The Other McCain

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

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Posted on | March 28, 2016 | 20 Comments

Eric Owens at the Daily Caller:

The National Endowment for the Humanities announced this year’s recipients of $21.1 million in federally-funded grants earlier this month.
A chunk of the agency’s taxpayer cash will go toward a study of the recent “history of French lesbian activism,” reports The Washington Free Beacon.
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign history and women’s studies professor Tamara Chaplin will conduct the groundbreaking research . . . “Postwar French Media, and the Struggle for Gay Rights,” “a book-length study of the history of French lesbian activism since World War II.”
Presumably, the $6,000 taxpayer-funded stipend will be in addition to Chaplin’s annual taxpayer-funded salary of $86,607.04.

This is the kind of “culture” the federal government promotes, created by the kind of “educators” who are employed at taxpayer expense. Maybe the National Institutes for Mental Health could fund a study of exactly when and why America went completely crazy.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Transgender Controversy as Gay Group Rescinds Book Award Nomination

Posted on | March 28, 2016 | 28 Comments

 

Pressure from transgender activists caused a gay literary organization to rescind its nomination for a former Northwestern University professor’s book, saying it is “inconsistent with . . . affirming LGBTQ lives.”

Alice Dreger’s book Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science had been nominated for the 28th annual “Lammie” awards, given by the Lambda Literary Foundation (LLF). Last week, however, the foundation’s executive director Tony Valenzuela sent an email to Ms. Dreger informing her that the book’s nomination had been rescinded. Ms. Dreger says LLF yielded to pressure from transgender activists who disliked her book’s treatment of a decade-old scandal involving Northwestern University Professor Michael Bailey’s controversial sex research. Bailey was condemned by transgender activists for endorsing the diagnosis of “autogynephilia,” a type of fetish in which men become sexually aroused by imagining themselves as women. Bailey was accused of ethics violations, including the charge that he had a sexual affair with a transgender patient who had sought his assistance in helping secure approval for sex-reassignment surgery (SRS).

Ms. Dreger’s book Galileo’s Middle Finger was acclaimed “one of the most important social-science books of 2015” by Jesse Singal of New York Magazine, who praised her account of how political correctness “collides” with research “when science makes a claim that doesn’t fit into an activist community’s accepted worldview.” Describing how Ms. Dreger’s book deals with the Bailey controversy, Singal wrote:

[W]hat’s key to keep in mind is that some transgender people and activists hold very dear the idea that they have simply been born in the wrong type of body, that transitioning allows them to effectively fix a mistake that nature made. The notion that there might be a cultural component to the decision to transition, or that sexuality, rather than a hardwired gender identity, could be a factor, complicates this gender-identity-only narrative. It also brings sexuality back into a conversation that some trans activists have been trying to make solely about gender identity . . .
But as Dreger explains, Bailey, being someone with a penchant for poking mischievously at political correctness, wasn’t too concerned about the political dimension of what he was arguing in his book. From a scientific perspective, he explicitly viewed the idea that “everybody is truly and easily assignable to one of two gender identities” as an oversimplification; part of his motivation for writing [his 2003 book] The Man Who Would Be Queen was to try to blow it up, to argue that transsexuality is more complicated than that. So it shouldn’t be surprising that some trans activists and allies didn’t appreciate the book’s argument — and they obviously have every right to disagree with Bailey and [“autogynephilia” theorist Dr. Ray] Blanchard’s views. What is surprising is just how big an explosion The Man Who Would Be Queen sparked, and how underhanded the campaign against Bailey subsequently got.

Ms. Dreger had previously written about the Bailey controversy at her personal blog in 2006, as well as in a 2008 article published by the academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. According to Ms. Dreger, the same activists who condemned Bailey for his views on transgenderism were responsible for pressuring LLF to rescind her book’s nomination as a finalist for the “Lammie” awards. In an email to the foundation’s director, Ms. Dreger noted that in 2003, LLF had been pressured into denying recognition to Bailey’s book, The Man Who Would Be Queen:

As I and Dr. Anne Lawrence (a transgender woman) have explained, the real “problem” was that Bailey’s book put forth ideas about women like [transgender activists Deirdre] McCloskey, [Lynn] Conway, and [Andrea] James that they didn’t want disseminated. They wanted to kill the book to stifle the ideas and stories in it, presumably also to stop others from talking about autogynephilia.
At the time of this mess, writer Victoria Brownworth, who was on the [LLF awards] committee, said she saw the withdrawal as akin to censorship. But facing increasing harassment, the committee voted a third time, one vote flipped, and Bailey’s book had its finalist status withdrawn.
Naturally, given the [conflicts] I’ve been in with Bailey’s detractors since I showed in excruciating detail what they did to try to shut him up with a host of patently false charges, I had been assuming my book would never be named a finalist for the same award. Why would the Lambda Literary Foundation take that risk, particularly given that Andrea James had relentlessly harassed [former LLF official] Jim Marks online even long after it was all over?
But it was true: my book was named a finalist in the non-fiction category. . . .
Not too surprisingly, Conway and James soon launched a campaign against my book’s finalist status, but I pretty much ignored this. I figured the Foundation knew this would happen and was prepared to weather the storm.
But no. You caved. And quickly—much more quickly than the Foundation did under Marks in 2003. In spite of all the LGBT people who have actively praised my book, who have thanked me for the work, you quickly caved to a small group of bullies who have proven time and time again that they will do anything they can to get attention and to force everyone to adhere to their singular account of transgenderism, even when it negates the reported childhoods of gay and lesbian people, even when it denies the reality of many transgender people and attempts to force them into closets because of their sexual orientations.

Many conservatives and libertarians have sided with Ms. Dreger in this dispute, particularly because some of her angriest critics, including Sarah Nyberg, are among the SJWs (“social justice warriors”) who made themselves obnoxious by their attempts to impose their politically correct ideas on the videogame industry. However, the dispute over Bailey’s research is not a clear-cut matter of left/right politics. The supporters of Bailey’s “autogynephilia” theory include lesbian feminists like Professor Sheila Jeffreys, whom transgender activists denounce as TERFs (trans-exclusive radical feminists), while one of Bailey’s harshest critics, Deirdre McCloskey, is a libertarian and retired economics professor.

Criticism of Bailey’s work has also called attention to the way in which federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars on controversial sex research. As I reported in 2002, Republicans in Congress criticized the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for awarding a research grant to fund Bailey’s project of studying women’s responses to viewing pornography:

A federally funded study has paid women as much as $75 to watch pornographic videos to determine “what types of audiovisual erotica women find sexually arousing.”
Women participating in the $147,000 study at Northwestern University — funded through the federal National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] — were paid to “watch a series of commercially available film clips, some of which will be sexually explicit, while we monitor your body’s sexual arousal,” according to a flyer seeking volunteers for the study. . . .
The two-year study began in September 2001 and is intended to “assess the subjective and genital arousal of 180 lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women as they watch erotic video clips of lesbian, gay, or heterosexual interactions,” primary researcher J. Michael Bailey explained in a description of the project.
“We have some really great results on it, and I think it’s going to make a big splash,” Mr. Bailey said of the research, which he said he hopes to publish soon. . . .
Previous studies have shown that male sexual arousal is “target specific” — that is, that heterosexual males respond to depictions of females, while homosexual men respond to images of males, Mr. Bailey said.
“There has been inadequate attention to the question of whether female sexual orientation is target specific,” Mr. Bailey wrote in a grant proposal. “However, some research . . . including our own preliminary data, suggests that target specificity is much weaker for women than for men.” . . .
Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida Republican, cited the Northwestern study as an example of misplaced research priorities . . .
“The NIH couldn’t find the money to look into this relationship between kids with regressive autism and the mandatory MMR vaccine, but they can pay people $150,000 to watch pornography,” Mr. Weldon said. . . .
Reports of Northwestern’s video sex research have prompted some ridicule, landing the study a spot in the nationally syndicated “News of the Weird” feature, but Mr. Bailey said it’s no laughing matter.
“I think it’s extremely important research, and I think it’s pathetic how skittish the government is about funding research about sex,” Mr. Bailey said.

Because I reported extensively on the Bailey controversy more than a dozen years ago, I am familiar with Conway’s activism. From my perspective, the major problem is that federal agencies, in funding such research, lend the authority of government to an “official” theory which may bias public opinion and also tends to preclude funding for research that challenges the “official” theory. Particularly alarming, to anyone familiar with the original Bailey controversy, were accusations that Bailey’s work was slanted by his own personal sexual preferences. Some of Bailey’s critics perceived in his research the typical attitude of so-called “tranny chasers,” i.e., men who have a perverse obsession with transsexuals. Whether or not these suspicions were fair, the history of “scientific” research into sexual behavior is crowded with examples of bias, fraud and methodological error. Anyone who has studied the careers of Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey and John Money knows how often dubious theories and findings have been presented as “science” by men who concealed their profound biases behind pretenses of objectivity.


 

While on the one hand, I despise the political correctness that treats Alice Dreger as guilty of ThoughtCrime (“transphobia”) for siding with Michael Bailey against his critics, on the other hand, I do not believe that the interests of U.S. taxpayers are served by spending their money to pay for Bailey to show porn videos to women to find out what turns them on.

Was this why heroic patriots fought the American Revolution? Was this why soldiers bled to death on battlefields? Was our constitutional republic — established at Philadelphia, ratified by the states, and defended against its enemies at such an enormous cost in human lives for more than two centuries — intended for such purposes as represented by the $147,000 grant to fund Bailey’s research? Does anyone suppose that General Washington, and his hungry troops who shivered in the snow at Valley Forge, ever imagined they were fighting to create a government that would squander money on such “scientific” absurdities?

It is one thing to say that Michael Bailey should have the liberty to show porn videos to women, if that’s his idea of “science.” It is another thing entirely, however, to claim that Michael Bailey has a right to have his idea of “science” funded at taxpayer expense. When we consider how the federal government has helped create The Higher Education Bubble, when we furthermore consider that tuition at Northwestern University is $49,047 a year, when we take a close look at the kind of deviant lunatics who get psychology degrees from Northwestern, and finally when we are aware that the national debt is now approaching $20 trillion, isn’t it about time we start taking a hard look at what kind of “science” and “education” is being billed to the account of the U.S. taxpayer?

People need to wake the hell up.




 


Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 03.28.16

Posted on | March 28, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 03.28.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Rule 5 Monday will be up later tonight after I get back from work.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Why Am I Persecuted?
Da Tech Guy: Pam Geller – The Prophetess From New York
The Political Hat: Never Trust A Feminist’s Suggested Activities For Boys
Michelle Malkin: Mark Your Calendars – April 22 Rally For American High-Skilled Workers At Abbott Labs
Twitchy: Hillary Clinton Has Reportedly Created Work For A Lot Of People – At The FBI
Shark Tank: Trump Reveals When America Was Great


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Tracing The Roots Of A Modern Populism
American Thinker: The Slow Death of the Leftist Establishment
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Watcher On The Wall by Owen Laukkanen
Conservatives4Palin: Paul Ryan Faces Primary Challenge
Don Surber: Obama Deports Two West Virginia Orchestra Members
Jammie Wearing Fools: Sad! Clueless Trump Manhandled By #NeverTrump Wisconsin Radio Host Charlie Sykes
Joe For America: Camille Paglia – “A Vote For Hillary Rewards DNC For Shameless Manipulation & Racketeering”
JustOneMinute: A New Day Dawns
Pamela Geller: Video – German Kids Beaten Up By Muslim Migrants
Protein Wisdom: #CruzSexScandal
Shot In The Dark: Happy Easter. You’re Dead.
STUMP: Chicago Watch – Money, Money, Money…Also, There Went Their Plans
The Jawa Report: Where’s Dr. Rusty? Academic Sacrifice Edition
The Lonely Conservative: What A Shock – Half Of Republican Women Won’t Vote For Trump
The Quinton Report: Report – Abducted Priest Crucified By ISIS
This Ain’t Hell: Daniel Dusek Traded Navy Secrets For Hookers
Weasel Zippers: British Dad Blocked From Taking Son To Church Because Ex Is Muslima
Megan McArdle: Listen To The Victims Of The Free Market
Mark Steyn: Happy Easter From The Religion of Peace


Shop Amazon – Used Textbooks – Save up to 90%
Shop Amazon Basics – HDMI Cables

Category: Linkagery

Ross Douthat Seems To Think @TedCruz Is As Cynical As The Donald Himself

Posted on | March 27, 2016 | 123 Comments

by Smitty

In reply to Who Is Ted Cruz?, I’ve got to say: judge the tree by the fruit. A sample:

With Cruz, though, even the most fervent peroration always feels like a debater’s patter, an advocate’s brief — compelling enough on the merits, but more of a command performance than a window into deep conviction.

Sure. Cruz always seems to be playing verbal chess, as Ross allows two paragraphs later: “. . .Cruz never seemed to take a step on any contentious issue without gaming it out 17 moves ahead.”

But if Cruz is merely cynically phoning in his entire career, then why did he lay on a 21 hour filibuster? Restated, can the detractors get beyond accusing Cruz of being excessively measured, and perhaps show where Cruz is actually inconsistent in his conservative approach? Or is our current state of Sophist decadence such that merely exhibiting principles of any sort is evidence of “his own extremism”.

I can understand a negative reaction to Donald Trump as a used car salesman with hair suitable for a Primus video. There is known audio at the NYT of DJT sounding somehow wobbly on his signature issue, immigration. Can anyone come up with similar examples for Cruz? Are we supposed to believe that Cruz’s immigration bill amendment proves anything beyond the fact that Cruz is. . .a politician?

Limbaugh’s point that “they hate Trump, but they fear Cruz” has the ring of truth. The Donald is the one apparently capable of pretty much anything for 30 pieces of silver. While falling short of accusing Cruz of perfection, he seems the straightest shooter in politics today. And that is the motive for all the innuendo in the NYT: the apprehension that Cruz actually does mean everything he says and does, as stated.

Category: Republicans, Ted Cruz

The Absence of Empathy: Understanding the Psychology of Sociopathic Feminism

Posted on | March 26, 2016 | 45 Comments

Not every narcissist is a sociopath, but all sociopaths are narcissists. Like every other manifestation of identity politics, feminism is ultimately about narcissism, a celebration of selfishness masquerading as “social justice” in which identifying yourself as suffering from oppression serves not only as a rationalization of one’s personal failures, but also as a justification for antisocial attitudes and behaviors.

My encounter with the notorious “Speedway Bomber” Brett Kimberlin was an extraordinary educational experience in this regard. Kimberlin and his associate Neal Rauhauser both exhibited sociopathic personality traits and, as my friend Ladd Ehlinger noted, the key to understanding the sociopath’s behavior is his lack of empathy for others. Selfish, dishonest and cruel, the sociopath is unable to feel remorse for his wrongdoing because his extreme narcissism stems from an inability to imagine others as fully equal to himself. He exploits and manipulates others and, when apprehended, the sociopath lashes out at those who would hold him accountable for his wrongdoing, while imagining himself to be (and trying to persuade others to see him as) a sympathetic victim. Psychologists have labeled this deceptive method “DARVO” (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) or, as I have called it, “Accuse the Accusers.”

DARVO tactics are quite maddening to anyone who has ever been in such an encounter, and this is a problem highly relevant to dealing with feminists, whose ideology is all about portraying themselves as victims while accusing others of various forms of wrongdoing. Disagreeing with a feminist will inevitably result in accusations that you are a “sexist,” a “rape apologist,” etc. Feminists routinely make false claims (e.g., the bogus “1-in-5” statistic) and then use smear tactics and name-calling in an effort to discredit anyone who tries to expose their lies. The shocking dishonesty of feminists and other “social justice warriors” during the #GamerGate controversy prompted Vox Day to write SJWs Always Lie, the title of which concisely summarizes the problem. Warped personalities like Brianna Wu and Sarah Nyberg, devoid of moral principle, love nothing better than to jump aboard a “progressive” bandwagon, which provides such monsters an opportunity to cloak themselves in the mantle of Crusader for the Righteous Cause.

All of that is preamble to the case study in feminist psychology I wish to bring to your attention today. Feminist Tumblr is full of angry weirdos trying to one-up each other in The Great Man-Hater Sweepstakes. Where do these kooks come from? How do they get so crazy? Let us examine one Tumblrina’s tale, “My Feminist Journey”:

I’ve personally fought against gender norms since I learned to dress myself. I have always thought that femininity was something that limited my potential, abilities, personality, and interests. I have always thought that it essentially hurts women, or hurts me, in any case. At a very young age I considered myself to be more like the boys, ‘one of the guys’ and wanted their approval and respect.
Later in life, middle school and high school, when I learned what feminism was, what mainstream feminism was, I learned that calling myself ‘one of the guys’ and putting down women that conformed to femininity was my own internalized misogyny. I was also told that not wearing dresses, skirts, and not liking anything pink or ‘girly’ was my internalized misogyny. . . .

(You see how the Internet helps disseminate feminist ideology and rhetoric, so that, by the time she finished high school, this tomboy had learned to call her aversion to femininity “internalized misogyny.”)

I actively worked on unlearning my internalized misogyny. I made more female friends, I learned to listen to them, and I learned to think critically about what my male friends said. I began learning how to prioritize women. I am not done unlearning the sexist socialization I have, but I like to think I’ve made a lot of progress. In high school I also learned to be feminine, for real. I learned to sew, I wore skirts (that I had sewn!) and eventually dresses, for really the first time since my parents dressed me. I wore makeup once in a while, but I hated it. I am currently trying to re-unlearn femininity. It’s going ok.
End of high school, beginning of college I sought out more feminist literature. Mostly through social media, I learned about reproductive rights (particularly when I started on birth control) the wage gap, I learned about rape culture. At 17 I had to ask a counselor how I could best help and support one of my best friends, a survivor of rape. I confronted the rape culture I internalized. I am still learning about all of these things, but I have come a long enough way to wish I had known then what I know now.
College- I began learning about feminist issues I never was exposed to before. I learned about the different tools of oppression that the patriarchy uses to oppress women (including but not limited to): religion, capitalism, socialization, (the act of) sex, race, gender.

This is like reading the diary of a German boy from the 1930s, describing how he joined the Hitlerjugend, marched in the torchlight parade, tuned into Der Führer‘s speech on the radio, and so forth. Any sensible adult understands that a jargon phrase like “gender norms” is just a rhetorical trick, a way of making normal life seem oppressive, so that the maladjusted misfit’s unhappiness is converted from a personal problem to a political cause. (“The personal is political.”) By convincing her to see herself as a victim of collective oppression, feminist ideology invites the misfit to turn her self-pity into a rage against the ubiquitous power of “patriarchy,” which uses so many “different tools . . . to oppress women.”

This paranoid conspiracy theory exacerbates the underlying narcissistic tendencies of the disgruntled misfit. It is an appeal to self-pity, expressing “the worldview of every worthless punk who ever lived”:

Duke: The lights are growing dim, Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am.
Otto: That’s bulls–t. You’re a white suburban punk just like me.
Duke: Yeah, but it still hurts.

Ah, but these kids never watched Repo Man, and nobody ever bothered to teach them this great lesson: Don’t be a punk. Nobody likes a punk, and blaming “society” for your sorry fate is a punk’s game.

“Reproductive rights!” “Wage gap!” “Rape culture!”

Repeating slogans is no substitute for facts or logic. Whoever raped your friend, the perpetrator was not a “culture,” and accusing yourself of having previously internalized “rape culture” is just a way for you to brag about how much more enlightened you are now.

Feminism’s hegemonic control of higher education means that the Tumblrina never hears any articulate and well-informed criticism of the irrational beliefs of the feminist cult. There were probably followers of Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Koresh who were not as completely brainwashed as the typical Tumblr feminist. Every cult requires an Enemy to fear and hate, and feminism’s enemy is that foul, loathsome and altogether contemptible creature, The Heterosexual Male.

Permit me here to play Rhetorical Tutor for any young men who may be reading this, because some of you guys really are hopelessly stupid.

NEVER ACCEPT THE PREMISE
OF YOUR ANTAGONIST’S ARGUMENT!

Carve that into your cerebral cortex, young men. One of the tricks by which liberals succeed is by smuggling into the argument some dubious premise that they don’t expect you to question. Take for example, “equality.” Exactly what do we mean by “equality”? Where in human history can we locate this “equality” of which the liberal speaks?

A couple of books worth reading — The Mirage of Social Justice by Friedrich Hayek and The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell — will do wonders for helping you see why liberal ideas about “equality” should always be viewed with skepticism. Most people, however, never think seriously about glittering generalities like “equality,” “progress,” “rights,” etc., and are therefore apt to let the liberal get away with smuggling an unexamined premise into the argument. The result is that the liberal easily forces his antagonist into a defensive “me, too” position where, having tacitly accepted the unexamined premise, the conservative cannot avoid certain logical conclusions based on this idea.

In regard to feminism, we find that men are too ready to cede the claim that “equality” between men and women is possible or desirable, without ever bothering to ask questions like, “What do you mean by equality?” Or, “Why is equality such a necessity that we must pass new laws or enact new policies in order to have more equality than currently exists?” Or, “Exactly how will the problem at hand be solved by more equality?”

There are all kinds of questions that could be asked along this line, but instead a young man will often simply accept the premise of “equality” without question, and then finds himself trying to win an unwinnable argument — and making a fool of himself in the process.

We return, then, to the same Tumblrina whose “Feminist Journey” we examined earlier. Her devotion to feminism (i.e., her sense of herself as a victim of patriarchal society) permits her to justify her sociopathic absence of empathy toward males. Now she lashes out:

seriously why people always wanna talk about how patriarchy affects men
like how do you hear something like “you throw like a girl!” and not realize that while one boy is being teased, literally the entire female sex is being told they suck at physical activity.
how can you look at that and just want to say “see! patriarchy hurts boys!!” No it doesn’t, not systemically. It tries to train them into actually being stronger than women, meaner to women. It teaches them that weak, and stupid are Girl things, and therefore all things girls do are stupid, inferior to things Boys do. How you want to look at that and say “yes, and look how that can hurt boys’ feelings!!” ???
Like no. i don’t wanna talk about boys. I don’t want to hear how their feelings got hurt when they got called a girl, as if their feelings getting hurt somehow overshadows the fact that being female is a shame, an insult, a curse. And I don’t understand why someone would want to make a boy’s feelings a priority in feminism. It’s a side effect, one that can be easily fixed if men wanted to fix it. They could start standing up for women, the women and girls in their life, they could teach their sons that women are not inferior, that the people who use ‘girl’ as an insult are in the wrong.
But for some reason it has become feminism’s job, women’s job, to take care of boys’ and men’s feelings and comfort them. Just like always. Color me shocked.

What has happened here? The Tumblrina has encountered someone trying to make a “me, too” argument that “patriarchy affects men.” Yet such a claim rests upon the idea that (a) “patriarchy” exists in the sense that feminist rhetoric implies; and (b) feminists care about men.

WAKE UP, GUYS! FEMINISTS HATE YOU!

As soon as a woman describes herself as a “feminist,” the only smart thing any man can do is to avoid her as much as possible. No feminist actually believes in equality, because the hidden premise of feminist ideology is that males are inherently inferior to women. If men and women were equal, after all, then men would not need all these “different tools of oppression that the patriarchy uses to oppress women,” would they?

The Secret Ingredient of Feminist Ideology is Daddy’s Money. One cannot help but notice that it is usually a quite privileged woman — college-educated, from an above-average socio-economic background — who seizes hold of feminist ideology as a weapon, lashing out at men who don’t treat her with the deference to which she feels entitled.

She is a punk, like Duke in Repo Man, rationalizing her unhappiness by blaming “society,” and she never would have bought into the cult mentality of feminism if she had been psychologically healthy. Self-pity and scapegoating are two sides of the same coin. People who feel sorry for themselves, worshiping at the Blessed Temple of Perpetual Victimhood, are always looking for someone to blame for their unhappiness. This is why you should avoid feminists, or anyone else with that kind of punk attitude. You don’t want to be available as their next scapegoat.

People who lack empathy are selfish, dishonest and cruel. Woe unto anyone who is so foolish as to associate with such people.

 


Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: The Shattering Triumph Of Kazika The Mad Jap

Posted on | March 26, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Fear and Loathing: ‘Kazika the Mad Jap’ Could Not Be Reached for Comment
The Razor
Watcher of Weasels
The DaleyGator
Stately McDaniel Manor
Viewpoints of a Sagittarian
The Right Planet
Bookworm Room
Nice Deb
Neoreactive
Daily Pundit
Dark Brightness
Instapundit
Adam Piggott
Noisy Room
Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal

Rule 5 Sunday: St. Patrick’s Day Post-Mortem
Animal Magnetism
The DaleyGator
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Feminist Tumblr: ‘Broken People’ and the Tragedy of the Darwinian Dead End
The Political Hat
The Pirate’s Cove
First Street Journal

Why Feminists Hate Beauty (And How Capitalism Makes Fairy Tales Come True)
Living In Anglo-America
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Corned Beef & Eggroll, $3.99
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

TERROR ATTACK IN EUROPE: BOMB BLASTS ROCK BRUSSELS AIRPORT; UPDATE: ISIS TO BLAME; ‘LET’S STOP PRETENDING,’ OFFICIAL SAYS UPDATE: 34 DEAD, CNN REPORTS
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Are Women Paid Less? Try This: Supply, Demand, Some Assembly Required
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.21.16
Proof Positive

Gnostic Feminism
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.24.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Everybody Hates @PennyRed (And Really, How Can You Blame Them?)
Regular Right Guy
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism Is a Cult (and Feminists Who Say They Don’t Hate Men Are Lying)
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

“Open Up Your Hate And Let It Flow Into Me”
Batshit Crazy News

Recovering Coke Addicts for ‘Equality’!
Adam Piggott
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism: Impossible to Parody
Batshit Crazy News

What Feminism Is and Isn’t
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1. Batshit Crazy News (13)
  2. A View from the Beach (5)

Thanks to everyone for all their linkagery, especially the members of the Watchers’ Council, who voted Fear and Loathing: ‘Kazika the Mad Jap’ Could Not Be Reached for Comment into 4th place this week in their weekly review of posts on the Intertubes. Deadline to submit links for next week’s FMJRA will be noon on Saturday, April 2.


Conelrad: Sure Is The Risk Made

Category: FMJRA Award

Satan Is Pro-Abortion

Posted on | March 26, 2016 | 160 Comments

Perhaps you already suspected this — I mean, we know Satan is a Democrat — but his followers at the Satanic Temple of Detroit made it clear that the Prince of Darkness supports Planned Parenthood:

It was a showdown that can only be described as biblical: The Satanic Temple of Detroit versus the Pro-Life Action League outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic on Good Friday.
Led by Detroit chapter director Jex Blackmore, who made headlines last December for blogging about her experience with medical abortion, members of the Satanic Temple traveled to Planned Parenthood’s Ann Arbor, Michigan, location to counter-protest the anti-abortion group.
In images from the protest, Blackmore can be seen wearing a crown of thorns and a faux pregnancy belly while carrying a cross meant to symbolize “the burden of oppressive mandates endured by women,” as the Satanic Temple noted in a press release.

(Via Memeorandum.)  The director of the Satanic Temple blogged about her abortion last year and shared such gems of satanic wisdom as this:

Apparently, some believe that women must accept the burden of motherhood every time they have sex. It might surprise you to learn that many people have no intention of procreating when they sleep together. I for one do not believe that sex is a contract for pregnancy.
Many of the messages I’ve received illustrate the resounding assumption that I’m pregnant because I was irresponsible and had unprotected sex. This is not true, but does this really matter? Perhaps it’s easier to demonize a pregnant woman seeking abortion rather than consider that she’s someone like you.

Yeah, don’t “demonize” the Devil-worshipper, you guys.

 


Category: Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Religion

What Feminism Is and Isn’t

Posted on | March 25, 2016 | 8 Comments

Janet Bloomfield (@AndreaHardie on Twitter) is a take-no-prisoners opponent of feminism, who has collected some of her writing in a book called Feminisn’t. Like me, she has actually researched feminist theory and is tired of so-called “mainstream” feminists who want to expand the Feminist™ brand to include anything and everything. In January, the website Bustle published an article about “ways to be a feminist beyond the media-friendly stereotype” that really ticked off Janet.

My favorite part of that video (about the 5-minute mark) is where Janet explains what the feminist term “objectification” means: “The simple act of a man looking at you is oppression. . . . When men look at you, they ‘objectify’ you. When you do things to alter your appearance to encourage men to look at you, you are encouraging their oppression.” This is an apt summary of Laura Mulkey’s concept of “the male gaze,” i.e., the normal perspective of a heterosexual male admiring a women’s beauty is objectification. (“The male gaze . . . is a lens of entitlement.”) This is sexist oppression, according to feminist theory, and any man who admires women in this way is a misogynist (a woman-hater). Therefore, media representations of women which are intended to appeal to “the male gaze” are inherently wrong. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality, per se, as “a political institution through which male dominance is organised and maintained,” to quote Professor Sheila Jeffreys.

Feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology is based in a profound hostility to entirely normal behaviors including both men’s admiration of female beauty, and women’s desire to attract male admiration. Not only do feminists hate beauty, but they also hate love itself. Pioneering feminist Ti-Grace Atkinson declared, “Love has to be destroyed.”

This kind of irrational hatred is not, as some would claim, limited to an extremist “fringe” of the feminist movement. This is the core belief system of feminism as articulated by leading professors of Women’s Studies programs at colleges and universities everywhere. Here is a simple fact: Feminist Frontiers is a 576-page textbook described by its publisher, McGraw-Hill, as the “most widely used anthology of feminist writings,” commonly assigned in introductory Women’s Studies courses. The three editors of this popular textbook are Professor Verta Taylor and Professor Leila Rupp (University of California-Santa Barbara) and Nancy Whittier (Smith College). All three of these eminent academic feminists are lesbians. Does anyone think this is a mere coincidence?

“Feminism is a cult whose leaders use mind-control methods to inspire in the cult members a paranoid fear of the scapegoated male enemy. . . .
“The Feminist-Industrial Complex of Women’s Studies programs have turned college campuses into indoctrination centers where radical professors recruit teenage girls to this cult, training them to become activists and organizers for the movement.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, March 15

The warning must be repeated: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »