The Other McCain

 

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

Well shit… This review confirms nearly every fear I had about Ghostbusters after that terrible trailer.-J https://t.co/nVGxFLIY46

— Super the Hardest (@SuperTheHardest) July 11, 2016

I did one more video about #Ghostbusters. I call it Ghostbusters 2016 How Every Man Is An Idiot Or An Asshole. https://t.co/5v9UhkN8ph

— Matt Zion (@MattZionWE) July 11, 2016

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

“While the new ‘Ghostbusters’ successfully empowers female movie stars, that’s not the movie’s selling point. However, it’s the only justification for its existence. . . .
“At the end of the day, no amount of culturally enlightened intentions can rescue another undercooked studio product.”
— Eric Kohn, IndieWire

The early reviews of the new SJW feminist Ghostbusters remake are trying to say as politely as possible that this movie sucks. Because the producers have spent a lot of money hyping this turkey, and because everyone in the liberal media wants to believe that a comedy can pass the “Bechdel Test” and be a commercial success, it is too early to say that this wretched piece of feminist propaganda will be a box-office flop. Like all movie remakes based on decades-old franchises — The Flintstones (1994), Scooby Doo (2002), etc. — the idea is that parents will pay money for their kids to see something that the parents enjoyed 30 years ago.

Every such movie ever made has sucked, so far as I know. And let me confess a prejudice: I never much liked the original Ghostbusters, either.

Like so many other movies spawned from Saturday Night Live‘s original cast, the 1984 Ghostbusters was just about cashing in on the popularity of a TV comedy phenomenon. Nobody under age 50 today remembers the movies Chevy Chase made with Goldie Hawn (Foul Play in 1978 and Seems Like Old Times in 1980), but instead remember Chase for the National Lampoon’s Vacation franchise that began in 1983, and also for Caddyshack (1980) in which Chase was upstaged by Rodney Dangerfield and by fellow SNL alumnus Bill Murray. If we had to rank the best all-time movies starring 1970s-era SNL cast members, none could match Animal House (1978) with John Belushi, and perhaps Caddyshack is a distant second, or maybe third behind the Belushi-Dan Akroyd project The Blues Brothers (1980). Depending on how you rank Chevy Chase’s film output, Ghostbusters might rank fourth or fifth among SNL-spawned movies, but it definitely wasn’t nearly as good as Animal House or Caddyshack.

My prejudice against Ghostbusters is in large part a function of my bias against the gimmicky SNL cash-in genre of which it was a part, but I also have a strong bias against movies with supernatural themes. Anything with magic, witches, wizards, vampires — no, I don’t like that stuff, and except for the original Friday the 13th (1980), can’t recall very many horror movies that I ever actually liked. The Exorcist (1973) was not nearly as good a movie as the novel on which it was based, which was one of the scariest books I ever read in my life. Because I believe that supernatural evil is quite real, I dislike the recent trend in which some kinds of “magic” are portrayed as benevolent. Any movie in which wizards and vampires are depicted as heroes I consider to be simply satanic.

Also, I don’t believe in ghosts. The dead are dead, and will remain so until the Resurrection and Judgment Day. As goofy as Ghostbusters was, I remember being uncomfortable in 1984 with how the movie played with the idea of paranormal activity as comedy fodder. The best scene in the whole movie — “a disaster of biblical proportions” — treated as laughable the idea of Old Testament “wrath of God type stuff,” which I do not consider a joke. The fact that Ghostbusters came out just about the time the scope of the AIDs epidemic was becoming apparent added a dark subtext to this apocalyptic humor: “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! . . . Human sacrifice! . . . Mass hysteria!”

Indeed, weird things were going on in 1984 and maybe Ghostbusters was a metaphor for things nobody was supposed to joke about, but finding any kind of politics in that silly movie is a stretch, although every libertarian laughs at Dan Aykroyd’s famous line: “Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!”

Which brings us back to the idea of the new Ghostbusters remake, a deliberate 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.

Imagine a world in which males are never competent, honorable or courageous. Therefore no man can ever be a hero, nor deserve a woman’s love. This is the worldview that Hollywood must reflect to placate feminists, who demand female characters so “empowered” that males exist as ancillary characters to serve the narrative of female heroism.

Variety critic Peter Debruge very much wants to like the new Ghostbusters, but its problems are too obvious to ignore. The movie “suffers from a disappointingly strong case of déjà vu,” Debruge writes. One element of the film’s deliberate feminist role-reversal features beefcake actor Chris Hemsworth as “an assistant too dumb to realize he’s being objectified.” Hemsworth represents the male as incompetent idiot theme of feminist cinema, and what about the male as evil oppressor? Debruge explains that the new Ghostbusters plot hinges on “a disgruntled white guy (Neil Casey), [who] has been inviting noxious visitors from the spirit world to cross over for his own nefarious purposes”:

Once the ladies manage to track this sad sack down, the movie grinds to a halt as the heavily armed group of scientists (whose arsenal has gotten a major upgrade since the earlier film) try to talk him out of destroying the world. That’s pretty much the point where “Ghostbusters” stops being funny enough to sway the haters who’ve become such a vocal presence online — a phenomenon the film actually goes out of its way to acknowledge, as McCarthy dismisses such sexist comments as, “Ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts,” that appear beneath the group’s YouTube videos.

Get it? Hahahaha.

Not content with the “disgruntled white guy” as villain and the pretty boy Hemsworth as dimwit male eye candy, the new Ghostbusters also had to take a self-referential jab at the naysayers who predicted that this movie would be one of the most unwatchable flops since Ishtar.

While the movie doesn’t open until Thursday, so we won’t know for a couple of weeks whether prophecies of its commercial failure were accurate, the new Ghostbusters nevertheless seems to conform to what the naysayers predicted it would be. Maybe the pre-sold audience will be large enough to rescue the movie from being a catastrophic box-office failure. Perhaps media hype in the pro-feminist climate of an election year where Hillary Clinton is running for president will form enough of a wave to lift this chick-flick comedy to success. However, the new Ghostbusters is apparently not a movie intended to make money, but rather to preach a feminist sermon, and Debruge predicts that the producers are likely to take a “write-down” and lose money.

Well, a mid-July release date isn’t exactly a gesture of confidence from the studio. If they thought the new Ghostbusters was a winner, Sony would have released it in May or perhaps waited for September. My fear is not so much that this feminist project will succeed, but rather that it won’t fail hard enough to discourage similar projects in the future.