The Other McCain

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

The New Thought Crime: ‘Adultism’

Posted on | April 3, 2016 | 64 Comments

Adultism “is running amok in America”:

Parents know what’s best for their children? At the risk of tossing tons of other scenarios aside, we LGBTQIA+ kids have heard that last one plenty while trying to grow up while out. Parents say we’re not bi. Or queer. Or a boy. Or non-binary.
They give us labels at birth and expect us to adhere to them. And when we don’t? Certainly it’s because our parents simply know us better than we know ourselves.
It couldn’t possibly be that parents are — gasp! — people who are ultimately a different being than their children.
But what of my suggested inability to provide parental advice when I’m not a parent myself? Okay, I give you that one. But the thing is that article wasn’t on parental advice.
It was an article on children’s basic human rights, which we tend to so grossly overlook.
How did that point so quickly get turned right back around to focus on the parents instead of the children?
Because adultism. . . .

You can read the rest. Notice that (a) it’s published at Everyday Feminism and (b) the “LGBTQIA+” agenda is foremost in the author’s mind.

The essential sovereignty of parents in raising their own children has been under assault in America for a long, long time. In the 19th century, “reformers” (especially including Horace Mann) began refashioning our education system along the lines of the Prussian model, which viewed children as the rightful property of the state. These progressive “reformers” deliberately sought to undermine parental authority, substituting the ideas of modern “experts” for whatever religious beliefs or old-fashioned customs might have hitherto served to guide parents in the governance of their families. By privileging their own opinions and preferences, these academic experts became self-ratifying authorities.

The manufacturing of “consensus” among a clique of intellectuals can easily create the appearance that these “experts” actually do have all the answers, and that skeptics and critics are simply ignorant.

When it comes to the best methods of child-rearing, the proof is in the pudding, but this pudding takes a long time to prepare. That is to say, you won’t know until your child is an adult whether your methods were right. So if a new “trend” in parenting or education comes along, it’s going to take about 15 or 20 years before you can look at the final product and evaluate the effects of the child’s upbringing.

When we saw the outbreak of student radicalism on university campuses during the 1960s, it became obvious that something had gone badly wrong during those seemingly placid years of the Eisenhower administration. Somehow, a number of spoiled brats (radical leaders of the SDS, for example) had developed ideas of “democracy” that were at odds with what most American adults believed. What caused this so-called “generation gap”? Two words: Public education.

During the great post-WWII economic boom, an enormous hubris characterized the leadership of the American education system. And a desire to instill patriotic idealism in these Future Citizens led to children being taught to celebrate democracy as the summum bonum.

The only way to judge whether something was good or bad, right or wrong, was to have a vote about it, many children were led to believe. To someone who has been taught this kind of mindless devotion to egalitarian democracy, it is enough to condemn anything to say it is “undemocratic.” The traditional family is condemned by this standard.

Let me state this plainly: I am not going to debate my teenage son over whether he should clean up his room and mow the yard. Read more

Category: Education, Family, Gays, Intellectuals, Science, Sex Trouble

Workin’ Hard, Tryin’ To Teach Punky @BrewStudNo1 Of Humor. Failing.

Posted on | April 3, 2016 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

It started as a biographical not concerning Her Majesty:

As somebody who nurses dreams of writing fiction some day, and is fascinated by criminal psychology in general, I had to inquire:

The lesson began when, as a Lefty will, Punky had to go all potty mouth:

Now, I do have 4 1/2 years of sea time in the Navy. But you become jaded about the potty mouth. It’s more interesting to work with the situation and see where it can go. Ah, yes: an #OccupyResoluteDesk gag:

At this point, Punky’s boorishness (one wonders if he doubles as a Trump supporter) comes to the fore, and he gets all Flukie-Dukey on me:

Here I decided to hold training and violate the “explain nothing” rule:

Sure, I love well-done malapropism as much as the next guy, but using “incongruent” here sounds like somebody who’s only qualified through two-syllable words reaching for a four-banger and grabbing the ronngg one. Possibly there is some humor in here and I’m just missing it.

Past that tweet, @BrewStudNo1 wallowed in his taste for banal, NTTAWWT. I would like to publicly forgive him all the insults. Our political discourse is too rife these days with people getting all spun up and emotional. Request everyone who reads this post that has a Twitter account swing by and offer @BrewStudNo1 a sincere virtual hug. Together we can get through these trying times, mate.

Category: humor

FMJRA 2.0: Headhunter (Egg Salad Remix)

Posted on | April 2, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

SOTW: Headhunter

Amy Schumer Will Tell You What to Think (And You Must Comply)
Dustbury
Maggie’s Notebook
Living In Anglo-America
The Ultimate Answer to Kings
Adam Piggott
Batshit Crazy News

The Absence of Empathy: Understanding the Psychology of Sociopathic Feminism
The Law of Markets
First Street Journal
The Pirate’s Cove
The DaleyGator
Batshit Crazy News

Rule 5 Tuesday: All Easter Sweets 75% Off
Animal Magnetism
90 Miles From Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Satan Is Pro-Abortion
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Morning-After Death Pills
The Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: The Shattering Triumph Of Kazika The Mad Jap
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Ross Douthat Seems To Think @TedCruz Is As Cynical As The Donald Himself
The DaleyGator
The Camp of the Saints
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.28.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Transgender Controversy as Gay Group Rescinds Book Award Nomination
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Your Tax Dollars at Work
Batshit Crazy News

Gender Theory, Gender Practice
Batshit Crazy News

Her Husband ‘Seemed Sensitive, Kind, Intelligent, Liberal, and Feminist . . .’
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.29.2016
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Nintendo Fires @AlisonRapp, Who Hates #GamerGate and Supports Pedophiles
Living In Anglo-America
Regular Right Guy
90 Miles From Tyranny
Batshit Crazy News

The Radical Theology of Feminism
Living In Anglo-America
Regular Right Guy
First Street Journal
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.31.16
Maggie’s Notebook
Batshit Crazy News

Update: @fyeahmfabello Is Still Crazy (Beware of the Feminist™ Brand)
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (17)
  2.  Living In Anglo-America (7)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Shop Amazon Fashion – Can’t Miss Savings on Spring Styles

Category: FMJRA Award

Check Your Monosexual Privilege!

Posted on | April 2, 2016 | 51 Comments

Birds of weird feathers flock together, and when Melissa Fabello decided to engage in a Twitter colloquy with me (of course I mean, not me), she accidentally introduced me to her friend, Australian freelance writer Catherine Bouris, who has degrees from the University of Sydney and UCLA. Tempted as I am to snark about this ridiculous level of overcredentialization — you don’t need a master’s degree to be a freelance writer — that would be an irrelevant digression. Ms. Bouris made a remark about Ms. Fabello’s boyfriend, who is a secularized Muslim SJW (not a Hitachi Magic Wand), but that is also irrelevant.

My point is that Melissa Fabello’s relentless promotion of LGBTQIA sexuality at Everyday Feminism attracts to the site (surprise!) a lot of LGBTQIA feminists. What dopeheads are at a Grateful Dead concert or fat people at an all-you-can-eat buffet, weirdo women are at Everyday Feminism. (Miriam Mogilevsky’s latest: “5 Ways to Maintain Your Queer Identity in a Relationship People Read as Straight.”) There are women who claim to be both heterosexual and feminist, but good luck finding one among young devotees of Third Wave feminism, which is “inclusive” of everything except being normal. Meanwhile, in Australia . . .

 

Catherine Bouris wants the world to know she is bisexual:

It’s taken me quite a while to get to the point where I’m comfortable writing and being open about something like this. For a long time, I had tricked myself into believing I wasn’t really bisexual, because there’s so much literature out there that reinforces the notion that it’s ‘just a phase’ or ‘just hormones’ or simply ‘not real’.
It’s so exhausting existing in a world that repeatedly tells you your identity is invalid, or a phase, or a front to attract heterosexual men. . . .

(Oh, the protestations of reluctance to disclose her bisexuality! Oh, victim of a cruel world that won’t stop invalidating her identity!)

As one queer friend said, “there’s definitely a cultural thing around not being Gay Enough” that monosexual people — that is, those who are attracted to only one gender — reinforce within queer circles, to the detriment of bi- and pansexual folks. Some are convinced you’re merely going through a phase, just experimenting, and you’ll use them and abandon them once you’ve realised you’re Really Heterosexual. . . .

(“No matter how many times I tell people I’m a permanently perverted, they continue to insist I might yet turn out to be normal.”)

Some argue that because you occasionally enter into opposite-sex relationships . . .

(How often is “occasionally”? And what do you mean by “relationships”? The answers to these questions might be important. But never mind.)

. . . you benefit from ‘straight-passing privilege’, in that you aren’t in a visibly queer relationship, and therefore won’t have to deal with homophobia from wider society. While this is true, a friend of mine pointed out a downside to this, and that is that ‘passing as straight’ comes at the cost of your identity. I’m not arguing that passing under homophobes’ radar is worse than blatant homophobia, but when you know that entering into an opposite-sex relationship may damage your reputation within the LGBTI community, it can weigh heavily on you.

OK, let’s stop here to contemplate what Ms. Bouris is saying. Why should she care that her “reputation” will suffer “damage” in the “community”?

Exactly where does this “community” exist, and what authority does it wield, that Ms. Bouris worries they’re talking about her behind her back?

“Did you hear about Catherine?” she imagines one lesbian whispering to another. “She betrayed the LGBTI community! Saturday night, I saw her at the movies with a cishet male! She was even holding hands with him!”

To this bit of gossip, the other lesbian replies sadly, “They’re probably having PIV. You know how those bisexual women are.”

“Yeah,” sighs the gossipy lesbian. “They’re all like that.”

Since when did this “community” acquire the small-town pharisaical self-righteousness of the Harper Valley PTA? Would any sane person care about losing their “identity” because of “straight-passing privilege”?

By the way, how finely tuned is the “radar” of homophobia that Ms. Bouris attributes to “the wider society”? How paranoid do you have to be, to spend so much time worrying about other people’s opinions? And since we’re asking questions that no Third Wave feminist ever seems to ask, exactly what is the point of proclaiming your bisexuality to the world?

Never mind. Please continue, Ms. Bouris:

It’s the little things that add up and become too much to deal with. Other queer people describing you as ‘not completely straight’ in a dismissive tone. People of all sexualities telling you you’re either gay or straight and in denial, or insisting bisexuality simply isn’t real. Heterosexual men insinuating you’re only in a same-sex relationship for their attention. . . .
This type of rigid, binary thinking isn’t necessarily shocking when expressed by society at large, but it definitely should not have a place in the LGBTI community.

The Commissar has spoken! Down with kulaks and saboteurs! We must rid The People’s Democratic Republic of LGBTI of “rigid binary thinking”!

When I tell you Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, do you see what I’m talking about? This kind of dictatorial insistence that everyone must have Correct Opinions — which is what Catherine Bouris is really saying — is characteristic of all varieties of 21st-century identity politics, and the echo of Marxist-Leninist ideology and rhetoric in contemporary feminism is no accident.

How many times must I recommend to readers Eric Hoffer’s 1951 classic The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements? Speaking of the “successful techniques of conversion” used by such movements, Hoffer explained that “a proselytizing mass movement deliberately fosters in its adherents a frustrated state of mind.” This tactic of inciting resentment and frustration has a magnetic appeal to certain types of personalities, whom Hoffer describes in Part 2 of The True Believer, particularly in chapters VI (“Misfits”) through XI (“The Sinners”). Once you understand this, everything we see in contemporary feminism becomes familiar. The feminist — by which I mean a woman for whom allegiance to the movement defines her worldview — is different from other women in ways that are non-random. There is a definite pattern discernible in the movement’s core membership. Feminists lament negative “stereotypes” about their movement, but exactly who is to blame?

“Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. … Women’s bodies are possessed by men. … Women are an enslaved population. … Women are an occupied people.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1977 speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in Letters from a War Zone (1993)

“Women’s heterosexual orientation perpetuates their social, economic, emotional, and sexual dependence on and accessibility by men. Heterosexuality is thus a system of male ownership of women . . .”
— Cheshire Calhoun, “Separating Lesbian Theory From Feminist Theory” (1994) in Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, edited by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, 2002)

“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)

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

“So radical feminism saw heterosexuality under patriarchy as massively problematic, because it benefited men and it disadvantaged women. . . . I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. . . . And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy. . . . I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men.”
— Julie Bindel, 2015

What part of the phrase “anti-male hate propaganda” does anyone need me to explain here? Yet no matter how many examples of such hateful rhetoric I cite, no matter how famous or obscure the source, no matter whether the quote is from the 1970s or the 1990s or this week, from a blogger or from a Women’s Studies textbook assigned in university classrooms across the country, feminists will continue to blame their enemies for the negative “stereotype” of feminists as man-haters.

Do you see how the feminist movement “deliberately fosters in its adherents a frustrated state of mind,” as Hoffer said?

If a woman declares herself a feminist, she must certainly feel frustrated to realize how far the “wider society” is from the movement’s ideal of “equality.” She will feel frustrated that most of her friends and family “just don’t get it.” She will feel frustrated by “stereotypes” of what a feminist is. Her feelings of frustration, however, serve only to increase her commitment to The Cause. She must fight harder! Once the movement has triumphed over “rigid, binary thinking,” she tells herself, her courageous fight for equality will be recognized and rewarded.

Men are the feminist movement’s enemy — “the agents of our oppression” — and thus anti-male rhetoric becomes a virtue-signaling gesture among feminists. It is considered a marker of “courage” among feminists to express their thorough contempt of men. Behold how Melissa Fabello delights in insulting men as intellectually inferior:

 

You are a “troll” if you disagree with Melissa Fabello. You are an uneducated idiot, incapable of logic, ignorant, hard to talk to because you’re always wrong, your opinions are not needed, and you lack the mental acuity to debate her. But don’t you dare say she hates men.

The purpose of this rhetorical tactic is transparent:

Being constantly insulted by feminists — “Heterosexuality Is the Structure That Keeps Sexist Oppression in Place” — is something men are expected never to notice. Any man who objects to feminism’s anti-male hate propaganda will be instantly branded a misogynist. This is “Kafkatrapping,” whereby the denial of guilt is cited as proof of guilt.
No feminist ever wants to hear a word any man has to say, because men are always wrong about everything, and the only “right” a man now has is his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Feminism confers on its adherents an unlimited entitlement to monopolize the conversation, to exclude from consideration any possibility of error, and especially to prohibit any male from contradicting them. Disagreement is proof that you are a sexist, and therefore one marvels at the existence of that misbegotten latter-day chimera, The Male Feminist, the Bicycle a Fish Doesn’t Need.

Any serious student of feminism understands that the only two things a man can do to please a feminist is (a) shut up and (b) go away. Nevertheless, some men want to be “allies” of the feminist movement. Here we have testimony from the bisexual feminist Catherine Bouris:

I’m close to entering the workforce, and I’m dreading it, but not because I’m scared of adulthood and responsibilities (although I’ll admit that is part of it). I’m scared of having to deal with boys’ clubs. If you’ve ever even remotely been involved in any sort of activism, either on or offline, you will have encountered the brogressives who grow up to establish these workplace gangs.
What is a ‘brogressive’, exactly? It’s the guy with ‘feminist’ in his Twitter bio. It’s the guy who clicks ‘like’ every single selfie he sees and pretends he’s supportive and not just extremely thirsty. It’s the guy who thinks feminists are too hard on Julian Assange. It’s the guy who uses misogynistic slurs like ‘bitch’ or ‘whore’ to describe things or people he dislikes, only to get offended when you ask that he not. It’s the guy who talks over women in every single conversation, sharing ‘insights’ that he believes the world cannot go without hearing.
It’s the kind of guy who will bide his time, gaining your trust, only to send you an unsolicited d–k pic and ask for your nudes in return in ‘celebration of the human body’. It’s the kind of guy who resents the ‘brogressive’ label, because he is not a bro, thank you very much, he is a Nice Guy Who Respects Women.
In activist circles, brogressives dominate discussions, insert themselves into autonomous spaces and demand recognition. Their mere presence in these spaces means people are less likely to listen to anyone besides them, because society tells us every single day that white cisgender men are to be respected above all others. Brogressives know this. They rely on this.

Beware of any man who puts “feminist” in his Twitter bio. Better yet, beware of any man who, the minute a woman says she’s a feminist, doesn’t have the good sense and common decency to shut up and go away.

In June 2011, the Right Online conference and the left-wing Netroots Nation were both in Minneapolis, and there was some kind of “confrontation” involving Andrew Breitbart. Arriving belatedly at the scene of the “incident,” I was talking to Dave Weigel and some other blogger types about what happened when I looked up and noticed, about 150 feet away, a familiar-looking woman walking toward us.

“Is that who I think it is?” I said to Dave.

“Amanda Marcotte? Yeah.”

“See you later,” I said, and exited in the opposite direction.

The proximity of evil is something I try to avoid.




 


Category: Sex Trouble

Presidential Race, The Final Frontier

Posted on | April 2, 2016 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

Presidential Race, the final frontier.
These are the voyages of the barship Trumpyprize.
Its 5-beer mission: to explore strange gutteral worlds,
to seek out new lies and old provocations,
to boldly, emphatically, and with scant relation to facts
set about making America greatly hydrated again with Brawndo.

Category: Donald Trump, Republicans

Late Night With In The Mailbox
Sam Kinison Memorial Edition

Posted on | April 2, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Louder Than Hell


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Wisconsin Waterloo
Louder With Crowder: Debunking The Myth Of Democratic Socialism
Da Tech Guy: The Obama Administration – Fools Regardless Of The Date
The Political Hat: The Self-Admitted Irrationality Of Social Justice
Michelle Malkin: UN’s Sex Predators Run Rampant…Again
Twitchy: Trump Refuses To Rule Out Third-Party Run In Chris Wallace Interview
Shark Tank: Grayson Surges Past Democratic Party Poster Boy In FL Senate Race


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Hillary Loses Her Temper With Greenpeace Activist
American Thinker: Killing Knowledge In K-12
Conservatives4Palin: ObamaCare May Force Employers To Pull The Plug On Millions Of Health Plans
Don Surber: Never Underestimate An Old Man With A Mustang
Jammie Wearing Fools: Surprise! Middle Eastern Student Made Up Bogus “Hate Crime” In Manhattan
Joe For America: Sixteen Democrat State Attorney Generals To Go After Companies Who Disagree With Al Gore’s Climate Change Scam
JustOneMinute: Hillary’s The One!
Pamela Geller: Obama Admin Censors French President Saying “ISLAMIST Terrorism”
Shot In The Dark: How Can We Tell We’re Not In Minneapolis?
STUMP: Chicago Watch – What’ll It Be, Teachers?
The Jawa Report: Turks Issue Fatwa Against This Video
The Lonely Conservative: Poor Donald Trump! Life Is Just So Unfair!
This Ain’t Hell: Jade Helm – They’re Back
Weasel Zippers: Obama Family’s Hawaii Christmas Vacation Cost Taxpayers $3.5 Million In Flight Expenses Alone
Megan McArdle: Campuses Can’t Become One Big Safe Space
Mark Steyn: It Was. Were You?


Shop Amazon – Now 100+ Dash Buttons

Category: Linkagery

Update: @fyeahmfabello Is Still Crazy (Beware of the Feminist™ Brand)

Posted on | April 1, 2016 | 34 Comments

 

Melissa Fabello is the editor of Everyday Feminism who hates white people, heterosexuality and men, not necessarily in that order. She’s also BFFs with Anita Sarkeesian, Commissar of the Feminist Thought Police.

After spending about 36 hours writing a massively serious piece about feminism’s radical theology, I checked back into the online world this morning and discovered there had been an uptick of traffic to the post I wrote about Fabello in February. What happened? This happened:

Well, I’m glad Ms. Fabello appreciates my concise summary of her anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. Feminism is a movement of crazy women, by crazy women, for crazy women — a democracy of the demented — and everyone else must be excluded and silenced, so as not to disturb the lunatics who are busy running this asylum.

“Melissa Fabello never wants to hear a word
any heterosexual white man has to say.
Mellisa Fabello doesn’t believe heterosexual white
men have anything to say that anyone else
should ever hear. Melissa Fabello is a feminist,
and the First Rule of Feminism is ‘SHUT UP!‘”

She deliberately dehumanizes men, a psychological projection expressing her sadistic desire to enact punitive revenge on a male scapegoat.

Melissa Fabello’s neurotic maladjustment would be between her and her therapist, were it not for the way in which feminist ideology serves to rationalize this kind of warped narcissistic tendency, justifying her antisocial traits by blaming all her problems on patriarchy. And there are enough crazy women in America — many of them even crazier than Melissa Fabello — to make this a powerful political movement.

Well, the Feminist™ brand is a hot commodity nowadays, because the Democrat-Media Complex has spent the past three years promoting it in anticipation of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Once you understand that partisan politics explains why we have been incessantly bombarded with this “Strong Empowered Woman” message lately, it is possible to obtain a sort of objectivity about it. Of course, the Feminist™ brand is still a form of mental poison, but it is important to keep in mind why this crypto-Marxist sludge is being poured into our culture.

When feminists aren’t busy moaning about “objectification” in the media or hyping the latest “campus rape epidemic” hoax, they can usually be found on the Internet offering to talk to your daughter about gender and sexuality. If you have a teenager who isn’t confused about sex, feminists want to help her become confused. Melissa Fabello’s site Everyday Feminism is devoted to promoting LGBTQIA sexuality, but the one letter you’ll never find in the Alphabet Soup Acronym Rainbow of Sexuality is “N” for normal. LGBTQIA is what 21st-century feminism is all about:

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” and denies that behavioral differences between men and women are natural. Any apparent differences between men and women are socially constructed by the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix (see Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990). Feminism seeks to abolish gender in order to achieve “equality” by establishing an androgynous society in which the categories “male” and “female” cease to have any significance.

If all you knew about sex and gender was Third Wave feminism’s endless celebration of androgynous confusion, you might suppose that very few young people in the 21st-century are normal. However, while researchers have recently observed “a slight increase in self-reported bisexuality,” the vast majority of Americans (substantially more than 90%) are heterosexual, despite every effort of feminists and LGBTQIA activists to convince Americans that heterosexuality is bad and wrong.

“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

Because feminists consider normal behavior either (a) tedious or (b) oppressive, the LGBTQIA crowd gets a disproportionate share of attention. This explains the proliferation of narcissistic adolescent Special Snowflakes™ who have figured out that being a weirdo is an easy way to get attention. Feminism in 2016 is a lot of 19-year-old Tumblr bloggers with facial piercings and green hair claiming to have some kind of mental disability (e.g., self-diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder) and a bizarre sexual/gender identity. You really have to feel sorry for these kids’ parents, trying to explain to their relatives why Heather, a former valedictorian who until a couple of years ago seemed so happy and normal, changed her major from Business Management to Gender Studies and now insists that she is a “non-binary demiromantic pansexual genderqueer” whose pronouns are “they” and “them.”

Nothing is more pathetic than upper-middle-class suburban white kids claiming to be “oppressed,” which is what LGBTQIA feminism is mainly about, and anyone who thinks Melissa Fabello is a Victim of Society is an even bigger fool than Melissa Fabello is, a difficult feat.

Question: Why does Melissa Fabello want to talk to your daughter about sex? I mean, why are feminists constantly on the Internet — like scary weirdos in a chatroom, really — talking to girls about sex? Am I the only one who notices the vaguely creepy aspect of this?

 

“Woo-hoo! I’m queer! You’re queer! Being queer is awesome!“

Ted Bundy had his VW Beetle, John Wayne Gacy had his clown costume, and queer feminists have YouTube channels. OK, maybe that analogy was too harsh, but is it really necessary for every sexual deviant in America to have a YouTube channel about how awesome it is to be a sexual deviant?

 

“Watch me do air-quotes around ‘lose’ your ‘virginity,’ girls, because it’s only a social construct. By the way, you should masturbate more.”

OK, she doesn’t actually say that in the video, but this is the attitude conveyed when feminists talk to girls about sex on the Internet, which they seem to do more or less 24/7 nowadays. Ever since Laci Green parlayed her YouTube “sex education” channel into a full-time career, every Gender Studies major with a WiFi hookup is all over the Internet offering their advice on gender and sexuality to kids. There is such a vast surplus of feminist sex blogging, you have to wonder whether it’s really about “education” or whether these weirdo women are just exhibitionist freaks who get off talking about sex to teenagers.

It’s 2016, right? Instead of driving around in a van asking kids to help you find your puppy, you just get yourself a YouTube channel.

Pardon my harsh analogies, but sex is not so difficult to figure out that we need entire brigades of feminists on the Internet to explain it to young people. Believe it or not, before there was an Internet, some of us learned what sex was — and even managed to perform it successfully — without ever watching a Laci Green video. Maybe kids have gotten a lot more stupid in the past 40 years, and therefore they need this kind of step-by-step instruction (“How to Locate Your Vagina”), but I doubt it.

Have you noticed that the feminists who want to talk to your daughter about sex are never married moms with daughters of their own? No, it’s always some degenerate like Jaclyn “I’ve Gone Down and Dirty With Strangers” Friedman who thinks she’s qualified to offer sex advice.

Well, sure, if you want your daughter to grow up to be a Crazy Cat Lady (and maybe get herpes, too) feminists can tell her how to do that.

 

Under no circumstance will Melissa Fabello listen to anything a “white dude” has to say about anything. To be male is to be wrong, the feminist believes. Melissa Fabello knows everything, and “white dudes” know nothing, but men are “afraid” to admit that they are intellectually inferior to her. Their masculinity is “fragile,” whereas she is the cheerful epitome of psychological strength, self-esteem and confidence.

 

You must never question Melissa Fabello’s identity, you see, whereas her entire career is about attacking the identities of others (except teenage girls, to whom she likes to talk to about sex). Perhaps the people she accuses of “erasure” were merely wondering why Ms. Fabello, the queer/lesbian/homoflexible who considers herself so infinitely superior to males, would be in a relationship with a man. The greater mystery, however, is why a man would want to be in relationship with her.

Does the “male feminist” just have a profound masochistic tendency? Does he crave the reluctant embrace of a woman who hates him? Is he aroused by being ridiculed and taunted about his inherent inadequacy?

Is it even possible for a feminist to love a man, and if so, how? These are questions Melissa Fabello never addresses when she’s recording YouTube videos telling teenage girls how awesome it is to be queer. If men are so utterly heinous that any expression of male sexual interest in women must be denounced as “objectification,” why would a feminist want a man to be sexually interested in her? There is no logic to it at all. It is wholly irrational for feminists to be in relationships with men, as the Leeds Revolutionary Feminists declared in their 1981 manifesto (available under the title Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism) that accused heterosexual feminists of collaborating with the male oppressors of women. Some may imagine such radicalism is a relic of the past, but just last month Meghan Murphy published a rant denouncing “capitalist patriarchy,” condemning “gender roles that are rooted in domination and subordination (i.e. masculinity and femininity),” and describing feminism as a movement “to build a society wherein men don’t feel entitled to sexual access to women.”

Men can never be allowed “sexual access to women” — such is the logical conclusion of the feminist syllogism, at any rate. Lesbian separatists who have spent decades living in a commune in the hills of Alabama are at least logical in their approach to avoiding “capitalist patriarchy.” Inexplicably, however, Melissa Fabello hasn’t joined a separatist commune.

Wait, did I say “inexplicably”? No, I didn’t mean that. Because of course, I probably could explain why Melissa Fabello’s anti-male rhetoric is contradicted by her continued intimate association with males. Alas, that would be “mansplaining” and, as previously noted, Ms. Fabello never wants to hear anything a heterosexual white male has to say.

If anyone needs advice on how to be normal, I’m available. Being normal isn’t much of an achievement, but for feminists, it’s impossible.




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

The Radical Theology of Feminism

Posted on | April 1, 2016 | 51 Comments

 

Augsburg College was once a conservative Christian school, but the salt has lost its savor (Matthew 5:13) and is now good for nothing. Founded in 1869 by Norwegian Luthern immigrants and named for the famous “Augsburg Confession” of 1530, the school was originally a seminary for the training of ministers and for its first 52 years of existence, Augsburg Seminary was a male-only institution. The school’s 20th-century conversion into a liberal arts college was accompanied by the slow-motion abandonment of its Christian heritage and mission. About 2,500 undergraduate students pay $34,431 annual tuition to attend Augsburg’s 24-acre campus on Riverside Avenue in Minneapolis.

Augsburg is affiliated with the ultra-liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) which was formed in 1988 after a schism among Lutherans that emerged in the 1970s. A specific point of contention was the ordination of women, which the ELCA’s predecessor, the Lutheran Church in America, had endorsed in 1970. About one-third of ELCA pastors are now women and, having thus “baptized” radical feminism, so to speak, in 2013 the ELCA elected a woman as its presiding bishop.

To convey a general idea of what sort of ideas nowadays prevail in ELCA circles, the election of Elizabeth Eaton to the denomination’s top post prompted this enthusiastic outburst from Linda Post Bushkofsky, executive director of Women of the ELCA:

As the presiding bishop election process winnowed down nominees, three of the final four candidates were women. . . . As I’ve written before . . . it’s not just about numbers. To respond to the needs facing the church and society in the 21st century, a collaborative leadership style is needed, and studies show that women more naturally use this form of leadership.

See? It’s about “a collaborative leadership style . . . that women more naturally use.” In other words, women are superior to men, and therefore it is “not just about numbers,” but rather about women “naturally” taking control of every position of leadership, leaving men to do . . . what?

Questions like this are never supposed to be asked by those who ponder “the needs facing the church and society in the 21st century,” nor is anyone ever permitted to notice how the abandonment of biblical teaching is reflected by the collapse into secular decadence of formerly Christian schools like Augsburg College. Recall that it was Yale University’s abandonment of its own Christian heritage that was a major focus of William F. Buckley’s famous 1951 critique, God and Man at Yale.

We must wonder what the Lutheran founders of Augsburg College would think to see what the institution has become in the 21st century. The fate of Augsburg alumna Alison Rapp — the defender of child pornography who was fired from her public relations job at Nintendo Wednesday — makes this a “teachable moment,” we might say, for anyone concerned by contemporary trends in our culture. Ms. Rapp graduated from Augsburg in 2011 and wrote, in a 2014 proposal for a conference hosted by the International Communication Association’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Studies Special Interest Group, that she had “conducted research at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota on bisexuality in Tokugawa Japan, representations of women in Nintendo’s popular Legend of Zelda series, [and] depictions of gay and lesbian relationships” in pornographic Japanese manga cartoons.

Let the reader try to imagine what those 19th-century Norwegian Lutherans who founded Augsburg Seminary might have said about Ms. Rapp’s “research” and — when you have stopped laughing and caught your breath — think what a serious issue this really is. Read more

Category: Religion, Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »