The Other McCain

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

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

Feminism: Impossible to Parody

Posted on | March 25, 2016 | 28 Comments

The thing about covering feminism is that craziness piles up so fast that it’s hard to keep up. No sooner do I get through with one wacko — recovering cocaine addict and topless Bernie Sanders supporter Tiernan Hebron — than someone calls my attention to another nutjob. Or two, as in the case of Katherine Marino and Jennifer Suchland, who are both professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Ohio State University. In 2003, Professor Suchland co-authored a journal article entitled “Gender Violence And Hegemonic Projects”:

We discuss why re-thinking the relationship between gender violence and hegemonic projects is important for feminist theory and activism. Moving beyond the narrow, representational approach to ‘violence against women’, we argue that the hegemonic projects of the state are constituted through gender violence. Rather than an effect of power, gender violence is thus instrumental to the very operations and existence of hegemonic projects. We insert the contributing essays within this framework, elucidating their examination of three key issues: (1) how hegemonic discourses operate through gendered violence; (2) how dominant political institutions, ideas and discourses determine what ‘counts’ as gender violence; and (3) how responses to gender violence engage metanarratives about gender, race, class and nation/state, both resisting and sustaining hegemonic projects.

Here’s a concept: “Word salad.” Look it up.

Professor Marino’s Ph.D. dissertation at Stanford was entitled “La Vanguardia Feminista: Pan-American Feminism and the Rise of International Women’s Rights, 1915-1946.”

Obviously, the taxpayers of Ohio and the parents who pay tuition to send their kids to OSU are getting their money’s worth from these two.

When they’re not busy spewing gibberish about “hegemonic discourses” or La Vanguardia Feminista, however, these OSU professors like to talk about rape, which is the subject of their Ms. magazine article, “4 (Intersectional!) Ways to Stop Campus Sexual Assault.” Professor Marino and Professor Suchland assert that ending the scourge of rape on university campuses will require “challenging binary understandings of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ that justify the beating up of genderqueer students and that sanction men’s sexual access to female bodies”:

Universities should broaden prevention strategies beyond the current focus on individual behavior . . . to include structural ways that the campus recognizes gender, sexual and racial diversity. For example, in order to combat the persistent harassment and violence that genderqueer and trans students face in gender-segregated bathrooms, universities should prioritize providing gender-neutral restrooms around campus. Campuses could also diversify student-housing options for LGBTQ students and provide readily accessible counseling and health services that include counselors who are not only attuned to the needs of a diverse student population, but who also reflect that diversity themselves. . . .
Curricula should also address intersectional approaches to sexual violence. . . . It is not a radical idea to require students to take courses that would deepen their grasp of sexual violence, racialized sexual violence, and violence against LGBT, non-cisgender, and differently abled people.

So, professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies want to require students to take courses which sound very much like the courses taught in the department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.

Here’s a concept: “Rent-seeking.” Look it up.

It might be too much to ask for actual data regarding (a) the number of “genderqueer and trans students” attending U.S. colleges and universities, and (b) how many “LGBTQ students” are victims of sexual assault as compared to, y’know, the typical male/female drunk hookup scenario. Because while I’m not sure exactly how “binary understandings of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ . . . sanction men’s sexual access to female bodies,” I know for a fact that more than 100 male students have sued their universities saying they were falsely accused of sexual assault and denied due process in campus disciplinary tribunals. Perhaps I am not “attuned to the needs of a diverse student population,” but it seems to me that heterosexual male students are being systematically demonized by the “hegemonic discourses” of the kind of feminism promoted by professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.

Here’s a concept: “Rape hoax.” Look it up.

(Hat-tip: @g56yu on Twitter.)

UPDATE: Speak of the Devil and she doth appear!

The young woman who was the central figure in Rolling Stone’s discredited story about a fraternity party gang rape is locked in a heated standoff with a University of Virginia dean seeking to depose her for a defamation suit against the magazine. . . .
The article made national headlines first as a shocking example of campus sexual violence and then as a journalism scandal when its central claims unraveled and Rolling Stone retracted it with an apology to readers.
Lawyers for “Jackie”, the anonymous protagonist of the article, are battling efforts by UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo to question her about what she told the magazine.
Ms. Eramo is suing the magazine over how it portrayed her in the story. The story, according to her defamation suit, cast her as “the chief villain” and falsely asserted that she discouraged Jackie from reporting her alleged gang rape to protect the reputation of UVA. . . .
Attorneys for Ms. Eramo, in a court filing Tuesday stated they have every right to want to question her:

The bottom line is that, as the Court has already held, Jackie is a highly relevant witness in this action. Rolling Stone published a completely false story alleging that Jackie was gang raped as part of a fraternity hazing ritual, and claiming that Dean Eramo sought to cover up and suppress Jackie’s supposed assault. The apparent source for virtually all of these falsehoods was Jackie, and therefore Jackie’s credibility — and whether Rolling Stone acted negligently or recklessly in printing what Jackie told them — are key issues in the case.

The filing says Jackie and her attorneys have “never offered any affirmative evidence or facts whatsoever to substantiate the claim that Jackie was a victim of a sexual assault,” noting that police in Charlottesville, Va. said last year that they found no evidence to support the rape claims made in the magazine.

 


Category: Sex Trouble

Recovering Coke Addicts for ‘Equality’!

Posted on | March 25, 2016 | 20 Comments

A lot of stupid things are marketed as “feminism” in the 21st century, as the Feminist™ brand has become more obviously a racket than a political movement. People get rich peddling the Feminist™ brand, and the gullible young women targeted as the market for this product seldom stop to ask the simple question, “Cui bono?” Who benefits from the feminist racket? What’s in it for them? And what’s in it for you? Idiots never recognize feminism as the crooked three-card monte hustle it really is. They keep buying, buying, buying the brand — expecting to achieve “equality” and “empowerment” — and when the product fails to improve their lives, they are told by the (well-paid) professional vendors that their continued misery is proof of the Evil Power of Patriarchy.

“What you need,” says the feminist racketeer, “is more feminism!”

 

In the 1990s, Susan Faludi became a New York Times bestselling author by telling women that a right-wing Backlash explained why the feminist movement of the 1960s and ’70s had failed to solve their problems. It would not do to admit that, like everything else that emerged from the New Left and the “hippie” counterculture, feminism was simply a bad idea. Go watch Laugh-In reruns, buy a Nehru jacket and start ending every sentence with “man,” if you’re into some kind of Woodstock nostalgia trip, but don’t try to tell me Ronald Reagan is to blame for the disappointing consequences of the Women’s Liberation movement.

Faludi’s Backlash theory helped spark a revival of feminism in the 1990s — the so-called “Third Wave” — and now here we are, 25 years later, and everywhere we look, young women are ranting about misogyny, objectification, “rape culture” and  “dismantling our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy.” At what point will women wise up to the fact that feminism is a neo-gnostic cult, insofar as it is not simply a pyramid scheme, a scam by which academics and other professional vendors of feminist ideology enrich themselves?

 

Say hello to Tiernan Hebron, who graduated from San Francisco State University in 2014 with a degree in psychology and a cocaine habit:

When I was nine, I finally found out the real reason why my parents got divorced when I was two. I remember my older sister and I would ask our mom what had happened between her and our dad, and she would always respond that our father would tell us when he was ready. . . . Well that day came. . . .
She explained to us that alcoholism and addiction is a disease and it can cause a person to do things they normally wouldn’t; it can even change a person completely. . . .
I made it to my freshman year of college before I started drinking, and to the end of my sophomore year before I started doing drugs. It’s not that I forgot about my dad and what substance abuse did to him, I just figured it wouldn’t happen to me because I would never let it get that out of control. . . .
Molly, acid, pills; I loved them all. But cocaine, cocaine was my soul mate. . . . Blow just made me feel invincible and confident, like all the problems that usually come with risk-taking and impulsivity just didn’t exist for me. I was the life of the party, I got bartenders to dance on tables with me, I gave and got champagne baths, I did lines off all sorts of body parts, I got invited to every after party I wanted and then some.

“Party girl! Woo-hoo!”

We all know the type. Tiernan Hebron says she stopped doing cocaine in February 2015, although she didn’t stop drinking, and the reader may well be wondering, what does this have to do with feminism? Well . . .

 

I Took off My Top and Walked Down
Hollywood Boulevard for Gender Equality
This summer, pictures of my naked breasts were plastered all over the city of Los Angeles and on social media. . . .
I’m a rally organizer for the Free the Nipple campaign and the walk that took place on Hollywood Boulevard [in September 2015] was the culmination of my work over the last two months. . . .
I felt empowered and free as we chanted, “Free the nipple” and “Desexualize the female body.” . . .

You can read the rest of Tiernan Hebron’s account of her topless activism for “gender equality,” or you could buy an Abnormal Psychology textbook from Amazon.com and read up on narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder and try to figure out exactly what kind of crazy Tiernan Hebron is. While I don’t have a degree in psychology, I know crazy when I see it, and Tiernan Hebron is definitely crazy.

Also, some readers may be curious what Tiernan Hebron’s naked breasts look like, but trust me, it’s not worth the time to Google. If you’ve seen one recovering cokehead with pierced nipples, you’ve seen ’em all.

McCain’s Law of Toplessness
The probability of a woman going topless
is inversely correlated to the likelihood
that any man wants to see her topless.

Feminism is a way for foolish women to excuse their bad decisions by blaming patriarchy. Given her history of bad decisions, Tiernan Hebron is likely to have a long, successful career as a feminist, which makes me sad. Snorting cocaine and dancing on tables are ultimately less harmful than peddling a bankrupt ideology, and certainly a lot more fun.

Speaking of bad decisions, she’s a Bernie Sanders supporter.

Feminism attracts women too crazy to understand that turning their mental illnesses into the basis of a political movement is never going to solve their problems. Attempting to rearrange society to accommodate the deranged theories of crazy women — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — will predictably result in a society that produces even more craziness. Instead of lunatics being locked up in mental wards, they’re parading around half-naked in support of a geriatric socialist’s presidential campaign: “Feel the Bern!”




 

Category: Sex Trouble

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

Posted on | March 25, 2016 | 12 Comments

— by Wombat-socho


Or, Not Long Before The End


With a little more than a week to go before MidAmericon II closes up nominations for the Hugo, both the Kindly Ones in charge of running Sad Puppies 4 and Our Supreme Dark Lord have prepared lists for your consideration. Predictably, there’s been a rush of authors and editors pleading to be removed from the Sad Puppies List, and these have been rewarded with assterisks for their pains; as for Vox, he has already promised to turn a deaf ear to such pleas. His press release regarding the Rabid Puppies list is here, for your amusement. Also, professional Grauniad wanker and P-List author Damien Walters horked up some nonsense about John Wright’s career being over after Sasquan peed itself and No Awarded all the categories Mr. Wright was nominated in last year. The International Lord of Hate deals with this in his inimitable manner.


You would think that dystopias featuring the Global Caliphate would be a dime a dozen these days, much like tales about the world after the Nazis won World War II, but I can literally count on one hand the number of books set in that future: Tom Kratman’s Caliphate, of course, and Robert Ferrigno’s Prayers For The Assassin, but Kerry Nietz’ A Star Curiously Singing didn’t attract my notice until fairly recently. In some ways, Nietz’ book shows a worse future than the others, because in this one, the Muslims have won, and extirpated all other religions while imposing a high-tech panopticon state supported by kaffir debuggers with brain implants that strongly discourage disobedience. Sandfly is one of the best debuggers, and when he’s called into orbit to troubleshoot the Caliphate’s returned starship, he has no clue that what he discovers may be the greatest threat the Caliphate has ever faced. This is a nice little high-tech mystery, and I liked it well enough that I’m looking at picking up the rest of the trilogy. The first book is free, and highly recommended.


As previously mentioned here, Castalia House is republishing Jerry Pournelle’s There Will Be War Cold War combat SF anthology series, and I recently picked up Volume IX, originally titled After Armageddon. Most of the stories are set in California, or at least what used to be California, except for a grim tale by the late John Brunner and Don Hawthorne’s “The Contract”, where a train full of renegade Soviet Army engineers tries to patch things back together in Russia after the Gas Bug has eaten our civilization. This, and Pournelle’s own “Kenyons To The Keep!” deserve sequels, but I suppose at this point we’re not likely to see them. Also, Macaulay’s “Horatius At The Bridge” and a tale by Leslie Fish that reads like something straight out of a Fallout game. Recommended.


I have been re-reading John Ringo’s “Paladin of Shadows” series, which begins with Ghost, and my opinion on it hasn’t changed. Aside from the occasional BDSM scene and the concentration on what happens at the sharp end, these are pretty decent technothrillers a la Clancy, but with a lot less infodumping and high-level political stuff. I especially like the subplots having to do with the culture of the Keldara, which is gradually being revealed from novel to novel like peeling an onion. Hopefully once John is done fooling around in other authors’ universes, he can come back and dash off another novel in this series, his muse permitting.


Category: Books, Zeitgeist

In The Mailbox: 03.24.16

Posted on | March 24, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 03.24.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Apologies for the lack of posts these last few days; have not been 100% but am better now.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Ted Cruz Has A Gift
Da Tech Guy: Geert Wilders On Trial in the Netherlands While Jihadis Attack Brussels
The Political Hat: The Economic Racket – Screwing Over Western Civilization, Its Citizens, and Foreigners All At Once!
Michelle Malkin: Flashback Video – Michelle and Mark Steyn Discuss Europe, Islam, andAmerica Alone
Twitchy: Ben Carson’s Call For “Civility” Rings Hollow
Shark Tank: Cruz Surging Nationwide, Trails Trump By Only Three Points


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Trump Calls For Temporary Ban On Muslim Immigration
American Thinker: Why Trump Is Afraid Of “Crazy” Megyn Kelly
BLACKFIVE: Author Interview – Jennifer Robson
Conservatives4Palin: Tomi Lahren – Barack Obama Shrugs Off Another Terror Attack
Don Surber: Rush – “These Are Not Protests. These Are Provocations And Riots In Waiting.”
Jammie Wearing Fools: Terrorsymps From CAIR Brace For Nonexistent “Wave Of Islamophobia”
Joe For America: Islamic Mayor of Rotterdam Tells Refujihadis To “F*ck Off”
JustOneMinute: This Is Why We Have A Federal System
Pamela Geller: Muslima Rips Apart, Hides Israeli Flag At Brussels Memorial Site
Protein Wisdom: You Belong To The Government, And It Really Really Loves You
Shot In The Dark: Everything You Need To Know About Heather Martens, “Everytown”, And Moms Want Action
STUMP: Public Pensions Watch – On Spiking
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Fire! It’s Hot!
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Says We’ll Defeat ISIS By Going To Baseball Games, Then Pushes Climate Change Agenda
This Ain’t Hell: Professor Heidi Czierwicz Calls 911 On ROTC Drills
Weasel Zippers: Pepsi, VISA, Chevron Exempt From HHS Contraception Mandate, But Not The Little Sisters Of The Poor
Megan McArdle: Free Markets Aren’t Free. Who Pays The Price?
Mark Steyn: The One-Stop Shop For All Your Terror-Sentimentalizing Needs


Shop Amazon – Prime members save 20% off pre-order and newly released games
Fallout 4 – Just $39.99

Category: Linkagery

Gnostic Feminism

Posted on | March 24, 2016 | 15 Comments

In a post Sunday (“Feminist Tumblr: ‘Broken People’ and the Tragedy of the Darwinian Dead End”), I made reference to how “an evil idea has flourished in our time . . . latter-day gnosticism,” remarking: “When theologian Peter Jones wrote, ‘Gnosticism and feminism are a match made in heaven,’ he was only half-right — this ‘match’ was made in Hell.” People are free to scoff at such warnings, but even if you are not a Christian, it is impossible to ignore the similarities between feminism’s cult ideology and the gnostic heresy. Permit me to quote from Peter Jones’ 1997 book, Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America:

Do you want to capture a civilization? Change perceptions of sexuality. . . . Sexuality keeps a civilization functioning. . . .
“We are doomed as a species and a planet,” prophesies a religious feminist, “unless we have a radical change of consciousness.” . . .
It is little wonder that a leading voice in the contemporary deconstruction of Western Christendom was the French homosexual, Michel Foucault. Foucault sought to deconstruct the value system of heterosexuality by arguing that truth is only power and that heterosexual values are a power-play of the majority imposed upon the homosexual minority. . . .
In the Gnostic texts found at Nag Hammadi, the dominant theme is asceticism, the refusal of all sexuality. . . . This has the appearance of Christian holiness, and appealed to Christians living in the dissolute Greco-Roman pagan world.

Rather than to quote further (those excerpts are from Chapter 12 of Jones’ book), I will cut to the chase, and remind the reader that the Apostle Paul had warned against this dangerous heretical doctrine:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (I Timothy 4:1-3 KJV)

“Forbidding to marry” — this hostility toward an institution ordained by God is common in cults. And, quoting the second-century bishop Irenaeus, Jones notes (pp. 243, 322) why these hypocritical “seducing spirits” demanded their Gnostic followers be unmarried: “Some secretly defile those women who are being taught this doctrine by them,” Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies, while others “feigned to dwell chastely with them as with sister, [but] were exposed as time went on when the ‘sister’ became pregnant by the ‘brother.'” In other words, by prohibiting marriage, and proclaiming an ascetic ideal, Gnostics acquired vulnerable followers whom they could control and exploit sexually. There is much more in Professor Jones’ book worth studying, and I wholeheartedly recommend  Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America.

 

Category: Religion, Sex Trouble

Everybody Hates @PennyRed (And Really, How Can You Blame Them?)

Posted on | March 22, 2016 | 107 Comments

 

“I have spent most of my twenties single, sometimes by choice, and sometimes because I was dating men and unable to locate one of those who didn’t try to hold me back or squash me down.”
— Laurie Penny, Feb. 14, 2016

Last time we checked in with British “genderqueer” feminist Laurie Penny, the mentally ill Marxist was insisting we must “recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed.” In other words, because maladjusted weirdos like her are unhappy, the rest of us must be made to feel ashamed of ourselves for being normal, sane, happy people.

In the aftermath of last year’s Paris terrorist attacks, Laurie Penny quite predictably made a fool of herself by proclaiming: “I am infuriated by white men stirring up anti-Muslim prejudice to derail debate on western sexism.” And after Muslim men went on a rampage of sexual assaults against women in Germany on New Year’s Eve, she returned to the same theme in a column with the headline, “After Cologne, we can’t let the bigots steal feminism.” Laurie Penny is clearly a monomaniacal fanatic, who reacts to every atrocity perpetrated by Muslims as if it were a Rorschach test. To her, the inkblot is always Islamophobia, an excuse to heap more hatred on the heads of white men, those bigots whose “anti-Muslim prejudice” makes them the real villains of the story.

No matter how many girls are raped by ISIS or enslaved by Boko Haram, ideologues like Laurie Penny can never relent from blaming every problem in the world on white men whose “privilege” makes them designated villains in the feminist narrative of patriarchal oppression.

Laurie Penny is a hatemonger.

Let us cease mincing words about the kind of “feminism” that such monstrous creatures have popularized in the name of social justice.

Laurie Penny is to women’s equality what Richard III was to the British monarchy, a vile and loathsome stain. Her relentless vituperation of white males, like her celebration of “genderqueer” lunacy, expresses the infantile rage of a spoiled brat. Her antisocial personality traits are conveniently rationalized by a soi-disant “progressive” ideology that provides her warped mind with demonized scapegoats (white people, males, capitalists) whose alleged evils (racism, sexism, greed) she can congratulate herself for denouncing. And if anyone objects to her insulting and irresponsible rhetoric, the feminist hatemonger engages in the “Kafkatrapping” tactic of citing the objections of her targeted scapegoats as proof that they are guilty as charged.

Laurie Penny is tediously predictable, and after she tweeted about Tuesday’s terrorist attack in Brussels, someone sarcastically responded that he was “looking forward to her explaining how this is all the fault of the western patriarchy and white men.” Considering her recent history of twisting Islamic atrocities into an excuse for denouncing white men as “bigots,” this was a jab she had invited on herself. However, Laurie Penny cannot accept responsibility for her own bad reputation. To a feminist, patriarchy is an all-purpose excuse, which means that Laurie Penny never considers herself responsible for any of her problems. If her bad judgment and shameless immorality turn her love life into a pathetic catastrophe of loneliness and misery? Not her fault! Laurie Penny writes a Valentine’s Day column blaming her romantic woes on men who “try to hold me back or squash me down.” (More sensibly, she could blame the men who were wise enough to avoid her altogether.) So when she got jabbed Tuesday morning, how do you suppose she responded?

Would you guess (a) complaining she’s a victim of “misogynist abuse,” or (b) claiming that “misogynists and racists” were engaging in an “attack” on her? Congratulations, both (a) and (b) are correct!

And so is (c) boo-hooing that critics were “deliberately misinterpreting a tweet” to suggest she supports terrorism, as well as (d) whining about “hatespeech” directed at her, and (e) lamenting “these personal attacks” as “appalling and tasteless.” So utterly predictable.

Laurie Penny is not merely wrong about everything, but she is also obnoxiously self-important, imagining herself endowed with precocious wisdom that entitles her to lecture everyone about her favor subject, i.e., how much smarter she is than any other person on the planet.

Laurie Penny is an unusually bad person — selfish, dishonest and cruel — and it is no surprise that most people don’t like her. She is the sort of clever fool who is admired only by dimwitted fools. She only associates with fools for the same reason all her ex-boyfriends were jerks, namely that no wise person would ever associate with a fool like Laurie Penny.

Did I mention she’s a feminist? Yeah, pretty sure I did.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Feminism Is a Cult (and Feminists Who Say They Don’t Hate Men Are Lying)

Posted on | March 22, 2016 | 18 Comments

Three quick hits. Item Number One:

the idea that males are socialized to work hard to provide for women is so disingenuous. because like it has nothing to do with benevolence or ~female privilege~ and everything to do with making women dependent on males to perpetuate and uphold male dominance over women. like if it was anything other than that males wouldn’t feel affronted if a woman wanted to be independent or their gf/wife made more money than them or other things like
there’s literally nothing benevolent about what males do. males don’t do anything for women that doesn’t benefit them in some way.

So, says this 25-year-old Tumblr feminist, men are incapable of benevolence. No male has ever done anything for any woman, period.

Item Number Two is “Women Not Objects,” which is a campaign to “end the objectification of women in advertising,” per their Twitter profile, and which today apparently launched a hashtag campaign called #IStandUp. And do you know who produces this “objectification”? Gay men, who run the fashion industry. Gay men, who work as photographers and ad designers and magazine editors. Gay men, earning big money in media and advertising and other elements of the New York/Paris/Hollywood pop-culture cartel, and who evidently think that there is something elegant and alluring about skinny teenage girls staring blankly at the camera with the glazed indifference of a heroin addict. For decades, going back to when I was a college boy thumbing through the issues of Cosmopolitan and Vogue lying around my girlfriends’ dorm rooms, I’ve noticed this bizarre vibe in the fashion/advertising world. You know what I’m talking about. Full-page ad — torso of a nearly naked girl, black-and-white photo, shot in that arty Mapplethorpe style — where you have to ask, “What exactly is being advertised here?” It could be jewelry or a fragrance, but the ad isn’t really about the product, is it? No, the ad is about the model, or as much of her as you can see in the ad, anyway.

The fashion industry is all about selling women a gay man’s idea of “glamour.” As a heterosexual man, I don’t mind looking at naked women, but how can you tell me these ads are about selling fashion when the models are always at least half-naked? Here’s an idea: The Fashion Industry Is Decadent and Depraved, and the less you pay attention to it, the better off you’ll be. So, yeah, I got your hashtag, sweetheart.

And finally, Item Number Three:

Don’t be a male feminist. Nobody likes male feminists.

 


Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »