foundation, a non-profit organization that fights sex trafficking, contacted Nintendo to complain about Rapp. She was then terminated, which created even more controversy, with people jumping in to argue that her dismissal was sexist (“She was fired for doing literally nothing other than being a woman”) to completely justified (“Nintendo was absolutely right to fire pedophile advocate, Alison Rapp”). . . .
Nintendo’s public statement says that Rapp wasn’t fired for moonlighting, but because her second job was “in conflict with [their] culture” — a reference made to online allegations made about Rapp by male critics. . . .
I contacted Rapp multiple times to give her an opportunity to confirm or deny these allegations, or provide context for her essay. She refused to answer any of my questions, and then promptly blocked me on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you, Ms. Than, for asking the obvious questions.

UPDATE: Damn, this kind of shoddy stuff from the Washington Post makes me angry. You know, Ethan Ralph isn’t a professional journalist, but he has been running rings around some professional journalists on this Rapp story and why? Because he cares about facts.

Alison Rapp is a “victim” of nothing but her own stupidity.

 


Category: Media Bias
« go back — keep looking »